User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Encouraging women editors

How about pulling together an all-women main page for this. We've got nearly a year to get it right... --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK tends to do lots for International Women's Day / Month already, so that's taken care of. I'm sure we can find a suitable TFA / POTD. Which leaves OTD - WP:Selected anniversaries/March 8 is a little light on events involving women (although Raymonde de Laroche would be eligible if improved). A quick look at March 8 shows possible additions in the shape of Mildred Gillars but otherwise we need to hunt harder for events. And of course there's ITN... Bencherlite^Talk 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 was quite successful, women throughout March (and some DYK still not appeared). Why restrict to women editors. Men write also well about women, look at Imogen Holst, a possible candidate for the TFA position ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant that celebrating women on our front page might help encourage women to participate in editing. I didn't mean showcasing the work of women editors. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I doubt it would have a great impact, though. I came because I wanted to say something, not because I was "encouraged", by seeing certain topics a certain time. - I observe that women, once here, get less easily discouraged then men, if I go by "retired" templates, - five men come to mind in 2014 alone, no woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All things to all people. Anything we can do to make this place more welcoming to women is A Good Thing and if it encourages just a few new women editors, well that's terrific. Apparently, 91% of us are men (so I guess my nose must be a woman), so if you can think of any women who retired in any year, let's go encourage them back! --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I know of a woman who retired because of another woman 2 years ago, but she didn't out herself as a woman, so I won't give her name. I go after the men who left, retired, set conditions for further editing. Four of them are linked on top of my talk, names change (Eric, you were there not long ago), one new today (under "just", of course), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I get rather pissed off with discussions like this, which seem to diminish the contributions of men in favour of those from women. Is the article on Margaret Thatcher less worthy because it was largely written by two men? What about Enid Blyton? Should User:Dr Blofeld and I simply give up on it because it would never have the same value as if it had been written by a woman? Eric Corbett 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Men write also well about women", - what's wrong with that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all. But there are two ways to reduce WP's perceived gender imbalance: recruit more women (which is hard) or get rid of more men (which is easy). I think it's fairly obvious which route is in favour. Eric Corbett 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

<-Eric, men write brilliantly about everything and so do women. It's just that men, taken en-masse, tend to edit more about topics that interest men. As Europeans and Americans tend to edit more about topics from their worldview. I edit copiously about sport, but wouldn't have the inclination to edit about ice hockey, baseball, basketball, nordic skiing or kabaddi because as a Brit they don't grab me. So our coverage is skewed. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But it's skewed in many dimensions, so I don't understand this obsession with gender. I make no gender distinctions when choosing what to work on or who to work with, and I've no reason to believe that anyone else does either. What I have witnessed though is a savage feminist backlash against me after wife selling hit the front page a few years ago. Obviously not all the truth is fit to tell, at least in the minds of some activists. Eric Corbett 14:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am active inviting men to a stroll to see how well received you are by women. However, they first need to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got a nerve, mentioning bloody Gorman to me. Eric Corbett 15:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention a name, but you look things up ;) (big difference). Did you know that I am proud to be in the edit history (with you) of what an esteemed arbitrator made a redirect (and we need): Ethics of Dissensus? Did you know that I am prouder that it appeared on IWD (back to the beginning of this thread)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I've just scheduled The Tractor Boys for TFA on 1st May (which is not intended to send either you or The Rambling Man into retirement!) Bencherlite^Talk 13:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh jolly good show! PS, check out my sandbox2, first in a series, thought you might like to play a bit if you have time? Thought I'd start with the best one ever, even if it was another dark blue day... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need more female editors but by no means does having more women editors necessarily mean that they're going to want to edit traditional female topics. I'm not that aware of a bias towards males in biographies on wikipedia anyway, although obviously sport has a huge amount of males and the old encyclopedias like DNB etc do tend to have a strong bias towards males. In the articles I work on we tend to have a fair balance. In some fields, like science though, there is an awful lot of missing biographies for women which have been reported in the press. Personally I agree with what Eric says about the gender of the writer not mattering in terms of quality of article writing, it doesn't make articles like Blyton or Thatcher any less decent because the writer wasn't female. Where it matters if the editor is female or not is if they're actively addressing systematic bias which the average male might not be aware of and starting articles on traditionally feminine topics like Nursing, Make Up, Fashion etc or making a conscious attempt to improve coverage of female biographies. I think these women editathons are a great thing, although I can't help but raise an eyebrow that some women on here seem to feel like they're hard done by and perceive themselves as any less influential in the project and consensus than male editors. In my experience in general discussion gender is not something I really think about, but ideally of course it would be more ideal if we had a more even balance to ensure that we have as broad and balanced an outlook towards editing and development as possible. To me I must admit that it does not seem like 90% of editors are male. It actually seems to be more 75% male, 25% female, at least in the projects and circles I'm involved in. There seems to be a fairly healthy number of very active female editors. And I could name half a dozen female editors on here who are crucial to the project and have a powerful influence on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of men or women - editors or articles - are not the real problem. "If you feed them, they will come" - and right now WP is a troll's paradise. (either gender, more trolls are male than female, but the female ones make up in nastiness what they lack in numbers) My own observation of systemic bias is not the numbers as the nature. There's a lot of subtle stuff that indicates that certain classes of people are simply irrelevant. Just as an example, the eternal and very harsh battles over the dozens of articles titled "murder of..." or "suicide of..." or "bad thing that happened to ... " , which are quite heavily skewed toward those about women or people who are not straight, white and male. Also, the perpetrator of most of these tragedies often DOES get (usually his) own article, even if also the only thing he is famous for. I have been repeatedly frustrated by the way an article is started and titled with the person's name and then the trolls show up to argue WP:BIO1E and insist that the article be renamed about the incident and not the person - which, to me, misses the point entirely - if someone is not inherently notable enough for a wikipedia article, yet the tragedy was notable, then the biography could be merged into an article about the event, as was done for the victims of Columbine or for Amber Alert. Otherwise, my view is that the person deserves the dignity of an article with just their name; they are not the tragedy. Sadly, I am in the minority on this, at least as far as any time I have gone after these... sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

