User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68

The Revengers (film)

As you closed the Afd for The Revengers (film), here, I am asking you to reconsider it light of the notability guidelines. I think that retaining this article would make a mockery of the notability guidelines. In my deletion request, I am the one that mentioned The New York Times less than 300 word review, which was not a full review. I am the one that found many mentions of the film in newspapers that were not on-line. Having reviewed those, I came to the conclusion that the film did not receive substantial coverage in the press, nor in subsequent books. This lack of significant coverage is especially obvious as the film was released nation-wide with big stars. It only receives slight ention in the biographies of Susan Hayward, William Holden and Ernest Borgnine. The film did not receive two, or even one, full reviews by a nationally known critic. The film was not theatrically re-released. Although the film does features significant involvement by a several notable people, it is not a major part of of any of their careers. Not even Reinhard Kolldehoff's. Can this matter be resolved in discussion with you, or are you adamant that notability was somehow established? --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I accurately reflected the WP:Consensus of the discussion. One of the benchmarks of notability is WP:GNG, we presume that a subject is notable if numerous reliable sources cover it. Here, for instance, I see dozens of book Ghits that easily show the film has been discussed. That's not the only measure certainly but a good article doesn't just have a volume of sources, editors work to find the best sources and see where the content that comes from those sources leads. That takes time and patience, some trial and error. The AfD process, in contrast, is usually only a week and more experienced editors are looking at not only what the article presently is but also what its potential is and does it pass at least the minimum threshold. In this case no one seem swayed that it didn't. As a suggestion you might consider just leaving the article alone for a bit and see if some good editing gets done while you look at other articles that interest you. You may forget all about it and return at some point and see that the issues you had have since been addressed. If not you can always start a thread at the talkpage and point out the problems you think the article has. Worse comes to worse you can always renominate the article if you believe the problems simply cannot be fixed. And sometimes we allow for exceptions to the rule even if an item doesn't clearly fit one guideline or another. Does this help? -- Banjeboi 19:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A Goldberg content on National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

Nothing in the section on Goldberg is in dispute. All the sources have been verified. There is no need for "consensus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed this again. Three editors (all but yourself in this case) agree that this is currently WP:Undue; I also feel it violates BLP and NPOV; please find consensus to include this on the talkpage. There may be some content that is usable but certainly not what you are restoring in the form you were restoring it in. This issues are not that it was untrue per se but that it was presented in an undue fashion on a tangentially related article. That the subject of the content you were adding is also a living person also exponentially increases our obligation to err on the side of caution and reportin the NARTH article only what is actually needed there, and do so dispassionately and NPOV. -- Banjeboi 08:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion. As you know Wikipedia is not run by simple majority. You have never said WHAT exactly you feel violates BLP or NPOV. Now I see that you have only been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007, so perhaps no one has asked you to explain yourself (and in this case, your actions) before. That is PRECISELY what I am asking you to do now. Please be SPECIFIC in order to avoid charges that you are now editing in bad faith. Precisely what do you propose the edited version to be? The changes that I made to the article are cited. The information is ACCURATE. There is no "err" whether it be on the side of caution or otherwise. Matters of public record are easy enough to verify. Please feel free to do some actual research. Lou2u (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Staying focussed on the content i think you might want to compared what we have at Arthur A Goldberg to what you are proposing to be added into the NARTH article. I've already expressed, several times what I feel are the core issues. Let's keep this conversation at the article's talkpage though as that seems more constructive. If you really feel the editors there aren't giving this a fair opinion you could ask at WP:3O for an uninvolved editor to comment and if you still feel that isn't working we can start an RfC to see what content of any likely should be included and what it should look like. -- Banjeboi 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You're alright. I felt that you were ignoring my request (and responded by being slightly pithy -sorry about that). I wanted to know that you were giving serious consideration to your actions (and be aware that I was giving serious consideration to mine). Sometimes some of the editors on Wiki act WITHOUT thought (or in order to simply be bitchy or sarcastic). I have looked at enough of what you have edited to see that it is not your motivation. Again Mia Cuppa for the snarkiness. Lou2u (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, happy editing and if you ever would like some help feel free to ask, I'll do what I can! -- Banjeboi 10:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:BLP unsourced

