User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 26

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 25 |

Archive 26

| Archive 27 →

Homosexuality in animals

I think part of the problem I have with the wording(s) you seem to prefer is the insistence that the controversy is a perception of some and not simply a fact. This is not true. The observed (homosexual) behaviour is not to my knowledge controversial at all, even to conservative religious folks. It is the interpretation of this behaviour that is controversial and that is a fact about the interpretations, not merely a perception by one faction. Does this make sense? The naturalness of the observed homosexual behaviour, the ethical implications of it, or even the interpretation of an observed behaviour occuring between two individuals of the same sex as sexual (I talk to my brother, but our relationship is not sexual) is what is controversial, undeniably so. Perhaps not controversial within scientific quarters and perhaps not even that controversial outside of them, but controversial enough to have engendered discussion of the controversy. The controversy is not a perception. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In anything we do we need to rely on what reliable sources state. In this case we need to use caution with the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) material to only support that there is disagreements - not this that is a mainstream opinion. Banjeboi 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. "There are disagreements": this is controversy. Controversy need not occur within the mainstream to be controversy, but that fact that a controversy gets mainstream attention is enough to warrant mention in the article. Srnec (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing is not irrelevant. If there is a controversy we source it and present it neutrally, assuming as you suggest, it's notable enough. And no, not all controversies, even ones that get mainstream attention, deserve mention. We also have to serve the article's best interests as well as adhere to NPOV policies. Banjeboi 22:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not describing reliable sources as irrelevant. I object to the statement that there is controversy seen by some, but not by others. We should tell the reader if there is a controversy or not and what is the nature of it. If people see a controversy that is not there, they can be ignored. But I think what you really mean to say is that some people disagree with a majority of other people. I call this controversy, you call this "seeing a controversy". I don't understand your wording. The existence of God is controversial, even though I fall down firmly on one side. I see it as controversial because I see the disagreement over it, not because I myself am waivering and unsure. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some see this as common sense, others see this as controversial, the vast majority likely haven't thought of it at all or don't care. If you have reliable sourcing that the majority of people consider this a controversy then please present it so it can be reconciled with other sources that hold differing persectives. Banjeboi 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Sexual orientation, new reference

I have found a quote from the American Psychological Association and have put it on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page. Being that you are an avid contributer to this template, i would love to get if your input on it. Thanks. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see others have already responded to this. At the end of the day, to me, what's most important is serving our readers, I'm unconvinced some of the changes you are proposing are as helpful as you think. Zoosexual and a few of those others seem quite odd and unhelpful. Banjeboi 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cliks

Hi again. I was about to delete all that stuff an IP user added to the article, but I had to go to work and wasn't able to collect an explanation of why I did it for the poor person whose contribution I was about to undo. Now I see you've cleaned it up, and it looks really nice (great pictures, too!). But I'm still concerned that it really reads like a fansite; especially the "aesthetic analysis", come on! That totally breaks WP:NPOV, and is blatantly original thought/WP:OR. The new contributions to "history" and "cultural impact" are very valuble and appropriate, thoguh. Citations/WP:VERIFY would be nice, especially since there's quotes. If you don't know where they come from, we could ask the IP user if they can source, I'm not sure what's yours and what's his or her input. The analysis of the songs has got to go, though, I'm taking that out. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Yes, there was more good than bad so I tried to clean it up a bit and allow that others would help mold it into something respectable. All quotes should be sourced but the easiest it to add a cite by doing an exact match via google. I'll hep if it doesn't get done soonly. Banjeboi 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi, I'm unsure if this warrants an ANI write-up but I'm having problems seeing this user's response to my comment (just above it) as anything but confrontational. Also am I wrong that providing a link to sources is helpful? Obviously if I spent the several hours to rewrite the article adding all those sources would certainly be more beneficial but I felt it was a fair response to the assertion there were no reliable sources, etc. Any advice or direction appreciated. Banjeboi 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest ignoring is less likely to cause stress all round. I have asked Judgesurreal777 to tone it down a bit. I think an ANi report will likely just cause more problems. Your call though. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight, it just seemed overly hostile and I wasn't seeing the need. I guess I'll have to steer clear of them. Banjeboi 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on changes to Template:Sexual orientation