hominis Oxoniensis

Email me when you get back from holiday, I have a "between you and me" Oxford question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Noms?

HI Bencher, when do we know if you are going to list a date-specific TFAR? Just wondering about the one I have there, a few supports, no opposes, is there a cutoff list for needing a lot of support votes, or do you just make the call if there isn't a lot of traffic? Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Let's start with the obvious point - Oxbow will be TFA on 17th May barring unforeseen issues arising! I don't wait for a set level of supports before scheduling - if I'm scheduling a batch of TFAs and there's something at TFAR with only the nominator's support and no other comments but the article's OK/fits in with recent TFAs/not clashing with a better date-related article at WP:FADC then I'll probably take it. I tend to try and schedule TFAs at least 10-14 days in advance; if it dips below 7 then I have obviously been busy in real life and need to make some WP time! I also schedule in date order, so I won't schedule 17th May until I've chosen 16th May either from TFAR or as a free pick - that helps avoid confusion as to what dates are scheduled/not, what articles are the most recent similar ones, etc; it also reduces the number of edits that I have to make when scheduling; and it is the system that the TFA helperbots (which move-protect the article and notify the principal editors) are based upon. The batch of scheduling that I did before my holiday is slowly ticking down - 14 days of TFAs are scheduled, so (internet connection permitting) I'm hoping to schedule a few days of TFA in the next couple of days as I put some long train journeys to good use... Bencherlite^Talk 06:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I did ask because I ran across a page (possibly a workpage) that had post- May 17 TFA's listed... didn't want to fret.  ;-) Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 07:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you found User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs, which has some "Today's featured list"s after May 17, but I've not made decisions that far ahead - or even for early May! Bencherlite^Talk 09:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 30

Looking at User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs, do you think it's a bad idea to have the Iranian siege and a nuclear weapon as the TFA and POTD, respectively? Especially considering the current political climate... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

<innocent face>What about a sweet picture of a lovely bird instead?</innocent face> I don't think it's a pairing that we need to avoid. I can think of worse pairings, anyway... Bencherlite^Talk 06:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• <innocent face>I do have plenty of video games!</innocent face> True, say "Westboro Baptist Church" and "Vito Russo". Alright, we'll let it be. Maybe the complainers will miss it. Nobody's mentioned how there have been no birds for a month (or the four days in a row in which we had "John" something). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's because it's POTD and nobody remembers to scroll down to look for it. Bencherlite^Talk 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I dunno. Some POTDs get serious viewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 1 2015