Just to let you know that I have criticised your opening statement on the RfC you have just opened on this talk page. To be neutral, the statement needs to summarise the arguments from both sides of the debate and should not use persuasive language. Perhaps you could have a go at fixing this? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes! It should be fixed and I'll be right there. -- Banjeboi 17:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

David Holman article

You said that you found a source in 30 seconds which confirmed about half of what's in the article, and used this statement to protest the PROD. Could you please add this source to the article, as I didn't find anything in my search. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In process. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry, the above wasn't meant to sound rude or bossy - I'm genuinely curious to see the source, as I didn't find any. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It was actually quite tricky as there were a lot for a person of the same name who writes theater and film, television scripts but based in UK so it took more time than I thought. I also apologize if my talkpage comment seemed snarky. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hard Choice Awards

Hi, I can see you set up this re-direct last year. Is there any consensus on the notability of this award? The results seem well sourced (http://business.avn.com/articles/37391.html) and if there is some expectation of notability then it may be worth creating the page with a list of winners. Ash (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi. Several editors have challenged the inclusion of the information about Malcolm X's sexual experiences with other men. Would you care to comment on the article's Talk page? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented there, thank you for the heads up. -- Banjeboi 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Matt Bixel

Hi, I created an article for the existing redirect page Danny Rhymes (it used to redirect to Grabby Awards). However I am pondering the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bixel (2nd nomination) (where you commented), presumably the Bixel article was not correctly sourced, otherwise I'm not sure why some contributors would feel it failed PORNBIO. I believe the Rhymes article is okay as a PORNBIO pass but I have been unable to find an independent source (apart from film databases) stating Rhymes and Bixel are soubriquets for the same person. Consequently the article does not currently mention that fact. You may want to take a glance and make a suggestion if you are aware of some suitable source. Cheers Ash (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Please see my edit here for your input. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of David Holman

Hello! Your submission of David Holman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Naive and Wishful thinking.

RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination).

Perhaps you are right. I don't know. A very common opinion is that wikipedia does DR very poorly. I think I see that between you and Ash, there are grounds to mount an RFC/U. I'm not sure what the benefit in waiting is. My favourite approach to recommend is Meatball:DefendEachOther, and this can't work with the complaint in the complainers userspace. My real life experience with these things is that grievances are best dealt with quickly, and that extracting formal statements of complaint is actually a very successful way to move forward. If User:Delicious carbuncle is playing us, he is winning.

