User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

gay porn resources

Convert all to Google

• use via Google helpful to confim studio and print modeling. -- Banjeboi
• http://xbiz.com
• www.gaypornblog.com
• Vulcan magazine
• ebar.com - John Carr 25+ years columnist
• sfbaytimes - reviews films, events
• Naked Sword - does 80-90 of video streaming of gay porn -- Banjeboi
• Bound & Gagged
• leatherarchives.com
• Unzipped.net
• Gay.com
• Advocate.com
• adultfilmdatabase.com - seems to include alt names and movies listings
• gayeroticarchives.com
• http://www.wtule.net/Show?n=faq

Just noticed your list - you may find my handy resource link generator spreadsheet useful. Just added couple from your list. See resources. Ash (talk)

Excellent. -- Banjeboi

I have created {{findgp*}} to add a list of ready-made links for talk pages and AfD discussions. An example of usage is at Talk:Butch Taylor (pornographic actor) and Talk:Randy Mixer but it could also be used on user talk pages like this search for Cole Carpenter:

Find sources: GNews · GBooks · AVN · XBIZ · Gay Porn Times · IAFD · MouSearch. Ash (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, just realized that I've posted this handy template here, but I am now automatically reticent to post it for comment on relevant article talk pages as I am assuming that there would be an immediate attempt to delete it rather than discuss improvement. Sad state of affairs. Ash (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"lede image"

Saw this a few times. It's lead image, not lede image. (in case you're interested)

I use them interchangeably, although lead is more commonly used. Lead paragraph. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking it up, "lede" is indeed a lesser used alternative spelling of "lead". And here I thought you were simply misspelling it. Every time I think I have the world just about figured out... it gets more complicated. JBarta (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a bad speller so it could have gone either way! LOL! -- Banjeboi 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Closing a discussion in which you are involved, especially in favour of your own proposed outcome, is a really really bad idea. Please don't do that again, all you do is raise hostages to fortune. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion? That was a collegial and relatively drama-free discussion to replaced inaccurate and disputed content with anything accurate and NPOV. It was resolved with me input but by other editors. If you feel my archiving it as the issue had been resolved was somehow wrong or my summary flawed you're welcome to suggest some other wording but the facts remain the same. After an SPA who incited all the drama moved on, finding an acceptable consensus was rather painless. I also did not get my preferred outcome but agreed for the sake of getting what I saw as an offensive quote on a BLP removed as a move in the right direction. Given the incendiary way an admin shut down discussion on a ... Wikiproject tag, my rather uncontroversial action would seem uncontroversial at best. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Katona - can you help?

Hi Benji. I need your help re: Kerry Katona or, if you can't help me, perhaps you can point me in the direction of someone who can?!

In the early life section, some 'selective ' editing has gone on in that nude photographs of the subject are now (once again) being described as 'topless test shots'. There is no citation for these being 'test shots' at all, furthermore it was discussed, CITED, arbitrated and agreed several years ago that the shots were nude (in one, Ms Katona is playing with her labia).

Can you revert this airbrushing or provide me with the relevant instruction to get the matter looked at by someone without a COI/agenda?

Thanks in advance! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature is contrary to wikipedia guidelines on style and color. Consider removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.171.122 (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen (gay slang)

I feel the need to work on this, and get it to GA, care to help me? CTJF83 chat 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A Goldberg

There was NOTHING POV about it. The article documented its sources. Calling a convicted con-man a conman is a FACT not an opinion. Having a convicted conman on the board of a non-profit is clearly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou2u (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you even READ it???? "Arthur "Abba" Goldberg, a convicted con-man, is Executive Secretary of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)". Lou2u (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

minor grammatical quibble

the third heading, in yellow, should be "use fewer words". "Less" is used for uncountable quantities, whereas "fewer" is used for countable quantities. Wbush89 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Benjiboi/Archive 65!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A little balance is needed

If you care to, please take a look at the question here: Talk:Mark_Oaten#LGBT_Wikiproject_Tag.--Jarhed (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's been resolved already but thank you for the heads up! -- Banjeboi 13:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks Banji!

o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen (gay slang)

