User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Fair use rationale for Image:JTISS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:JTISS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate you wanting to help ensure images have a fair use rationale however if you had waited just a few minutes longer you would see that I was in process of adding that. I actually stopped to answer your post and now must start up again. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Memory Alpha

Hi, I saw your deletion review of Memory Alpha, and as a voter for delete, I had a few questions for you. I'm quite confused to the purpose and content of WP:NOCONSENSUS. As I understand it, if there is no consensus, when there are equally powerful arguments on both sides, on an XfD, the article is defaulted to keep. However, if, in the case of Memory Alpha, there is a flood of weaker arguments for keep, does this still count as a no consensus close? I'm really not trying to be pretentious here and I'm genuinely curious, as I have recently become quite confused by this policy in more places than one. DARTH PANDA^duel 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The weaker arguments - both for or against should be discounted but I'm not convinced that always happens. AfD is a rather abused process that at its core is asking is the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia and even in an article's present state is the project worse off for keeping it. That is, even if it's notable, is it in such a poor state that it brings the project into disrepute. In many cases we are in a middling area where regular editing can address all concerns. Whether that regular editing occurs or not is a related issue but the original concept is tied to can it be improved - what the article can be rather than what it is currently. We are always improving all articles - some quite slowly - but improving regardless. Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS#Deletion Discussions seems to be accurate - if there is no consensus it defaults to keep. I think this is tied to a core principle that we are here to build articles not dismantle them. I've rescued quite a few articles like fingerboard (skateboard) that I knew little of and have absolutely no interest but the article was a mess and now it's encyclopedic - give or take recent edits. No consensus keep helps us 1. encourage readers and newer editors to improve content rather than eliminating an article altogether and 2. is a part of checks and balances to keep us from making somewhat fatal mistakes. Articles once deleted are nearly impossible for the vast majority of our readers (the people we're here to serve) and editors to ever see again. It's preferable to simply improve articles and encourage all users to add sources with content. It's also a skill and takes time and is a process to build.

All that aside ... AfD closure is also subject to one person - the closer - usually an admin in non-clear closures. This editor is given a portion of trust and many times will either keep or delete based on their general inclusionistic or deletionistic views. It takes folks like us to step up and voice our concern if we disagree strongly enough to go through - yet another - process. If an editor is using poor judgment on many AfD closures they will eventually be tasked to account for their actions but really, poor closures are only overturned when someone else makes a bit of a stink and commits to follow through. -- Banjeboi 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me out?

Since we've worked on an article or two, would you be kind enough to help me archive Talk:2001 anthrax attacks? I see there are a couple of ways to do it and am not "bold" enough to archive.--MartinezMD (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome - hope it helps the article improve. -- Banjeboi 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Roland Gomez

I know you probably know this, but the IP self-identified as Roland elsewhere and there's a diff for it (on that page). I do think that's a notable fact. If you're interested, i've spent a lot of time on the actual article today, you're welcome to take a look (if i were as much of a meanie as he says i am it would be a 3 sentence stub by now). No need to reply. We're all busy.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that much to me if they are or are not. The only thing that does matter is valid content and remaining civil. If they are acting up let them run free and get themselves banned - otherwise we enable their poor behaviour. Even COI editors can be good editors on other articles and arguably their own. IMHO you were stopping down to their level which begat more trolling, it's an easy trap to step into. -- Banjeboi 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

wait to edit anti-prop8 protests, please?

I'm trying to make a big cleanup to the refs on that page- can you wait 10-15 minutes before adding refs? I'm having to manually copy them to my new version. Thanks! The edit will say something about "titles for all the articles". tedder (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. Thanks and/or never mind :-) tedder (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV Rolando_Gomez overturned

FYI, you voted to either re-list or overturn this article [1] after a 2nd AfD deletion. Unfortunately the article now, is incomplete with sources from the state when it was set for a 2nd AfD, many source links, found on this page, [2] are now deleted. This is unfair and perhaps you can help get this straight and give Wikipedia a better name for what it once stood for. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite a mess. The article is written rather puffery but with a bit of work will be fine. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And then deleted

