User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 12 |

Archive 13

| Archive 14 →

Talk:Anderson Cooper

clean-up archives and talk page Benji boi

Um. I've removed the WikiProject's banner. He's not gay / out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Fred Phelps, Jodie Foster or Jerry Falwell. I'm re-adding as the LGBT tag denotes its of interest to our project mot that the subject is gay. Topping the Out list certainly makes him of interest, especially if he's not gay. Benji boi 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		We don't always agree, but you put a lot of work and thought into the project and I respect that. David Shankbone 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few words on Justin Berry

Hi. I've been on a somewhat extended wikibreak (2 years actually) and I have just come back. It has taken a little while, but I've finally caught up on areas of interest. It was during this time that I noticed your comments/questions about the Justin Berry article on the talk page. The Justin Berry story was one of those things I always found to be a little strange and never really added up in my mind. I dunno how to describe it, but I get the feeling that there is a lot more to it than he claims. I have this gut feeling that he is being dishonest. I feel like he's manipulating a whole lot of peoples' sympathy so that he can escape responsibility. He should have been prosecuted for his soliciting of minors to perform sexual acts, even before he met that other creep and then after. And later, Kurt even admits that he had threatened to report Justin if he didn't co-operate in giving him the scoop. It was quite likely he was very worried he was going to get in big trouble. Interestingly, he was over 18 yet he was continuing his little operation of exploiting other minors to earn a tidy sum of money. Incidentally, I believe that is why he was called a pornographer; he was engaged in producing pornography. No, Oprah (as always) was a total feel-good, POV whitewash. Again, no mention of the minors he had abused. It didn't talk about half the stuff that Kurt had reported and even Kurt's version is now in serious doubt of being fully factual. As for what brought online predators to light? Easy, it was the Dateline stings that PJ started in ~2003 more then anything else. Anyway, maybe I'm way out of line with my speculation? Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all child pornography is going to be problematic even if the child in question may have enjoyed it or profited from it. It's a field that is under researched altogether as well as sex with minors nowadays is simply taboo and illegal whereas back in the day preteens were getting married. Berry's case is a pile of interwoven issues but at its core is the exploitation of minors for greed and sexual gratification. Will we ever get a good credible child victim to speak on the issues in general? Will we see that puritanical attitudes towards human sexuality are causing more harm than good and denial of sexuality education leads to a host of dysfunctional behaviors including exploiting other people? I'm not holding my breath. Was Berry a victim, probably and because of that he is forever saddled with his victimhood regardless of his role beyond simply being one of the most famous of the thousands. For hat I'll give him more than a benefit of the doubt but agree that the article is below par for wikipedia. Did Oprah do an expose - of course not, but as always she enlightened millions to an uncomfortable subject and opened the door a little bit more on issues that will help countless others as well as opening the door on Berry's case. Anything Oprah uses we can certainly use in the article. Benji boi 07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your take on this?

I nominated Christian Wikipedians and American Wikipedians categories for deletion, using the same rationale that was used to delete the Gay Wikipedian user categories. As of this writing, the Christian Wikipedian category was closed as a speedy keep, and the closing admin implied he would be doing the same with the American Wikipedia category. Does this seem just the teensiest bit hypocritical to you? Jeffpw (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely. One can choose their religion. Benji boi 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well just FYI (not trolling here), it's back open at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by religion and related. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should get it sorted out so the LGBT user cats can be used and useful, I've avoided using as they are deleted so often. Benji boi 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merv Griffin

You may wish to take a look at this section of the Manual of Style on date formatting. Robert K S (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, American formatting can work but that doesn't mean it should be imposed on the rest of the world and if the rest of the article has already been formatted over to international then there's no reason to flip one usage back. I'm sypathetic to the American verses British spelling issues but the date format should be less confusing to the majority of our users. Benji boi 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Simmons

Please assume good faith. Saying I have some sort of personal grudge against Christopher Farney, well, that's so ridiculous I don't know how to respond. If you would like to discuss the issue in a civil manner, then I invite you to discuss it on Talk:Richard Simmons. hateless 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did AGF and simply stuck to what the sources stated. If something else shows up I'm happy to amend. Benji boi 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore my remarks.