I feel the need to work on this, and get it to GA, care to help me? (reposting due to archive) CTJF83 chat 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work and would be a fine project, count me in. -- Banjeboi 13:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how do you wanna start the work? CTJF83 chat 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the main push would be to explain the origin/etymology and historical usage then step through how it evolved. Then address Usages presently. I'm not sure how to best present "the list" and wonder if it isn't a bit endless? What do you think? -- Banjeboi 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking we could combined the terms we can find sources for, into one section...with the exception of drag queen which should get its own section. You have much more LGBT GA/FA experience then I do, where do you find sources? Just like Google search or is there a good gay related site? CTJF83 chat 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think Google books and Google scholar will provide the best leads but I'm sure there are many to check out. -- Banjeboi 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get started after a quick lunch....do you use IRC, it'll make working together much easier. I just was thinking, maybe even classifying race as one section, like bean and rice queen, and then other queens as another section, gym/opera. CTJF83 chat 19:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense and may help if we find when they started to be in use. I think the race ones came in around the same time but other uses like scare queen preceded them. Somewhere there's a great literature search tool that pulls earliest known uses. If I can find it I'll let you know. And I don't use IRC but I also don't see anyone bothering this one as it really doesn't involve porn stars or Johnny Weir! -- Banjeboi 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ya, IRC just makes it easier, look into using it :)....also I lied about a quick lunch, I'm gonna make and eat some (non fish) tacos (no pun intended), so once I get done with that, I'll see what's going on. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

.....moving on....I'm ready to start, how do you wanna do this? We each pick a few terms and research them? CTJF83 chat 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in digging through the etymology although everything will intersect a bit. However if it makes more sense to build each term first I'm game for that as well. -- Banjeboi 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think it best, you have the LGBT GA experience, not me. CTJF83 chat 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the realm of getting to GA, which may be a little tough because there is a lot to cover here, we need to cover the subject NPOV (of course) and do a reasonably thorough job of covering the subject. Additionally, as you're probably aware, each ref should be accurately represented for the statement concerned and the cites formatted in a like fashion to one another on the same article. If we simply apply the WP:Citation templates it should be fine. Personally I tend to add plenty of content and experiment with moving bits around and build the lede as the content dictates. In this case it may make sense to start with each current subsection usage entry and see how each can be presented as if we were summarizing like the drag queen section. By picking the less used terms we might see which can be eliminated or bundled. There's a reasonable chance we'll also find many other terms which can be noted on the talkpage or added temporarily. I suggest each entry include basic definition, first known usage and anything else that seems notable. How does that all sound? -- Banjeboi 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! CTJF83 chat 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

=]

thanx - Nowyouseeme - TALK 03:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! -- Banjeboi 19:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

Seems obsessed with Equality Mississippi and List of people from Mississippi. The Equality Mississippi issue is so obvious... it says at the source $10,000 Equality Mississippi in big black bold heading. Are people really that hateful and hellbent on devaluing an article as to make up lies that a source doesn't say what it actually does say? 75.66.75.195 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed mostly. I'm not too familiar with the list of people bit but those who quibble on such things do have a point that it should be obvious person X belongs on a list. IMHO you have a couple options, wait until person X obviously reaches a notability threshold, which will remain subjective what that is, and ask on the list's talkpage and see if there is consensus. Sadly that editor has a troubling pattern of tenditiousness and IMHO vindictiveness that leads to unproductive and disruptive threads in what I see as gaming consensus. Whatever their motives are the end results seem to be endless wp:drama for anyone who has the misfortune of having to unravel the issue(s) from the personality. Wikipedia is not therapy and we are under no deadline so it may make sense to wait until they earn a vacation. In any case remain civil and maybe work on something else so as to not waste your efforts. -- Banjeboi 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That may not the entire issue (at least for the List of people from Mississippi) from what I have read. Another argument appears to be whether or not certain people — specifically "Jody Renaldo" — is notable enough to fit in that list because it was originally placed there by User:Allstarecho who states himself to be that person (diff) for which more than one person (not just the complained member here) has viewed this as a COI. Another name in question is "Dianna Freelon-Foster", also added by Allstarecho, but might simply be fruit of the poisonous tree. It has also been claimed that IP 75.66.75.195 is also Allstarecho (possibly because of their choice of articles to edit and specific issues within those edits). It may also be helpful to read the entire "Inclusion criteria" discussion on Talk:List of people from Mississippi which discussed the notability issue for a short while. Also note that the other user had filed a counter-complaint concerning this issue.[1] The actions of either member for which a discussion has been filed (here or there) may not be justified. However I do not entirely believe that either party is behaving neutrally. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not I am Allstarecho, there is no COI issue. The entry's notability is supported by another article that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, that being the Equality Mississippi article. If that organization is notable, surely the organization's founder is as well, at least notable enough to be included in a list of people from Mississippi. That's not a COI issue at all. It shouldn't matter who places him in the list as long as it's sourced and true - which it is. Just because the subject of the entry may or may not have put it there, still doesn't make it any less fact or any less notable. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I trust ASE's judgement on almost anything compared to that of the other editor under discussion. Expressly concerning anything to do with Mississippi. Frankly there's a reasonable case to leave the entry and let the editors there improve the content. It is after all a few words listing, not a stand alone article. As the list grows and larger sections become their own sublists, a section devoted to LGBT people is not an unlikely prospect. Then the logical question remains is Renaldo one of the most notable LGBT activists in the state. My hunch would be yes but I'm also not a specialist in that specific subject area so am happy to defer to those that are. -- Banjeboi 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aubrey O'Day#LGBT Category

