User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 37

News flash!
Did you know that Rick Warren is politically conservative? I didn't, but then again, I've been living in a cave for the last decade. Spotfixer (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lol! Apparently. I hadn't heard of this guy until his controversy with the Obama ceremony started up. What drama! -- Banj e  b oi   02:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew of him as some sort of self-help author, but didn't realize that his day job was as a homophobic minister. Dan Savage also wrote some funny things about him!  Anyhow, if anyone questions the valid citation I added, I'm certain you or I could easily find a dozen more even better ones to take its place.  There is no doubt that he's a political conservative. Spotfixer (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He was the biggest controversy in the US's biggest news event so, yea, I'm sure there is plenty RSs to sort it all out. Turns out one of the editors calling foul is a member of the church so - gee - no problems there! On a certain level I feel bad that (quiet voice here) their faith is so shaken by this, do they really think their dieties can't handle criticism? Anyhoo, it's good to get a reality check even if it's a bit mean. -- Banj e  b oi   03:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, irrational beliefs are brittle because of the cognitive dissonance required to hold them. Spotfixer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, but like Jesus said - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they won't still crucify you. -- Banj e  b oi   04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I don't think the Jesus Seminar would conclude that this was something he actually said. Spotfixer (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ... I went to a hell house and the voices in my head said to redecorate, hmmm, maybe they weren't in my best interest. hmmm -- Banj e  b oi   04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know that anyone who eats shrimp goes to hell because God hates shrimp? Very educational.  Speaking of which, with some luck, I may get blocked again today.  We'll see. Spotfixer (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrg. Take a breather, don't let the nonsense get you down. wikipedia and the world can spin a day or two without and getting blocked is not a good goal, imho. -- Banj e  b oi   04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't do anything vaguely blockworthy, but Schrandit is trying to manufacture a 3RR violation. He's been trying for days, with the help of his brothers in Jesus.  As far as I can tell, I didn't break any rules, but it's not like admins are limited to enforcing what the rules actually say.  There's plenty of wiggle room for vindictiveness and even more for incompetence.  Don't worry about it.  As I prophetically wrote earlier today, I know the game is rigged and fully expect to "lose".  What's funny is how much bigger Schrandit's loss has been.  He's thrown away his dignity, integrity and any hope at the moral high ground, all to "win" against the infidels.  The irony is worth a permanent block. Spotfixer (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Sigh, you want to get out but they just drag you back in! 3RRs are generally in the moment but now that you've been in some tussles I suggest giving them enough room to get themselves in trouble. That persistent fact tagging, for information just too liberal to print, is cause for concern but you'd do well to instead document it then simply always reverting it as they may be gaming the system and baiting you. Even if you win at their game you're still paying their tune which isn't as fab as you can be. -- Banj e b oi   05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like there's even a shred of self-consistency among the admins. Last time around, Schrandit violated 3RR and flatly refused to revert his own edit when I explained this and asked him to.  In contrast, I took care not to violate 3RR.  Despite this, the admin banged both our heads together by giving us each a block, to punish me for reporting him.  It's a joke. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be true but you're enabling the disruption and making yourself an accomplice when instead you could just allow them to get in trouble all by themselves. Maybe you have a secret crush on them instead! Could he be a dream - or a dud! -- Banj e  b oi   05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting theory, but I assure you that I have excellent taste in men, with particularly high standards. :-)
 * It looks like I rolled the dice and didn't get one of the malicious admins this time, so no block. I'm disappointed.  I've come to expect a certain level of unfairness, and this falls somewhat short.  I want a refund from Jimbo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! Back to the grindstone! -- Banj e  b oi   05:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren
Hey Benji. Btw, this is what I'm proposing for the article: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren. Feel free to comment on it or edit it. Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those references might be good but this also needs to be givena reality filter of what will be accepted for the next year? or longer as well as due weight to give to the material. I'm still looking through the article but will think about what may work here. There's little use to adding something that will simply be removed so it's better to ferret out the problems and see what the mainstream sources state. Advocate may be good as a counterpoint. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the "Feminine Essence Theory of Transsexualism"
I wrote this on AN/I and think you in particular need to know the following. ""Feminine essence theory of transsexualism" is just a overcomplex, fancy name for an idea so simple a 7 year old knows it. The idea is called "brain sex".  Read "The theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity." by Lynn Conway or Searches for "brain Sex" on Jokestress's website "tsraodmap.com.   It appears about 8 times. A similar search on lynnconway.com gets a much greater number. The basic idea is that male to female transsexuals have female brains in male bodies and thus are in essence female. Hence one can understand why one writer could call it "feminie esence theory of transsexualism". Judging the article by it's name is not good practice. A name change was proposed and oppose won (I supported a name change).