Perhaps I should start working on Invisible Rail? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be a redlink, for maximum comedy value? Bencherlite^Talk 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Red is too visible. - Would love to see that bird on the Main page, DYK by the first I missed here, and no end in sight, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• If Jim says he can do it, I have no doubts that he can. It would be nice to have another Indonesia-related April Fools article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've got the book and a year to write it, so why not? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Should be fun. I mean, a species that hasn't been seen in over a decade? (Well duh, it's invisible...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Error on Wilfred

I just posted on the talk page for Saint Wilfred (today's featured article) that giving April 24 equal status to October 12 as this saint's feast day has been incorrect since 1969 in the Roman Catholic church (although local deviations are permitted for such saints removed from the general calendar) and pretty much equally in the Anglican Communion. Today, the Church of England remembers St. Mellitus or the martyrs of the Melanesian brotherhood, and the Episcopal Church in the USA remembers the Armenian genocide.Jweaver28 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Albert Ball

Particularly on behalf of George, tks for scheduling this article, Bench. As promised, I've walked through all the references to confirm relevant URLs are still live and that the formatting is up to par. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it me or is it a bug?

Nominated Cutthroat trout for TFA on June 13. It's on the TFAN page, but not with a link to the subpage. Help?? Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed, by Nikkimaria (to whom my thanks) - it looks as though you put {{Cutthroat trout}} as the article's name, rather than Cutthroat trout, so that messed up the TFAR template... I'll try and tweak the instructions. It was you, in other words... ;-) Bencherlite^Talk 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Brackets? The cut and paste of the lead added weird stuff that I didn't deliberately copy, that must have been where those came from. No worries adn thanks for the help! Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible TFAs

On my talkpage I keep a "List of [my] FAs not scheduled or projected as TFA". You are welcome, any time, to pick one of these as TFA—though I would prefer that you did not choose SY Aurora's drift as I am not too happy with this one. If you notify me in advance, I will happily do the blurb. I was a little surprised to learn from your recent statistical summary that less than half of TFAs are nominated by editors, and that you have to choose the rest. Once again, thanks for the burden of work you have undertaken, which is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, not only for your kind words but your offer. For understandable reasons, not every FA writer is keen to see their work as TFA, so to find such an accomplished and prolific author who not only volunteers his articles but offers to write the blurb too... what more could I ask?! If our paths ever cross, the drinks will be on me. Bencherlite^Talk 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but would it work to let both date specific noms and non-date specific noms be proposed 6-8 weeks out instead of a month out? Thinking about the TFA/R for cutthroat trout, the lead editor is kind of nervous because he's going on a trip during the time it might be TFA, he'd never done a TFA/R before, etc., it's a bit daunting when you don't know how it works, and the window is kind of tight. Just an idea. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A good plan, Montanabw. For FLs we occasionally have a list nominated that is then "found" an anniversary date and will sit in the nom queue for a few months before selection. It's a fairly different selection process, but we've found it useful to be (excessively) flexible with queuing times. - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec - The editor of today's is on a trip and asks nicely to watch, - I replied that we will, as every day.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA

Hi Bencherlite, I just noticed that SMS Emden (1908) has been scheduled for the main page on 30 May - I'd really rather not run the article now. The centenary of the ship's final battle is coming up on 9 November and I'd very much prefer to run it on that day if it's possible - as far as I can tell from the pending page there's no conflict for that date yet.