Hey, Benjiboi. Your thoughts on the above linked section are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave Awards and AGVD, again

Hi, it appears that HW is getting their way over use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source by using ANI rather than civilly discussing the matter. Could you take a look at the facts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing as claims that the source is unverified seem in contradiction with Dave Awards existing at all. If the consensus is that AGVD cannot be verified as a source (even with OCLC numbers being quoted) as we cannot trust the work of the original editors, then we may as well purge all mention of Dave Awards and this will lead to the inevitable deletion of BLPs that rely on AGVD as a source.

I am of course, disappointed that in the process HW has repeatedly called me fraudulent (or at least my edits), s/he has little respect from me at this point as they appear not to value the principles of AGF and would rather use ANI as a stick to force their viewpoint. Ash (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there. Agreed that this was amongst the most contentious ways to resolve a dispute but at least it's on record for others to see as well. Work and fixing the underlying sourcing issues, restore the content to show your willingness to clean up your own errors and move on. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. I don't know if they ever do original content that meets our sourcing standards but if not simply blacklisting the site will help ensure no one else uses them here. -- Banjeboi 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As the Chuck Barron article had all references for the awards deleted it fails the BLP requirements (personally I would have chosen to highlight the citations for verification rather than deletion). I have raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Barron (pornographic actor)#Chuck Barron (pornographic actor) to ensure the article is discussed rather than put under the currently popular delete-on-sight speedy deletions. Ash (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Banjeboi, I'm not disputing that AGVD is reliable. I am disputing that the information asserted, 1993 Dave Award winners, is in that directory. The burden of evidence is on the person adding the material. Did you look at the directory to confirm whether they are in there? If you say you did, I will assume good faith. Otherwise, you've flunked WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is applicable to this case in that we had a source, rainbowcollexion.com that really had an underlying source, AGVD. We have a reliable source and i assume good faith in the editor that "The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." We can't infer too much but I think it's reasonable to state that per that statement the awards were not published each year they were presented as it states "The last awards were published for the first time", additionally the awards "ceased in December 1994" but were published in 1996 Directory. To me this means they are likely listed much as we have them or both as have have them as well as noted on each entry in the directory. I doubt someone poured through the directory and compiled the list and I have no reason to suspect any of it was fabricated or misrepresented. -- Banjeboi 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the content at all. I don't think it was fabricated or misrepresented either. I'm disputing the cite and SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT definitely warns about citing to something when you actually read it from somewhere else. I'm convinced that the 1989-1993 awards were actually compiled from the annual columns in the Advocate. I object to people to cite to the directory when the information may not be in there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I see your point. I still find it hard to believe that all the years weren't represented as one listing given the 1994 award dates and 1996 publishing year. We could use the same source to cite the underlying magazine and simply add a note in the citation itself. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to figure if The Advocate is in any literary database that I have an academic subscriptions to so that we can make this mess moot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

He returned an email I sent to his facebook acct as you suggested. I've asked him what he can confirm, how can we verify etc and worse comes to worse may ask him to do an OTRS to verify that the listing we have is accurate. He may even have a collection of his old columns so may be able to simply confirm the dates and resolve it that way. I'll let you know what I hear back. -- Banjeboi 20:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And his reply "No, there isn't to my knowledge an online version of the columns I wrote for Advocate MEN. The Dave Awards were something I threw together each year for my column, Video Reviews. They were in part reprinted in the 1996 Adam Gay Video Directory. I have a copy of that right here and in looking them over they seem to be accurate. Do you have access to that or do you need me to re-type them for you in an email, which I would be willing to do. The other option, if they are already up on Wickepedia, would be to send me a link to the correct page and I will compare them to what I have here and let you know if they are accurate or not.

From 1989 through the end of 1995 I was the "leading expert" in the U.S. on gay porn. I still have all my old files so if there is anything else you need, just ask."

So I'm thinking we ask him to verify that all the awards we have are listed in the 1996 AGVD and correct any that are or are not there. Ones that we have that aren't listed we need the original publish date so we cite to that. Sound good? -- Banjeboi 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just ask him if all of the awards from 1989-1994 are listed in the directory. I'm not disputing whether the winners are accurate, just the source. If they are in the directory, just ask for the page numbers they're listed on, and that's good enough to place in the citation since that removes all doubt about verifiability. If 1989-1993 winners were only listed in the Advocate, all he has to do is just gives us the dates of the issues. We know that it's in a May issue every year supposedly, but apparently the Advocate is published twice a month. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)