Furthermore don't confuse this with anything in Dr. Blanchard's theory. What Dr. Blanchard did in his commentary was to set up the idea of brain sex in a way that it could be compared to his own model. The brain sex theory is the alternative theory that you hear transsexual activist speak of most. It is based on work done by a neurologist named Zhou and his team which identified a region of the hypothalamus which in male to female transsexuals who have taken hormones takes on the size and neuron count of this same region in born females. His study was inspired by a simmilar study by Simon Levay which found a separate region of the hypothalamus which in homosexual males is of female size.  It is noteable that a recent study which used FMRI to meausre the size of the brains of female to male, and male to female transsexuals from before hormone use to after a long period of hormone use showed that the overall volume of the brains was changed by hormones.  This cast doubt on Zhou's findings which provided a scientific basis for the brain sex/feminine essence theory of transsexualism.

None the less in public with transsexuals don't let them hear you saying the idea of male to female transsexuals having a feminine essence or a female brain is rubbish. You will be verbally attacked by them or worse.

yes yes TLDR but this is complicated stuff here. It dosen't compress easily.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i commented there. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation
Perhaps we should talk about merging those two articles? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main article was split as it was huge. Perhaps it was split wrong but combining them again may not help. I'm unsure of any easy solution besides a total rewrite. Lesbian is being re-written off-article and will be an example of how one of these articles should look. I think homosexual orientation has been regularly targeted and negative-POV material added. It may have been fixed since then but it was too much drama for my taste. I pop in on those articles every once in a while and clean-up some of the more obviously messy stuff. Not sure if there is an easy answer there. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren again
Hey, I'm gonna open a RFC again soon but I think it would be better if we agree on a version first. What do you think, I made some changes (its not the whole article this time either): User talk:Phoenix of9/warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might be happier if we can get the first part approved then tweak from there. Already the article has greatly improved but we are looking for strong sourcing and NPOV language that will stick. Once that is approved we can then build consensus on how to present Prop 8 material. I've left a modified draft as far how i would first update your current draft. I'm uneasy about the foreign language sourcing. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we will not be able to coordinate a response. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for WP:AGF, but as I said before, it has its limits. Right now, I'm seeing what can only be described as partisan resistance to WP:NPOV changes to Rick Warren.  They have nothing that can pass muster as a credible argument for their desired conclusion, but they do have force of numbers, and some admins don't look any further than a head count.  Consider how quickly an admin jumped to ruling that the consensus (rather than the partisan majority) supported excluding saddlebacking.
 * What I see in the future is more edit-warring, unless something is done. Any ideas? Spotfixer (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to consistently present rational and NPOV content with strong sourcing and avoid the negative comments that get editors in trouble. Months from now what will count is what remains in the article so one by one notable chunks of content will be added that are appropriate. It sure hasn't been pleasant but at the end of the day I can say I was true to my job as an editor even if dogmatic opposition presents itself. Let their actions speak for themselves. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They do speak for themselves, but admins are, for the most part, not listening. I'm not saying they're stupid, as such, but they're clearly rushed and not making any sort of deep investigation into this.  Consider all of these mock votes where the stated reasons are refuted trivially while most people don't even state reasons of their own, just dittoing the refuted ones.  An admin who's actually careful would not for a moment settle for what the head count shows. Spotfixer (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Nanna's Cottage
I hereby deposit a big ol' SMOOCH! squarely on your talkpage, for your awesomeness in source-finding. I'd found one of the articlearchive sources, but you totally nailed it and I'd be highly surprised if it gets deleted now. (And I loved the bit about "indoctrination", as well; that was one of the main reasons I started watching those kids' shows, to get a handle on the degree of evangelism. "Nanna's" is actually quite tame in this regard--if you REALLY wanna curl your hair, watch "Faithville" sometime. Scaaaaaary.) Anyhoo--thank you so much for digging out those sources. Take care... GJC 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Yes, quite spooky actually, there's some line of singing Christian vegetable pirates - Veggie tales? - also troubling. I will admit though some of my favorite movie flashbacks come from this Christian company - Mark IV productions or similar - that specialized in end of times dramas. high production values and lots of blood and gore plus some twisted campy songs. The humour was likely quite unintentional but it was all fascinating. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nanna's Cottage
Hi, I have responded to your comments - but this is just to say that I also corrected a typo (reefers for refers) in your last edit. Hope you are not offended - if you are please rollback the whole edit and I will resubmit. Springnuts (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics
Can we change the category name on Template:Rescue to something shorter?

Maybe:
 * Category:Potentially encyclopedic articles flagged for rescue?

Let me know :)

Ikip (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We need something NPOV but yes, we should be able to shorten, I'll put my crack team of scissors to work! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm first thinking Articles tagged for deletion and rescue but that may not be wonky sounding enough. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * first of all, thanks for considering the change :) I love your suggestion: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, much better than my first suggestion. Can I change it with your permission? We can always change it to another title. The reason I thought we should change it, is because WP:ARS members will now have the new template I created  on their page (too the right), and the title seemed too long. Let me know sir. Always a pleasure to fight with you in the trenches. I saw your good work in several AfDs I commented on tonight. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I want to be bold here but let's not screw things up in the process. I'll poke around to see what the best way may be and that the title will be OK. I think it is but it may be flawed as well. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. Ikip (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