On a semi-related question - I've been working on SMS Scharnhorst to get it to FA by the centenary of her final battle, which will be 8 December - will that be too close to Emden, being only a month apart? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll rejig the queue. I don't have a problem with two centenary battles a month apart, really. Bencherlite^Talk 13:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. On the basis that one piece of German metalwork looks much like another, I've gone for the Derfflinger-class battlecruiser article instead - a "golden oldie" in comparison to the newer Emden article! Hope this is ok, Parsecboy. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A philistine, I see! After enough of them run across TFA, perhaps you will come to appreciate them like I do ;) I do need to knock some dust off that article, or at least just update the referencing - the Navweap.com citations were fine back in 2008-9 but standards have risen since then, and this is as good a reason to get around to fixing them as any. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For making >1000 edits on this project, and for keeping a professional-looking item on the Main Page from day to day. John (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John, that's a welcome sight! Bencherlite^Talk 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal(ish) advice

Hi Bencherlite, After a hefty re-write, the royal baccarat scandal—or Tranby Croft affair, if you prefer—is up for peer review. Could I ask if you have the time to take a look over to ensure I've not made any major faux pas in terms of the legal terminology? (I'll lay good money that I have erred somewhere!) Many thanks if you have the time. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Bencherlite^Talk 17:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Now, here's a daft idea...

To go through each of the checked articles on my page of FAs suitable for mainspace and see for each one if there's an obvious date for running it. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Would it be a good idea to put {{check mark}} and {{no mark}} next to the quality-assessed ones, so we can see more clearly what's left to do? Then we can get the good ones on the main page (before they go bad again...) either on a non-specific date, or some half-relevant date that presents itself! Bencherlite^Talk 21:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that too. So a date, "n/a" if there's nothing obvious, and a checkmark or just a no mark. I'm not likely to have much time for the next couple of weeks, but someone wise once told me there's no deadline. Feel free to start without me. --Dweller (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DYK

It seems you're one of the only DYK-admins about today. Would you mind moving the next prep area to the queue? I'd do it, but I have an article in that prep area which makes me involved.--v/r - TP 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks as though someone else has beaten me to it, TParis - I'd started checking from the bottom of the set upwards, and tweaked a couple of the articles, but I can now relax! Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention to it anyway and for doing the work to clean up some of the articles. Did you get my email about another article I'm working on?--v/r - TP 21:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. (I don't always reply to WP emails because I can never remember the gmail password even when I'm allowed to log in (which I can't when at work); they bounce from gmail to my work email, so I do read them - but I'd rather not reply to WP emails from work for obvious reasons.) I have the occasional thought for articles that I might choose if TFAR is silent for a particular date, sometimes using WP:FADC and sometimes not, but I've not had any thoughts that far ahead, nor is anything marked at FADC or WP:TFARP as an obvious competitor. So good luck - I've watchlisted the article in question and all being well we can revisit the situation nearer the time. Bencherlite^Talk 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Shuasa

He also made this and this. Could you take care of them (and him) as well?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

FA anniv coming up

Joel Brand - 50th anniv of his death in July. And it's a nicely "different" article. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller. I've left a message for SlimVirgin, as I've tried running that article before, so we'll see what happens! Incidentally, Paul Collingwood is looking a little neglected and I wonder whether it could do with a bit of TLC with a view to a TFA appearance... Bencherlite^Talk 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the answer I received a while ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Shep" will be 40 in May 2016. Worth waiting? Do you have a loooooong list of advance bookings? --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dweller: Not as such - but there are always some articles I'm looking to run sooner rather than later, as it were... Bencherlite^Talk 09:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

19 June?

G'day Bencherlite. If possible (I know it was put up as a non-specific request), it would be great if 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) could run on 19 June (70th anniversaty of its formation). Not a biggie if it can't happen for some reason. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The same thought had occurred to me, as it happened! Bencherlite^Talk 09:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

