User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Invitation to join WP:LGBT

Just wondered if you were interested in the LGBT WikiProject? Take a look around, and if you are interested, sign up :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (re: Tom Ammiano

Thanks for the note Benjiboi. Believe me, I know all about the Easter Day controversy. Your note to me suggests that Ammiano is Jewish. He was raised Catholic, was he not? I seem to remember him lamenting his miserable Catholic school education. Also, your suggestion that "Jews in SF were quite surprised that the SF Catholic Archdiocese was making such a stink about the street closure permit" is far-fetched. Most Jews did not care about it.

You're right about William Levada being an asshole, but I think you're wrong to suggest that this was just a "wedge issue" cooked up by some political enemies of Ammiano. There was genuine hurt on the part of SF Catholics to see their holiest day mocked like that. I'm convinced that one reason SF is so open-minded is because it was and still is to a large degree a Catholic city, not a puritanical Protestant city. We should respect the open-mindedness that Catholicism brought to SF.

I don't think Jews or Judaism had anything to do with the events of that Easter Day, even though there are Jewish members of the Sisters, which is why I keep taking Jewish stuff out of the article. BTW, I am a fan of the Sisters. I just think this episode was pivotal in Ammiano's defeat and it should be remembered. He made a big mistake there. Respectfully, Griot 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't researched him regarding Jewish or Catholic although I think you're correct. I do, however, disagree with your statement that "Most Jews did not care about it." and researched a good credible quote and tried to work it in appropriately. Jews and Gays share a rather long history of being killed in the name of religion with the Catholic Church amongst the more notable aggressors. With gays that continues to this day, I can't speak to Jewish issues as far as current activities but I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of issues to chew on if one were interested.

I didn't mean to imply to the wedge issue was cooked up but rather escalated ala what can we do to get our unknown Catholic newspaper in the hands of every SF Catholic and then it was recycled throughout the campaign. I also think the idea that SF is a Catholic city would be news to many but we don't have to go into that and just have to agree to disagree as we will about Catholics bringing open-mindedness anywhere.

As for the election there were many many things that contributed to the defeat of Ammiano including city workers campaigning for Mayor Brown from their offices on public time and dime and sanitation workers actively removing Tom's campaign signs against the law. The Sisters hyped-up issue was simply an easy way for anti-Tom folks to say do you really want a gay in office without saying he's gay which probably would have earned voter backlash. If not that issue something else would have been inserted as is the nature of SF (and US) politics.Benjiboi 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't misuderstand me. San Francisco was founded by Catholics and was until quite recently populated mostly by Irish and Italians, both Catholic groups. Culturally, these people were very open-minded compared to the protestants who ruled most of America. For example, Catholics opposed prohibition, whereas protestants favored it. It was no mistake that gays, for example, found a relatively tolerant society in San Francisco when they begin arriving after WWII. They were coming to a wide-open, Catholic city. I'm asking you to understand Catholicism as a culture, not as a church hierarchy.

As to the rest of your comment, Ammiano is an Italian-American raised Catholic. I still do not understand your point about Jews. You do realize that the Sisters dress as nuns, and that nuns are a part of the Catholic Church? Why would Jews be upset by men dressing as nuns when the Jewish tradition has no nuns? I think your point about Jews being offended is moot and doesn't belong in the article. I also don't think you should underestimate how much the Sisters' actions that Easter Sunday upset old-time Catholics in SF. They, too, are worthy of our respect, especially as they built such a fine city to which we only arrived lately. Griot 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. you win, I'm too busy to get into an edit war at the moment. Remove all info showing that many including Jews were upset by the Catholic Archdiocese actions and words over this history changing event. And by all mean s remove the fact that the Catholic Archdiocese was ok with moving the Sisters event off their easter and onto the Russian Orthodox Easter. Seems fair and balance to me.