We are discussing, in a support or oppose manor, about a proposed edition of the template by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. I would like to here your input. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Thanks for letting me know! Banjeboi 21:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Technical Help

Hi. Thanks for helping me find out how to sign my posts. I was mistaken; I thought only one ~ was necessary. I will sign all my posts from here on in. How do I date my posts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerz (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - happy to help! If you use three tildes it's only the signature, adding the fourth adds the date as well. Banjeboi 02:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Feminism/Intro

I restored the prior version before your edits, because this style of formatting is more in-line with other Introduction sections for Featured Portals. (See for example Portal:Sustainable development, Portal:Cats, Portal:Dogs.) Cirt (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it works for them and that's what you prefer then go for it. Banjeboi 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Dancer

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#User:Julie Dancer.2C repeated personal attack and harrassment

Hi, I was pulled into the Security Office at my university after User:Julie Dancer sent an email to the Florida Tech's President's Office regarding potential stalking claim as well as noting the AfD of Optimal Classification. This is the first time someone has attempted to track me down in real life from Wikipedia, so I would like to request assistance regarding the issue. I have explained to the Director of Security (equivalent of a university police department chief) regarding the issue, but I want to see what resources I have to help clear my name. Any assistance offered will be much appreciated. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for input at the Admin noticeboard for advice, please join the thread there and be careful to share any personal info in case that user is tracking you still as all our edits are public. Banjeboi 08:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:David Archuleta

Template:David Archuleta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy

I have no concerns on Pinoy -- I voted to Keep. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. When I do a rewrite of an AfD article I try to give everyone the same, and hopefully, neutral message to avoid concerns of canvassing, etc. Banjeboi 02:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, smart move! Call on me if you ever need assistance. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably forget but very much appreciate the offer! Banjeboi 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		Philippine Barnstar
		I ,Lenticel, award you, Benjiboi, this Philippine Barnstar for rescuing the article Pinoy and improving it to C-class level --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I didn't think it would be as much work but we're all better off with a much better article! Banjeboi 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pinoy

Thanks for the notice. I went to change my !vote at the AfD, only to find it had already been closed. Oh well. Good job expanding the article, by the way. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

Pinoy

HOLY CRAP! That's amazing. Wow. Great job. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nominated for GA. Hoping for a record turnaround from AfD to GA status. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm gonna see if I can get it on DYK as well. Banjeboi 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

Hi Benjiboi
Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjiboi, this article has been nominated for deletion and the process looks a little out... please could you take a collk at my comment here [1] and at the AfD request which it seems the major contributors haven't been notified about. Oboler (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh), drama! I'm unsure what the policy on AfDing so soon after an AfD has closed but made a comment to that regard on the AfD itself. No worries, it will get sorted out. Banjeboi 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality disputed Talk JIDF

Hi Benjiboi; In reference the this issue; I don't think it is solved; data must be verifiable; Please discus--Puttyschool (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that {{NPOV}} tag was resolved, not all NPOV issues. If an editor wishes to add a new tag and start a new thread they can. I suggest waiting a few days until the DRV closes. As an aside it would be helpful to expand the "organization section" to show how the group started, motivation, etc. Also it's still unclear to me what the connection to Google earth is as well how they operate on YouTube, etc. Banjeboi 02:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree for this reason BR--Puttyschool (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that editor, or anyone, feels the article is still NPOV they can add teh tag and start dialog, really there have been so many changes it's best to simply pull something from history if it was deleted in error and keep improving what we have. As I said the NPOV tags that were there were deleted, right or wrong, but they were. We should avoid rehashing and move forward as articles are always being improved. Banjeboi 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many points, this why I used your talk page to discus, but if the article is "watched" we must care about spots to accelerate progress.!, anyway good night--Puttyschool (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. If someone still feels a tag is appropriate they are welcome to start that process. Banjeboi 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Kawakubo et al;