Apparently it was deleted, funny, Kuru placed this copy, [3] in Miranda's box, but it appears she's been absent for unexplainable reasons, perhaps family matters. She had said she'd work on it in the deletion review. Kuru also stated in the 2nd AfD that he would help out. Do the rules on Wikipedia allow it to be relisted under the deletion review process as the deletion talk now states, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)." There is no "talk page" as it's been deleted with the article and no explanation was given as to why it was deleted. Thanks. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a "userfied" version at User:Miranda/Gomez. The best thing to do is first look at other well-written and encyclopedic articles about people and see how the writing flows and generally how it is dry and avoids a lot of lauditory language. X's work has appeared in both national and international publications is better, usually, than a puffy list of each media. See what other articles successfully do and then add sourced content to build on that. After it's been worked on a few weeks then relaunch the article with Miranda's help. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take your advice. I might add, don't understand how admins on Wiki spend so much time with deletion reviews, AfD's when they could save everyone trouble and fix it, as most admins started out as editors. They all see it right there and rather sit and wait for the delete button. Oh well, may still take it to another deletion review. Thanks. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW. I think it was a clear no-consensus but frankly it's smarter to just rewrite and relaunch then to spend time arguing who's right or wrong - the end goal is a good article so just do that. -- Banjeboi 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's sad and it affirms what I was reading in Delta Airlines in-flight magazine the other day about Wiki not being credible anymore. I've seen so much slamming Wiki, as with things like barnstars and earning your way to the top has created a bureaucracy instead of a living encyclopedia. Many folks "compete" by deleting here. I don't have the time nor conflict issues that will be assessed if I help. I just give up and let them win, it's sad, but true, they won. Though I'll give them a little hell, [4] as they are the ones that will have sleep with their own poor decisions. Time for a drink! Thanks! Hope to meet you someday as you're one great person with sense on this site. All the best! --72.191.15.133 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then For Review Again - DRV2

I had nothing to do with the request for another deletion review, but thought you should know, [5] This time, I'm going to stay away from those with biased opinions, but will state my overturn entry belief. Thanks --72.191.15.133 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, let me know if you have any questions or need help. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 11

December 2008 (UTC)

I said what I did, now I will stay away from it, but want you to see this though, as it has new information, [User_talk:Cerejota#Deletion_Review_Gomez|seen here]. Thanks. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

PWA - People with AIDS

Benjiboi,

I have reverted your edits again at People with AIDS. The article is about an organisation called PWA, not about people living with AIDS in general. You are certainly welcome to create an article about the acronym and link to it via disambiguation. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

I would also appreciate if you could clarify your relationship with the IP editor who continually adds linkspam to this and many other AIDS- and HIV-related articles.

Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who that editor is so I don't know what our relationship would be - I suppose collaborators since that's why we are all here. And I appreciate your effort to fight vandalism but my edits there were spot on. PWA is not an organization but rather an initialism started by ... people with AIDS. As the article states it was a part of the initial stages to reclaim what was a terrifying disease and the people who were living with and too often dying from it. AIDS was initially was called GRID and people with AIDS were almost universally called AIDS victims - PWAs and teh PWA movement helped change that and add humanity to a disease that was allowed to manifest into a worldwide pandemic mainly due to homophobia. I'll refix the article now and look into the disambiguation issues. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your activism against homophobia, but please keep in mind that this particular article is indeed about the organisation called PWA, not about PWA in general. That is why I encourage you to establish a separate article on what the initialism refers to in general. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should write, "organisations" since it appears that numerous chapters or even separate organisations exist/ed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect you are mistaken, PWA has always been and nearly universally is about people with AIDS - not an organization or multiple organizations. PWAs employed PWA in the names of organizations created by and for them but, sadly, because the very membership and leadership was made up of people with compromised health - often severely - many of those organization also died away. There were likely dozens of PWA ____ organizations but the article is basically correct in that it started with a few outspoken activists in both San Francisco and New York City. I wasn't looking to do an overhaul on the article but the lede could simply be flipped to stress this. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

For the record, your box at the top of the page about the topic ban doesn't seem up to date, and the random picture of the Greek vase has been deleted. It's too bad you don't have a Babel-Box with de-3 or de-4...I would have liked to have recruited you for the German Wikipedia's article rescue squad--things get deleted a lot over there (but not as much as they used to back in 2006 or so). Anyway, thanks for your praise of my re-write--was wondering if there were much personal info about you to be found here, but there doesn't seem to be.--Bhuck (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes the topic ban has been a major source of stress but Jimmy said he'd look into it so await his response. There is a current Arbcom election so i may have to wait until there is some new energy to address the situation. I may also have to wage a campaign to get "permanent topic bans relooked into" - who knows.

The image should be replaced but I haven't had the energy to deal with it.