3RR - 3 Revert Rule on Lonnie Frisbee

You and User:Burntapple both have 4 reverts on Lonnie Frisbee in the last twenty four hours. See the following diffs four your reverts:

• First: diff
• Second:diff
• Third: diff
• Fourth: diff

Please consider this a warning. I have no interest in getting involved in this content dispute, but will report both of you to WP:AN/3RR if you don't both knock it off. There are better ways to solve content disputes - talk it out, and invite other editors to offer their opinions (you may try asking for a third opinion, editor assistance, or make a request for comment). Also, please note that "rvv" as an edit summary means "reverting vandalism" - a content dispute is not the same as vandalism. Thanks for your consideration. Pastor David ^† 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Lonnie Frisbee. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - talk page, please! Same goes for your adversary - Alison ☺ 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

well here's where Burntapple and I do agree in that we are not adversaries, simply disagreeing and this is my first taste of the 3RR which (finally) is being adressed on the talk page of the article.Benjiboi 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's all good :) - Alison ☺ 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice

First, let me say that you probably do not want to file any sort of "official" report - when I went and counted again, it is only you who has violated the 3RR (Burntapple has 3 reverts, you have four). Second, there are any number of venues for sorting out a content dispute, and I doubt that you would be likely to get an admin to protect the page until you have tried a few other options. Let me see if I can help.

I have started a discussion thread on the article's talk page. Please discuss there instead of reverting. I will point Burntapple toward it as well. If you two cannot reach an agreement on the talk page - or if the other editor will not engage in the discussion there, we will try a request for comment. Pastor David ^† 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lonnie Frisbee article is much better now and I have learned a bit more about researching which should effectively render this 3RR dispute null. Benjiboi 05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell is a key player in LGBT history

Hi, Falwell played a major role in the the development of LGBT history in the US (at least). Isn't there an appropriate tag for that in the LGBT timeline? Benjiboi 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While he was a misogynistic twit (IMHO), I had two reasons for removing the cat. One I stated in the edit summary - the man himself isn't LGBT history. Secondly, LGBT wasn't his only (or even his main) focus. He got some sound-bites from some of the stupid things he said, but he got those for stupid things he said about abortion, stem-cell research, heck even things about the president. So while I agree he deserves mention - in articles like Timeline of LGBT history or Homophobia or Religious intolerance - I don't think the article on the man should be in the cat. Any more than Hitler is in the cat.

All that being said, if you still disagree, bring it up at WT:LGBT - I'd love to hear what others think. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In process. Benjiboi 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

your sig

Hey, Benjiboi, would you mind putting a link to either your user page (User:Benjiboi) or this talk page into your sig? It's helpful to be able to click on someone's signature and arrive at their userspace. If you set it to [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] at Special:Preferences, then your sig will point to this page. It's not required, but it's helpful. ··coelacan 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your sig works now. =) Not sure I have any reply about Falwell, but I read it. ··coelacan 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Done. Benjiboi 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another tip: you should probably read Help:Minor edit. You're marking almost every edit as minor, but many of them are not. In brief, only uncontroversial formatting and wikimarkup changes, or reverts of outright vandalism, are supposed to be marked minor. Marking edits minor also makes them not appear in some people's watchlists (there is a preference in Special:Preferences that does this), so marking a talk page edit minor will mean that some people aren't aware you've replied. ··coelacan 21:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for heads up on minor edits flag, it was on auto set which I'll change. Benjiboi 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SPI saints

Can any of the "saints" section be verified? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All if it. Benjiboi 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL :) Then it probably needs a reference :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of another article but will return to it either today or tonight. Benjiboi 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, hold on a minute, dear! I didn't mean to reference each and every entry! My question was can we verify that the Sisters sainted them all? Do we have any record like that? It would certainly be easier than finding a ref for each one :) My, that's a lot of work you've done!!! Exquisite! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The SF Sisters have sainted hundreds just by themselves, I thought it would be meaningful to list the more notable ones, as time goes on some folks that had been sainted earlier will become notable and can be added later. All are documented but finding online documentation is the challenge. Benjiboi 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll say! Would it be useful to split the section out to have something like List of saints? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that the ones that are notable can be listed right now with just a qualifier like "medical marijuana activist" and as the list grows it would turn into a list rather than a chunky paragraph. I'm not wed to any one concept as long as the information is there. Benjiboi 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Faux queen

I noticed there are a few images of faux queens on Flickr under free licenses, here and here -- would you want any of those as illustrations? I'd be happy to copy any of them over to Commons for you if you'd like. —Celithemis 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

that would be so cool! I think the one "contestant holy mcgrail is a woman. faux queen" would be good as the lead and "the best little Faux Queen in Frisco" would also be good. Benjiboi 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all; they're up now. —Celithemis 08:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

BAYSWAN

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on BAYSWAN, by Pavel Vozenilek, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because BAYSWAN fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

notability of the organisation is not suggested, WP is not Yellow Pages

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting BAYSWAN, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate BAYSWAN itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I found some articles through NewsBank -- a subscription news archive service that I have access to -- three of which document the early history of BAYSWAN as it was happening (1997). I've emailed them to myself, & will add info from them tomorrow when I get a chance. I can also forward them to you through your "email this user" link on your user page if you're interested. Meanwhile, I'm adding my KEEP vote to the AfD for this article. You've done some damn good work on this article. --Yksin 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Living Memory LGBT History Timeline from Trans perspective

Transgender Aging Network has launched a project to assist with aging LGBT folks

"the Transgender Aging Network has constructed the following timeline showing how old they would have been when there were critical events or changes in the lives of LGBT people."