You did some selective archiving at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. My comments were shuffled into the archives, but virtually every thread there is a newer discussion there, some of which haven't seen any activity in a couple months. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you feel I prematurely archived a discussion, you are welcome, as is anyone, to pull an entire thread back to a talk page. You might consider redacting instead to start a new thread to clearly discuss a particular point if the entire thread isn't needed. I also encourage you to stay on point to discussing clearly issues particular to the ARS project and not, for instance, imploring the editors there to fix an article that isn't tagged for rescue as is the stated purpose. Benji boi 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of LGBT people in Singapore film

Needs refs asap! AfD Benji boi 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here Benji boi 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.20.169.102

I saw the user's contribs and yes, it is disruptive and they should stop. To understand exactly why, see the "Edit Ninjas" section at WP:BRD violations.

If one user does it, by themselves, it's not a problem because anybody can just come along and change it. But consider this: Imagine that you have hundreds or thousands of users doing this. It becomes a problem because they're not collaborating.

I dealt with this same problem on Austrian economics. You have some users who will just troll from one article to the next, making the same kinds of edits (pushing a certain POV, removing tags, whatever) and when they cluster together, it's insanely annoying.

It's doubtful posting on WP:ANI will do anything. I suggest asking the user directly to make a note of their edits on the talkpage and attempt to discuss what they're doing, not just moving from article-to-article, making one edit after another. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I got exactly what I was looking for, a more thoughtful perspective on what I saw as disruptive anon but what turned out to be a seemingly well-meaning editor flying within acceptable parameters. Benji boi 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User cats

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories#Proposal. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much given up on user categories but if it gets exceptionally riveting or dramatic let me know. Benji boi 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Christmas yet?

'Cause I wanna meet Santa's little helper. And BTW, nice new sig. ;] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Woo hoo ho ho ho! And yes, still working on the colors but I liked the cursive sig. Benji boi 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words can't describe what I think about Santa's little helper. lol Whew. So umm, cursive? I've never seen your sig in cursive, not even now. I must not have that font. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added him to the twink article so you can visit him as needed. Cursive-ish? It's what the font is called for formatting. Benji boi 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! This bear's favorite 2 things in the world, on one page - junk food and a hot twink. I will have that article to FA in no time! haha - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer has lots of nice things to look at, most of them free for use. I shall bookmark with urgency. lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yes, research that. Benji boi 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have mercy Wikipedia may become my new online stop for exercise material! Whew! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe I saw that Twink edit. Keep it up and we can start charging $19.95 a month recurring for access! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towels extra. Benji boi 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Corey Delaney DR

Thanks for the heads up mate, I've placed my !vote. Have a great day! Fosnez (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're very welcome. Benji boi 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC-"Cult" of homosexuality

Hey hey--could you take a look at this request for comment. Some homophobic nonsense keeps getting reverted back. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If gays get a cult then tax-exempt status should go along with it. Benji boi 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Washington edits

With respect, address my reasoning. Consensus does not outweigh wiki policy and guidelines. The Mirth and Girth image is as much a viable and notable image as the statue is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted however the RfC seems to be 3-to-1 disagreeing with your view. Benji boi 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the RfC doesn't get to override current image and Wiki guidelines. Did you perhaps miss that note above while you were "on break"? Please use the discussion page to present cogent arguments as to why the image doesn't belong. Don't throw a less than consensus RfC of three editors who react based on feeling rather than policy. You might wish to consult with an admin in regards to current wiki policy, You can rest assured that my edit stance is in concurrence with current wiki policy and guidelines.