I've been wikistalked and attacked in real life so I try to be careful about what information I reveal. -- Banjeboi 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Milk movie Buttons.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Milk movie Buttons.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Milk (film). -- Banjeboi 21:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Warner

just wanted say thanks for the additional refs you provided, and let you know they were reverted by user:shelly kinney. you might want to take a look at her comments on the talk page, and offer a response. --emerson7 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've offered some insight on the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

List of people killed because they were transgender

clean, ref, rescue, blah blah blah. -- Banjeboi

Nevermind - article highjacked. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just over there. Article was NOT hijacked. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional governments

For your attention, a recent AFD you were involved in has gone up for a deletion review here. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. -- Banjeboi 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He-man redir

I'm having trouble finding the redirect you're talking about- I tried a bunch of different variants of she-man and none of them redirect, they don't exist. Either way, yeah, if there's a redirect, I'd suggest going ahead and pointing it over to shemale. It's probably what people would be looking for anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It was SHE-MAN which defaultedly included she-man, apparently. I've redirected it. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando Gomez

Benjiboi, it appears the deletion review was to overturn. Thanks for all your support on this. Unfortunately Bali ultimate is trashing his discussion page and the credibility of the sources. Can you please see the update on my talk page made today with some new sources and information and help to edit this article since I'm not allowed to? Thanks!--72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the gift that keeps giving! I've cleaned up the talk page a bit. Between the five discussions there is a tremendous amount of sources to work through and it will take some time. I suggest letting things cool for a day or two then digging in to rewrite the whole thing. Don't let the drama get you down - the goal is a good article but in this case the process had a few hiccups. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately if I rewrite, it will be deleted. But here is another source, --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)PDF article The article is on Hannes Häfele attending Gomez Virgin Island Workshop and references the 3/07 cover story on Gomez. I just feel Bali ultimate is doing everything to sabotage the article, so I'm asking if you could please keep an eye on it. Also, why don't admin get after Bali for all the belittling remarks he posts and for his super aggressive deletion of links and butchering the article? It's like he's parked out front of the article and destroying anything that anyone does on it? Regardless, thanks! --

72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First off I would say just take a break for a day or two. If an editor or two are targeting the article it will eventually be dealt with but stressing out won't do you any good. Personally I can't view PDF files but if it is a good source then post it to the talk page simply stating "this may be a good source". If someone comes along and gets in your face about posting a source then simply state you're trying to help improve the article and walk away again. If Bali ultimate or anyone else is getting out of line they eventually will be called on it. Sadly there is a lot of incivility on Wikipedia so don't take it personally even if it is directed at you. If you feel they are going way beyond and you can show the diffs of their behaviour then you might post at WP:AN. I would suggest though that even if they are a bit tenditious they will get away with it for a while. This is why the best course is to find great sources and build articles with those. Even if this isn't fixed now it will be soon - just chill a bit and see if the situation doesn't turn around a bit. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just ask that you please monitor it, I don't want to waste my time with Bali ulitimate who obviously has it out for this article. It's so hypocritical here at times that it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is getting a bad name from what it was originally intended for. Thanks. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you'll find that even if that one editor is gone for whatever reasons another will take their place, it's less stressful to focus just on improving the article. Bit by bit it will be built! -- Banjeboi 11:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando/Rolando's good artists collective buddy: Why don't you try striking your accusations of "sabotage," "butchering" and "destroying" and overall whining about me, and try to find, you know, actual reliable sources? I see the article has been restored, but i haven't touched it or looked at in a while. Hopefully responsible editors are stubbifying absent reliable, third party sources. But your hectoring and abuse of me and everyone else who argued "delete" certainly earned my attention.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is attempting to do that - the bottom line is a good article so let's stay focussed on that. Personalizing the issue, in any direction, probably is unhelpful so those that are able to improve the article should do so. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This Rangefinder article will cover a good chunk of concerns. -- Banjeboi 12:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mississippi#Health

Hello. You and I have had nothing but positive interaction in the past, so I want to state up front that I hope we can continue that trend. You have done wonderful work on Wikipedia, and I want to thank you for that in advance. However, I have removed your addition regarding climate to Mississippi. You were bold, I reverted, and now I hope you will join the discussion on the talk page, which has been ongoing prior to your edit. I look forward to resolving this quickly and in the spirit of collaboration. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I was a part of that discussion but have adjusted the content to quote the source, hope that helps. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussion now. Don't edit war. Per WP:BRD. Viriditas (talk)

woot woot ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, you have, IMHO, accused me of edit warring - by encouraging me repeatedly not to, when I wasn't - and have persisted in rather, again IMHO, edit-war-like behavior under the banner of BRD. Yet when I add sourced content its edit-warring. Whatever. You have strong ideas about what is scientifically true while I think the research is still rather inconclusive. I've done nothing but try to improve the article including adding sourced content. Delete what you will - good luck. -- Banjeboi 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)