Starting with the 1920s the events list can be cross-referenced with current GLBT timelines and used as a possible stepping stone to aid Trans projects and awareness. The PDF version is here [1] Html via Google is here [2] Saved here for ref Benjiboi 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Troll (gay)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Troll (gay), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

will work on this article in the next day or so. Benjiboi 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

I notice you have been creating several LGBT articles without placing our banner on the talkpage. Would you mind adding our wikiproject banner as a matter of course on your articles? otherwise it's very difficult to keep track of our progress. DevAlt 10:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just learning the whole stub and tagging and will work to do so. Benjiboi 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(Houston Gay Pride Parade) Thank you...

Just wanted to thank you for helping get this article off the ground again. I contacted the organizers for additional information, but I appreciate what you've done so far. --Hourick 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome! Benjiboi 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Allen R. Schindler, Jr.

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that we rather edit conflicted one another; I moved the ref and the statement down into the body of the article because it is too detailed for the lead, as the lead appears now, and it better pairs with a description of the individual's injuries since it coincides with the source. I reverted your edit when you re-added it to the lead because it was redundant, but when you removed the remaining statement and ref, none of it existed, so I reverted you again. It's now back in the body of the article, and I hope you agree that it's better where it is for now. Take care, María (críticame) 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not agree, if I may ask? As per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be an overview of the article's main points, and the statement and reference in question is unique and goes into too much detail for such a short article. The impact is still there in the body of the article, and nothing is lost. As for the use of "brutal," I originally removed it because it borders on WP:POV. Aren't all murders brutal in a sense? I can see the argument going either way, however; perhaps with more refs it will seem less so. It's always good to be careful about certain wording, so I wouldn't throw heavy words like that around often. María (críticame) 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

agree that throwing heavy words around should be avoided that's why I let the reference do it but you moved it. Benjiboi 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have a reliable source for "The attack was so brutal Hajdys-Holman could identify her son only by the tattoo on his arm"? That would make a great addition to the article -- but not in the lead. ;) María (críticame) 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do and I'm in the process of researching it and the campaign the family had undertaken for justice.[3] Benjiboi 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nice work! The article is much improved, and I definitely admire your research skills. As for your question about the captain not reporting the circumstances of the murder and the coincidental meeting, I agree with you that it isn't exactly clear. I'd add the {{fact}} tag for now, just in case there is a reliable source somewhere. If not, and it remains as is for a period of time, it may be best to move the statement to the talk page so it doesn't get wiped out entirely, and it can still be open for discussion.

On a side note, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Citation templates for help on ref formatting; it's such a pain, but the proper wiki-syntax helps with duplicate references. It's done by naming your references so the entire URL, title, date, etc, doesn't need to be repeated. For example, instead of listing one ref twice like:

He said "this"<ref>[http://wwww.something.com Something]</ref> and she said "that"<ref>[http://wwww.something.com Something]</ref>, you can do this number on it:

He said "this"<ref name="something">[http://wwww.something.com Something]</ref> and she said "that."<ref name="something"/>

That creates the little ^{a, b, c} next to the reference listed for every instance the same ref is used throughout the article, and makes it easier to navigate. Great job in turning the article around, though, it's reading great. I did a small tweak on whitespace removal and header formatting, but other than that I'm not touching it; you have it totally under control.  :) Hope this helped, María (críticame) 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Translation

Ah, thanks, I hadn't noticed that existed. No Italian speakers listed, though, unfortunately. —Celithemis 01:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • How do you edit a page?
  • How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
  • What about copyrights?
• Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!   Benjiboi 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Donna Sachet added as Candidate for Speedy Deletion

Sorry about this, but I added Donna Sachet as a Candidiate for Speedy Deletion in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you get a chance, please rewrite the article—it'd be great to have her on the site, just not with copied material!