Please stop edit-warring. Do not revert me again, and instead use your time to actually construct an argument that utilizes wiki policy than your fears that this yet another gay-bashing exercise.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your veiled homophobic comments are also duly noted - thanks. Benji boi 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, precisely what homophobic comments are you referring to? Apparently, they are so veiled that not even I can see them. Please, feel free to point them out, if you could be so kind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my break note above and then following it with "instead use your time to actually construct an argument that utilizes wiki policy than your fears that this yet another gay-bashing exercise" to me, are pretty homophobic. I'm not straight but that doesn't mean I'm unable to edit articles about non-LGBT subjects nor does it mean that I somehow see everything through a LGBT-filter. You can also desist from engaging me here as the article's talk page seems to be addressing the article and your desire to add the image. Benji boi 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are unclear as to the definition of homophobic, which is as follows: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." Perhaps you can - again - define how any of my comments contained any of that. If I am of the opinion that you are acting on the HW undergarment issue out of fear that it is a launching pad for homophobic reaction, you should be aware that that opinion is called 'reasoned deduction;, not a fear or hatred of things homosexual. If anything, I am pissed off that someone would immediately make the connection that cross-dressing is an conformation of gay-ness.

Maybe your edits and your contact with me will be far better served by actually asking me questions instead of assuming opinions I do not possess. It makes me irritable and makes you look like an ass.

Now I am done. Please feel free to engage me on HW issues within the article - now that I've cleared up your misconceptions here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interesting justification for what i feel is veiled homophobic remarks on my talkpgae are hereby noted. Thank you for sharing. Benji boi 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I urge you read a book, phone a friend or poll the audience. You are clearly unaware as to what constitutes homophobia, champ. And I'll point out that ANY time you accuse me of something I am not guilty of, you'd best be prepared to deal with my response. I don't suffer fools. At all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm a fool. Thanks for visiting. Benji boi 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ellen DeGeneres

add archive and clean-up talk page. Benji boi 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Benji boi 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For all your support and help during the recent Michael Lucas bouhaha. Feel free to let me know if you need help combating a troll. --David Shankbone 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Others have help me sometimes before I even knew it was happening. I expect it's just par for the LGBT course but it's sure crappy while it's happening. I still have to check myself when dealing with anons because of this and try to ensure I'm only addressing the actions evident and not ABF. Benji boi 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brandon (porn star)

add refs to address talkpage editor's issues. Benji boi 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freda AfD

Would you like to explain your comment about "vandalism" on the Tom Freda AfD? Black Kite 09:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As evidenced by the article's history and the fact that he's, by default, a high-profile political figure, I have little doubt that the article will be targeted on that basis alone. My comment was intended to inspire those who are working on the article to keep adding references as a keen eye will kept on this so it's better to have everything referenced than not. Benji boi 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think that's not exactly assuming good faith, then, because I don't know if he's a high-profile figure (being from the UK, I'd never actually heard of him) but if he is, wouldn't you at least expect some independent sources about him? Because there still aren't any in the article, apart from the fact that he's associated in this organisation. If there were, I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. Black Kite 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect that the refs are out there but they need someone closer to the situation to say here is a recent interview with him. To me the main point is he is the founder/spokesperson for a political opposition group so there's something there. The article certainly needs to be developed but most do. I say keep because of what the article is likely to be and others are just as likely to delete because it's not that yet. Frankly I think the AfD system needs to be overhauled to elongate the process to ensure those who are most able to help an article have time to notice it's in danger and address concerns. Personally I think any article would first get tagged for clean-up issues and discussed on the talk page. Then after a few weeks maybe follow-up to tag for notability or sources. I suppose even if we did convert to such a system those bent on deletion would simply aggressively start tagging everything then complain that deleting articles should be more efficient. I don't see a system where everyone will be satisfied but i certainly think we're doing ourselves a disservice by being repellent to editors who are making a good faith effort to build articles. Benji boi 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with you there. THat's why I don't bother AfD'ing articles that are obviously non-notable (someone else can do that) but go for the "in-between" ones. I AfD'd a whole bunch of bios that someone had added to the alumni of a college recently, and guess what? Once they were AfD'd, most (I think 8 out of 12) got improved to the point where they were keepable, which is great. Sometimes AfDing is the only way of doing this - it seems weird that the deletion process is the best way of keeping articles, but there you go. I'll keep an eye on this one anyway, and see how it goes. Black Kite 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me that's quite upsetting as it tells me that at least 8 of them never should have been AfD'd as AfD isn't clean-up. I hear what you're saying but that's quite stressful and I've many times taken away from building an article to do AFDing related stuff which I am not hugely fond of. Please at least consider engaging the talk page and trying notability tags etc more. Cheers Benji boi 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, especially with minor bios, is that they're either (a) created by the person themselves, or someone close to them, or (b) written from a single source like an online bio. They hardly ever link to anything and then stay untouched. The problem there is that putting improvement tags on them is pointless because no-one ever sees them. Trying to improve them is often difficult because sources are difficult to find (especially offline ones when you're in a different country). But when they're AfD'd, the much wider audience that WP:AFD gets often digs up at least one editor willing and able to improve the articles. It shouldn't have to work like that, I know, but ... Black Kite 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then as per WP:AfD - "if an article can be improved through regular editing it isn't a good candidate for AfD" The AfD system, IMHO, is way abused so even if your assumptions as noted above are true I think you should suspend your doubts and make a good faith effort to use tags and prods. We both agree that articles can and should be improved but our methods seem vastly different. I also would like you to consider what it feels like for a new user to essentially told there article isn't on par with the many others that litter wikipedia. I think coaching them a bit will help them learn. I'd rather empower editors to do better and build up articles instead of (just) finding fault. Wikipedia's ways are pretty mysterious to new users so showing them how to format, leading them to examples of say other Canadian politicians so they can see this is the style of writing that seems more neutral, etc. I think this helps coach newbies in a positive direction than potentially embittering them against a project that removed every trace of an article they invested a lot of energy into. Benji boi 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Brannan