Please stop refactoring my AfD nominations. It is inappropriate, misleading, and just plain rude. If you have an actual comment to make about my having nominated multiple voice actor articles on the same day or have some actual point to make, then just make the comment like anyone else. However, people do NOT run around and throw "see alsos" just because someone AfDs multiple articles in the same day. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not refactoring. Hard to not see these three as related - Kitty created them, all three are actors in the same unique genre and you're the nom, again in all three - but as you have now deleted these links twice I've added as a separate comment per your wishes. Banjeboi 03:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was refactoring. You put them directly between my nom and the del sort notice, giving the appearance I put those links in and that it was some sort of group nom, when it isn't. Thank you for moving them to the bottom as an actual comment, though I still miss the point of having them at all. Yes, Kitty created all three because she creates a lot of voice actor articles, most of them unnotable ones that are little more than ANN copy/paste jobs. She'd stopped for awhile but her mentor is away for medical reasons, and she got a little lost. Found her a new mentor, but that doesn't negate the need to clean up the multitude of unnotable voice actor articles (I also CSDed and AfDed several others that she didn't create while I was running through doing assessments for our projects Assessment drive). -- Collectonian (talk ·

You might want to refamilirize what refactoring is... So these are all related and the only issue is..." Banjeboi 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what refactoring is. It is changing someone else's comments to something other than what they said. I didn't mention those others, so you adding those links in the middle of my comments was a refactor. And no, they are not related beyond the creator and they do not need interlinking at all. Anyone interested in voice actor deletions can see them all, along with all other anime/manga deletions, on its del sort page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it's more about summarizing and a stronger form of editing (per WP:REFACTOR), neither of which I did. No matter, I did as you suggest and added a comment instead of the links where it would usually go at the top. Banjeboi 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF

Hi Benjiboi, Could you take another look at this [2] it is starting to get messy and I am having trouble assuming good faith as it seems another attempt to remove the primary sources and first major press coverage on the Facebook group. This in turn weakens the readers ability to understand the article and the nature of the JIDF. Given this removal attempt (excuse: clutter) follows a previous removal attempt (excuse: Jewish or Israeli sources) my ability to assume good faith is rapidly going out the window on this one. This happens at the same time as someone suggests including the JIDF in "Hasbara" groups. Again this shows how not properly explaining that antisemitism is the issue (and this is both commented on and explained in numerous published sources) leads people to try dismiss it as advocacy. The online hate element of the group removed and therefore the nature of the work of the JIDF (in combatting online hate rather than engaging in politics) is important. Sorry I'm ranting... it is upsetting to be both questioned as a source due to my religion and the country where I currently live, and then to be told my research (the original work on this topic) is not needed because another reference (I added) agrees with a 1 paragraph statement and this is sufficient. Ok, still ranting... sorry again! Oboler (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off don't sweat it, this will all get sorted out and, sadly, I've learned to just walk away for a day or two when it causes stress. We can site an opinion piece as long as we are upfront about it. Any research potentially can be cited as well, you might find the citation templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates helpful. I've responded on the talk page at JIDF and over time the article has indeed improved so don't sweat the weirdness just keep working to add good content. Banjeboi 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Men_who_have_sex_with_men

[3] ref and restore these deletions. Benji boi

Battleground, pass. Banjeboi 02:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Milk

If needed, explanation in shift of how Jones/Temple were seen before/after mardrs and suicide.[4] Banje boi

Excellent book from a legal perspective covering Jones connection and plenty of trial details.[5] Banje boi

Overview statements about San Francisco history.[6] Banje boi

White night ref. [7] Banje boi

Time 100 biography[8] Banje boi

Moni3 doing article FA quest. No need for these. Banjeboi 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intersexed --> intersex

Start here [9] Banjeboi

done.Banjeboi 02:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pinoy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! Thank you! Banjeboi 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]