More and more often this sort of thing is turning up at MfD. If you have any advice for me, I'd be pleased to hear it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing quite a few editors and plays the system. As the harassment continues even after being topic banned from another user it looks like an RFCU is needed. As far as I can tell those currently dealing with Delicious carbuncle have all stated they wish to be left alone by them and wish Delicious carbuncle would stop. As Delicious carbuncle has not, an RFCU is likely the next step. My advice is determine which are the issues the community is currently willing to deal with and what is the over-arching patterns of abuse. Wikipedia:WQA#Delicious_carbuncle also seems relevant. -- Banjeboi 09:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It is the "playing the system" and using a constant passive/aggressive approach that causes me the greatest concern. In our DR processes (I helped improve the 3 process), the opinion-expressing community tends to default to supporting the perceived underdog. I think that's a great approach and genuinely helpful when new-ish contributors behave badly as some may become useful contributors once they get the hang of how to collaborate (and how to enjoy it rather than the transient pleasures of vandalism or abuse). The case of DC saddens me as I believe this is a person with good intentions, however, a bias towards over-policing and then aggressively using process to "prosecute" percived miscreants rather than relying on collaborative techniques can only create an unwelcoming and stressful environment. I remain open to criticism and have always been happy to discuss improvement of my editing (see the review notice on my user page and the introduction to my user talk page), repeatedly escalating to ANI without solid grounds is an abuse of process when so many alternatives exist. By claiming the role of "underdog", DC gets a great deal of good faith, and explaining concisely the problematic pattern of aggressive editing / making thinly supported accusations / ongoing poor civility is not only difficult but most of the commuity is uninterested in wading through the evidence.
Consequently I have grave doubts about using RFC/U but would be happy to collaborate even if the outcome is only that DC has second thoughts about rushing to full-scale "prosecution" and considers giving more opportunity for frank article talk page discussion and collaborative consensus. You will note that I have not raised any DR procedure for DC as I have been giving your (Joe) approach of DefendEachOther a chance to work. If I do go to RFC/U in the coming weeks, it would be with great regret and on the basis of review and discussion of how such an RFC should be phrased, sourced and summarized so that the community has no reason to get side-lined and that we can be confident that our good intentions are not misinterpreted as partisan gaming or personal attack.
PS, yes, as per your section heading, my views are probably a bit naive and wishful but it would be a terrible pity to disabuse Pollyanna of her vision of the world just because we felt she should recognize the truth. Ash (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

I started a discussion on these at Teabagging. Also, File:Gay Pheleps.JPG is one of the best pictures I have ever seen on the internet.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll be there! -- Banjeboi 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elizabeth Kucinich

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Elizabeth Kucinich. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Casting Aspertions

For the benefit of leaving no doubt whatsoever I would like to draw you attention to the following principle from a recent arbitration case concerning casting aspersions. The relevant text is "It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." By continuing to repeat allegations against Delicious Carbuncle without seeking to exercise dispute resolution options you are failing to abide by the principle which was central to a user being banned from Wikipedia. I am sure that I am not the only bystander who is sick and tired of seeing this circus continuing unabated so I am asking you nicely to stop this now. The appropriate forums in this case are RFC/U and RFAR. AN, ANI, talk pages and MFDs are not the appropriate forums. I suggest you file that RFC. Until you do so, I think silence on this point is the best policy. I'm going to leave Benjiboi the same message. If you choose to ignore this warning there will be consequences and you will not be able to say that you were not warned. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for linking that. The whole statement reads It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. And I think it's a perfectly valid one. There are a couple of points here in this case. The statement is true even though Delicious carbuncle has yet to be more formally put to task for these frequent and consistently poor interactions with other editors. The accusations have been at least partially supported in the past and this process is to determine if the community at large feels a pattern has indeed emerged and should be addressed. Ash and myself and the anon ip are but three of the latest editors to experience prolonged and negative attention from Delicious carbuncle, all three have asked for Delicious carbuncle to desist but apparently Delicious carbuncle isn't WP:Hearing that their actions are problematic and other editors find their wikihounding unwelcome at best. Think of it this way, if three separate editors each complained that you were wikihounding them, my hope is that you would take that as serious criticism of your interactions.You'll note the rest of the Arbcom statement explains Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, which I've just explained has been tried, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. Each of us has better things to do but Delicious carbuncle insists on wikibadgering and otherwise causing WP:Grief. Thus a more structured effort to build an RFCU is underway. Frankly I don't want to rush it as that won't serve anyone's interest. As you seem familiar with Arbcom you no doubt are ware that a conscious effort to gather evidence precedes final judgement. There is the additional likelihood of offsite campaigning against the process on Wikipedia Review, how that is expressed and handled is also an issue. To be fair if I was an outside observer and not another of Delicious carbuncle's targets I may feel similar to what you express. The situation is not simple, it seems quite calculated and deliberate and is entirely disruptive. No one but Delicious carbuncle seems to be pushing for more attention as they seem unwilling or unable to disengage. -- Banjeboi 04:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Close