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT quotes

FYI I added a new quote to Portal:LGBT/Quotes:

I still find it personally disappointing that people kind of go out of their way to voice their disgust or their opinions against the ways in which two people choose to love one another. I think that's really unfortunate. - Heath Ledger

How timely and appropriate. R.I.P. Heath... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to add wikilinks within the quotes. Is it possible? And yes, I've been helping referee some drama on the Ledger article, very sad his death. Benji boi 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to wikilink within the quotes. Whether or not it'll work and not bork the script is another issue. And since they rotate through 60 quotes, it could be days before you ever see the one you add wikilinks to. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So worth it! Benji boi 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I have responded on my talk. :-) - Philippe | Talk 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Str1977

I notice you claim that you have been instructed by an admin not to talk to this user. I don't remember saying that, but if I did, consider it cancelled. If I didn't, I would recommend reconsidering because it's a poor excuse to revert-war rather than discuss. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended that they not engage. Revert warring is clearly engaging. I stand by my recommendation that the two of them walk away and not engage with each other. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, then. Benjiboi is interpreting it as continuing to revert but not to discuss. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Benjiboi! :) I just wanted to say that I enjoy your edits here and I hope to see more of them in the future. Just thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look, thanks. Benji boi 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Did you know List of bisexual people existed? Redundant with List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, no? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my book. Many folks, depending on culture and mores of the time are happy to identify as one or another (see Bisexual chic) and there are quite a few (like Elton John) who were in one list by now in another or there is dispute which team gets to lay claim. As far as i can tell most people are actually bisexual with true homos and heteros, as Kinsey suggests being the fringe minorities with roughly equal numbers of those who only prefer same or opposite sex and the majority open to both possibilities. Until then these lists will be wonky and people will need a list of just bisexuals just as we need the GLB and trans lists. Benji boi 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fix on my user page

Thanks for fixing what was obviously a typo my user page [3] but please remember that it's generally considered bad form to edit other user's pages without their permission. I'd suggest you avoid typo fixing outside of the mainspace. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it took me a minute to figure out if it was just being ironic - a mispelling on someone's page that usually fixes those. I should have left you a note hoping you didn't mind though, sorry about that. Banje boi 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]