Jeff Bowman 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

apologies for the delayed response - way too much going on~! We did have general license permission but I will add it onto a list of todo articles since it's been deleted already. Benjiboi 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell article re: Clay Aiken's sexuality

bringing this over from my page:
Hi, not sure why any reference to Clay Aiken's sexuality need to be expunged when the article clearly stated his denial of talking about it and no proof has been presented showing evidence of him being gay. And if it did? Who cares? The section is about perceived homophobia which can happen to strait people who are simply perceived as being gay whether the person making that judgment is correct or not isn't the point. I've further softened the language to read "Although some have speculated or joked that Aiken is gay[44] he has steadfastly refused to discuss his sexuality stating "What I do in my private life is nobody's business anymore."[45]" I hope this further revision is acceptable. Benjiboi 06:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to expunge any reference to Aiken's sexuality. That would be impossible, given the topic, wouldn't it? My first edit was to remove the statement that "he never stated if he were homosexual or not," which is incorrect. I provided a quotation in the edit notes and a citation in the references, but you deleted my change and returned your version anyway. JReferee offered a version which incorporated the Rolling Stone statement, but his version, like yours missed the point. Your version now states that "he has steadfastly refused to discuss his sexuality," the implication of which is very similar to your previous "he has never stated" version, when in fact he willingly discussed it for years--he just didn't say what people want to hear. Aiken answered the "are you gay?" question multiple times in interviews in 2003 and 2004. By 2005 fans were writing skits about reporters asking, "Are you gay yet?" and he started to get gnarly about the question. There's really only one answer people will accept. In 2006 he told People, "Well, it didn't matter what I said. The only thing they would believe was yes. … People are going to believe what they want."[4] He told Lara Spencer of the Insider, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." He told Diane Sawyer, "I've gotten to a point now where I, A., am tired of trying, and B., I feel it's kind of invasive, you know?" Personally, I don't care if he's gay either, but I do believe in a person's right to define his own sexuality. I don't think Rosie should define it (and I doubt she does either), and I don't think Wikipedia should define it.

How about this:

...he refused to discuss his sexuality during 2006 promotional appearances, stating, "Well, it didn't matter what I said. The only thing they would believe was yes. … People are going to believe what they want." People.com "Clay Aiken Speaks Out About Rumors", by Carrie Borzillo-Vrenna, People, 09/20/2006 Retrieved 2006-03-07.

PS. I read your note and worked on this before going to the O'Donnell article. You didn't mention the other additions you made. If you're going to add the "dogged by rumors" phrase, why do you need to then say there's been speculation, with three more references? Kelly and Rosie had the big fuss; he was caught in the middle. I think you're putting undue weight on this. -Jmh123 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you once again revert my changes, two of your citations are unacceptable. Page Six is a gossip column, and therefore not a reliable source, the Blade article is sourced to Page Six, and is therefore also unreliable, (please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources) and the Advocate link is dead, so I can't check it. At any rate, as I said, the point is made with your "dogged by rumors" citation. I don't see any need to belabor it. -Jmh123 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Post-Chronicle reference. This is a tabloid-style online website masquerading as a newspaper; it isn't backed by any print newspaper, nor tied to any region. No problem with the other refs. -Jmh123 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies as after I made my initial note to you I started to research the various links provided in the Kelly Ripa and Aiken articles and found them to be less than stellar, that's when I found the "dogged by rumors" quote which I think is what the section needed most just a ref. that some had questioned his sexuality. I personally don't like to delete other editors research references but when I initially read the Rolling Stone ref. it was vague and didn't seem to address the question at hand. Thank you for your time on this. Benjiboi 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I felt bad about deleting all that research. Thank you for working with me on this. You seem interested in the gossip about the message board, which is, like most gossip, off base, so I'm sending you an e-mail. -Jmh123 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not terribly interested just working to find decent references, I'm old school enough to know that sometimes a source like Page Six is accepted and sometimes it's off-base. Happy to do the legwork and the research/references should tell the story so no worries there. Benjiboi 21:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination template

Thanks for the help. Looking at your contribs I wonder if you'd be interested in WikiProject Discrimination? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination template 2

Hey! I was also a bit hesitant to remove it since it's one of the articles in the template box. But still it felt awkward to have Homophobia and Armenian Genocide on the same page :) I checked to see if the Holocaust article has it, but it was not there. And I think that discrimination was one of the much lesser factors in the 1915 events compared to the Holocaust.

Bıt as I said feel free to put it there if you think it's needed. I wouldn't have anything against it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 06:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).