Am I the only one, or did you find the close here as peculiar, in that it was not closed as a keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, it clearly was split and the delete and keep views were valid and those that !voted early didn't seem to be swayed en masse to other positions, so a no consensus would seem perfectly valid. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you open a DRV, pls let me know. I've asked BKite about it, and he has not problem with that process being followed, but I've never opened one... Though if it is not worth your time, I could always try, I guess, to start it myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Umm, not to be flip ... but that's a bit nutty. There is little difference at the end of it all between keep and no consensus, in less than a year it can be re-nommed either way and likewise if she was notable once she is presumed to remain notable. IMHO, DRV should be reserved for getting a page restored when consensus did not seem to support deletion and vice versa. If you took this to DRV it likely would not only be quickly upheld as a valid close, it wouldn't change anything. I would leave it and work on improving the article itself or some other article instead, a much better use of energies. -- Banjeboi 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. In this context, you calling me nutty is funny, somehow. Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought that a keep resulted in greater protection from a new AfD than did a no consensus default to keep. If that's wrong, why, then surely you are correct that energies are better spent elsewhere. Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I used to think it made a huge difference. It makes a little difference but it's all in context. If someone is determined to re-nom something they'll do it regardless of common sense. Also even if something is snow kept several times new information may emerge that a new XfD may make sense. -- Banjeboi 07:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Your idea is a good one. I am working on proposal (that I will post on the project talk page when it's ready) as to how we can speed things up at RFF. In the meantime, please take a look at {{Feed}} that User:Franamax put together. It needs more work, but should help speed up RFF responses - I know I get tired of typing out the same response over and over again!  – ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Certification of an RFC/U

Hi Benjiboi. As a party mentioned in the forthcoming RFC/U of Delicious carbuncle, if you choose, you may want to sign as one of the "Users certifying the concern". (This would move the RFc/U forward in a more speedy manner. Of course, you may also choose not to participate. It is entirely in your court, but since you were prominently mentioned, it is 100% perfectly within guidelines and appropriate that I should bring it to your attention. Regards! 38.109.88.180 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, somebody (we know whom) chased Ash away. I still think the RFC should be submitted, so if you're on board, let me know if you'll be certifying it or not, and I'll post it. Thanks.38.109.88.180 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The RFCU will go forward but it also should not be dictated by banned users and wikibullies at Wikipedia Review or elsewhere. That they have targeted someone in this way shows how much free time they have on their hands and why all of them should likely never be allowed to edit here, hopefully the community won't need dozens of more incidents like this to get that message. That admins and oversighters have also taken part at Wikipedia Review also speaks poorly of their judgement but we've seen many of those cases derail themselves as well. This is an encyclopedia and we can do much better than enabling banned users and bullies. The current RFCU is poorly constructed IMHO and doesn't actually help anything. RFCUs are notoriously ineffective but at least we should try to do the process right by putting together a logical case and show how these latest incidents tie into a pattern with Delicious carbuncle. Their interactions with other users in this manner seems to predate me by many months so it will take some time to sort it out. -- Banjeboi 10:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me know when you're ready with it, so I can weigh in. CTJF83 chat 17:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, fellows, I'm not really experienced enough with this sort of thing to feel comfortable pressing it forward as the "primary". I know Ash said s/he would be willing to still assist, so perhaps if we leave messages, s/he will know we're on board but need a leader. I have no idea what Wikipedia Review is or why it's so controversial or frightening, and I don't really feel that I should weigh in or become involved in that aspect of the RFC/U. I'm just interested in not being bullied by any one editor, as my archived but unresolved WQA has detailed. The last edit of the RFC/U is here and should be edited there for completion, yes? Or should it be moved to a proper RFC and let the blanks fill themselves in? How does this work, exactly? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no experience with RFC/U either, but will weigh in once it's up and running. CTJF83 chat 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_66&oldid=1190229776"