John Inman "Official website" link-title
It's a general issue for this infobox template...please work towards general consensus (or at least centralized debate) rather than re-re-reverting on one specific page that uses this template. Template talk:Infobox Actor DMacks (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've started a project-wide thread at at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and linked from actor infobox page. I have no idea where the ultimate language should go but I'd like to stop the madness sooner than later. Any insight appreciated. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wanda Sykes
please note that web address is not expressed in infobox. parameters are set forth in infobox actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs)
 * That's because someone corrupted the coding to force it in. Hopefully we'll change it so that coding is removed, meanwhile there's no reason to conceal the web address so it remains unreadable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PC case airflow


I disagree with some your airflow drawing... if indeed this is your drawing. The only way for hot air to be expelled from this case is through the exhaust fans (of which there are actually 2 in this drawing)... all other airflow holes will be air inlets.

How can warm/hot air be expelled through the holes in the back side of the case? The entire inside of the cabinet is a low-pressure area... as the fans are working in the direction to 'suck' air from the inside of the case, and blow it out.

BTW... there should be 2 hot air exit paths shown... all PC power supplies have a fan, as well as the top-mounted fan shown in your drawing.

HOWEVER... the idea of using an ancillary exhaust fan (the top-mounted fan) will often cause more problems than it solves... as it creates an imbalance that the power supply fan can not overcome... leading to a "air stall" condition inside of the power supply fan enclosure, because the top-mounted fan is trying to "suck" the air IN from the power supply fan as well. (IF the top fan is more powerful than the power supply fan).

The two fans will be competing for the air that's inside the power supply enclosure. Although using 2 fans can slightly increase the OVERALL airflow OUT of the entire PC chassis, the power supply itself will suffer reduced -or- even REVERSED airflow, due to this "competition" going on.

Consider this... the power supply fan is trying to "suck" air from where? A zone that is already a low-pressure area, due to the top-mounted fan. This will severely limit its ability to move air.

The best way to remedy this would be to move the power supply fan outside the power supply enclosure, and next to (or near) the top-mounted fan... thereby completely reversing the airflow in the power supply enclosure.

Alternatively, reversing the airflow direction of the power supply fan will restore the airflow rate inside that enclosure, and will allow the top-mounted fan to expel the combined airflow of the entire computer.

Psronbo (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a lovely image, however, until now, I hadn't seen it. I you return to the image page you can see who uploaded and changed it; as well, on the bottom of the page, what pages it's used. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Human Chemistry" reference in LGBT
Hello. Back in June last year, you used as a reference several times in LGBT. This is a self-published book and not a reliable source. I removed the references. The author used to spam Wikipedia with references to his book, but that is probably a coincidence. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Is it because Lulu.com is known for this? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lulu.com is some kind of vanity press as far as I know. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I would have caught this otherwise. Perhaps some sort of bot should flag cites as possible RS issues with vanity press. I simply pull from Google Books which doesn't really filter those out, apparently. Also, even though it may be a vanity press, the source may still be considered reliable on a case by case basis. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there can be cases. Google Scholar gives more reliable results including books, but also a lot of academic papers that can be difficult to access the actual text of. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! You are quite correct there! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren
I noticed you havent commented. What did you not like here? Talk:Rick_Warren ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The enmity, quibbling and wikilawyering of some of those commenting. I may return to present a new version once the RfC resolves. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#fe2c96">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   01:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

infobox website formatting
Sorry Benji, I'm slow to read stuff that has blown out into large sections that I'm not already involved with. The ArbCom date case is sapping me of energy. Tony  (talk)  14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw that Arbcom case - yuck. I'll just keep plugging away and I'm sure both our dramas will melt like ice in a urinal after a few pints! Lol! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#fe2c96">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant
When you added the cquote template, you munged the punctuation of the quote. Can you fix that, please? (Apologies if you weren't the one who added the cquote template, I can't find the specific edit; your edit summaries give little hint of what the edits are.) THF (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, fixed. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#fe2c96">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   03:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually still munged. I'm just going to restore the original. THF (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it "munged"? I copied direct from the source. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#fe2c96">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. I'm discussing my edits where we disagree on the talk page, and you're just blindly reverting. THF (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really have lot of nerve. When I do exactly what you do, then it becomes edit-warring - very convenient. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#fe2c96">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   14:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing for  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Ikip (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed at how you were "manhandled" here but the main person causing the problem and the edit war gets handled with velvet gloves by William. Sad. Typical. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking about it here does no good, mention your comments here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Ikip (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been on WP long enough to know how to use it. I choose not to talk about it there because it'll just fall on deaf ears. The good ole boy Admin club has each others back, even when they are wrong. ;] - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats true, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. I have done it, it is possible. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben, I posted a request to look this over, at two random admins pages:
 * User_talk:RexNL, User_talk:MCB Ikip (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering Benji was only making content changes that THF asked him to, then THF reports him for 3RR? THF is unblocked even though he broke 3RR too? Not to unblock Benji is a serious pile of steaming bullshit. And you can quote me on that. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 08:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)