List of national anthems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Bencherlite, I see that List of national anthems is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 6, 2014. The list does not meet Wikipedia's Featured list criteria, in respect of comprehensiveness, as it does not include all verifiable national anthems; namely Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, the national anthem of Wales. I am considering nominating it as a candidate for removal from Featured Lists. As such, it would be inappropriate to feature on the Main Page until it has been reviewed. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I can see, this is a list of anthems for states, rather than nations, although these are still called "national anthems". As such the list doesn't contain the individual anthems of Wales, Soctland, England or Northern Ireland. These are covered in the list List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case, the title is misleading and the list should be re-named. Daicaregos (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, the common name for such pieces is "national anthems", despite nation states such as the UK being made up of more than one nation or territory. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is commonly known as Wales' "national anthem", which belongs on a List of national anthems. It would not, of course, belong on a "List of anthems for states". Daicaregos (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the piece is the anthem for Wales (and we hvae it on List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories, along with the English, Scottish and Northern Irish anthems). It is not the national anthem of the nation state of the UK, however, which is what this list is, despite your efforts to ensure the opening line the the article remains misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As an additional ps for the future, Bencherlite oversees the TFAs (articles), not lists, which is overseen by user:Giants2008. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Daicaregos (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry Bench - this was an open conversation when I added my final comment, and it was only on saving that I saw your closure: feel free to delete or stike if you feel appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry - I was trying to close it (and show off my limited Welsh!) before Dai acknowledged your PS, but I got e/c'd with him, then didn't want to waste my showing-off so closed it anyway... so it's no big deal. Bencherlite^Talk 11:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Bencherlite for continuing this after archiving. Mae'ch Cymraeg yn dda iawn. Rwy'n deall. Ymddiheuro, ond mae rhaid i fi ateb. Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is verifiably the national anthem of Wales (happy to supply refs). It is not the opening para of the Lead that is misleading, but the list's title. Daicaregos (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page redirect

I was checking for article history errors, and came across this talk page, where someone has messed up the article history. I noticed that you corrected the entry on the WP:FA page to account for the redirect, and wondered if you have the faintest idea how this one should be sorted out. Should that page be redirected? I haven't the foggiest, and most of the people who might spot this and know what to do are inactive; as you fixed the FA redirect before, and seem like you know what you are doing, I thought I'd ask you! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. When articles are moved, talk pages are generally moved automatically as well UNLESS the talk page has more than one history, in which case the unwanted talk page needs to be deleted to allow the "proper" talk page to be moved. You do get a warning if the talk page doesn't move with the article, but people can miss it... this isn't the first one I've had to fix after lots of FA birds articles got moved, so I rather suspect that there are other, non-FA, bird pages out there with "lost" talk pages! Bencherlite^Talk 21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have ...

... a better cite for this article? I am "doing" Benjamin, which has proved an unexpectedly difficult task but it's mostly done now. There's something about the American Civil War which is hard, it's so intensively studied that I feel like I'm walking in a minefield of potential errors.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt Do you want me to pop into my Inn's library and scan a full copy of the review? We don't subscribe to LMCLQ in chambers either in print or electronically. Bencherlite^Talk 08:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, the full text seems to be there. I just mean a better citation, to fill in a cite journal template, this seems to be a commercial site rather than where it was published.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm next in chambers on Tuesday afternoon (it's a bank holiday on Monday) so I'll look then. Bencherlite^Talk 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've got 99 problems....

...but sourcing the 2012 Boat Race isn't one. As discussed, I've added some hopefully useful sources that I found quickly, should we have the energy and fortune to spend some time working on it together... Yours truly, the damned 'Tab. 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've gone all enthusiastic and made a start. I think it'd also be cool if Dweller could pitch in with some lingo if he has the time... definitely an FAC in due course..... Can either of you spot any glaring omissions at the moment, in terms of coverage from beginning to end? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See below. --Dweller (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense to me.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If neither of you have time to help, that's cool, just let me know. I'll struggle on manfully without either of my generals. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry, I set the ball rolling then didn't follow up. I'll see what I can do, although with half-term next week my time will be limited. Again... Bencherlite^Talk 09:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start. I feel it's weak in the "Background" section, any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Hello, Bencherlite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Bencherlite^Talk 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Help!

Sorry to trouble you, but I have come across the article Draft:Gay Barlow which is obviously a hoax, and an embarrassing one. I'm sure you will agree it should be for speedy deletion, but I've looked at the process and, having never been involved in anything like this before, it looks anything but speedy for me to understand what to do. Maybe you know how to speedily set the process in action. It's already had 26 viewings. Can you help? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

{{db-vandalism}} or {{db-attack}} will do. Zapped, anyway. The anonymous editor who created it was using a computer at Queens University Belfast - a good use of revision time... Thanks for dealing with this. Bencherlite^Talk 11:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's great; many thanks. It would have taken me ages to do it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN - Maya Angelou

--Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, me! Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You rock. We're talking about getting a 'bot to do this. Not that many regulars can be bothered to dish these out...! Now then, stop messing about and start reviewing and contributing to the soon-to-be-masterpiece that is The Boat Race 2012...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm great. I just know that I'll forget who I've successfully nominated if I don't do this (I had to hunt in my archives for one of these to see that I nominated Joan Sutherland for ITN back in the day...). Will look at the Boat Race later. Bencherlite^Talk 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Featured content

What do you think of my suggestion here? We could easily get a 30 to 60 item rotation of Featured articles and pictures, and a decent number of FLs which are guaranteed up to date and auto-change that way. Portals and topics would need hand-done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're ready for another coin

Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar is a rattling good story and I could nom it in the any day slot. On another note, I will be in London this week (the first time in three years) and if you are available for coffee or such, I have little planned but the opera Tuesday, King Lear Thursday, and a conspiratorial meeting with a few others, including Brianboulton and Tim Riley, at the British Library Tuesday afternoon. I suspect my schedule is more open than yours. I leave for Dover and a cruise ship Friday morning, the anniversary of D Day, I hope that is not foreshadowing anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Op Perch

Hi, may I suggest that Battle of Villers-Bocage is also protected for 15 June? It is going to be, more than likely, the most visited page of any of the links contained on the Perch page and due to its somewhat controversial nature, vandalized. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc, I've only given Perch the standard TFA move-protection; semi-protection for that or for Villers-Bocage will have to depend on activity on the day. I won't be online that day, so pop by WP:RFPP if there's a problem. Bencherlite^Talk 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Bencherlite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejections of noms

[1] [2] I am rather upset with your quick dismissal and rejection of the two nominations here. See here, in which The Bushranger assured me that there would be "no action on the existing ones, per AGF". As I have promised to stop, having forgotten, could you not demonstrate a simple bit of good faith? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with this part of things. You're not permitted to nominate at DYK, are you? The fact that another admin has decided not to block you after your breach of that topic ban is neither here nor there when it comes to the different question of whether DYK nominations made in breach of your topic ban should be allowed to stand. Bencherlite^Talk 10:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I am also technically banned from mainspacing anything. If one wishes to go by the book hard, then by all means, please delete the articles in question. I deeply apologise for forgetting about and consequently violating the ban. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TFA for Sir George

Watcha, through the misty, red wine-impaired eyes of yesterday's shenanigans, I have, per our chat, listed Sir George here. Is this where he should go, or am I going completely mad? Cassianto^talk 11:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, that's fine. Hic... Bencherlite^Talk 16:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, indeed. Not the sorest head I'm guessing today by far! Cassianto^talk 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Hey man! Would you consider doing a peer review, or giving some feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)? I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article. Thanks for you for your cooperation! URDNEXT (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rik Mayall

Thanks for fixing the protection—could've sworn I chose autoconfirmed, though perhaps I did then used my mouse scroll wheel to move down the page whilst still focused on the dropdown. Either way, thanks for spotting it and putting it right. matt (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, easily done (as I have proved in the past when trying to remove full move-protection and accidentally adding full edit-protection instead!) Bencherlite^Talk 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For you!

	The "How was the play otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln?" Award
	For seeing Our American Cousin, with all that carries with it, including an overlong production, an interminable plot, sudden and loud noises, deadly dull (except when your head's being sho[u]t[ed] off), and a (Samsonian) tendency to bring the house down! But thank you! Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure, Wehwalt. I don't know whether to wish you Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage (Mendelssohn), Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage (Beethoven), or just pleasant weather and a fantastic trip. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is not "Sunrise, Sunset", not terribly relevant at the moment as we are too far north.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Lieder

I like the Lieder on the Main page, thanks for the appropriate scheduling! The bot seems to avoid them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that I shouldn't be the one to add "appeared" to the article history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's what you meant - you were too cryptic before, as I had no idea what bot you meant. Adding "maindate=" to the article history is a minor housekeeping job that anyone can do to help keep everything up to date - your reluctance is misplaced! Bencherlite^Talk 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I managed. - Recent experiences told me to better stay on the cautious side ;) (To be not too cryptic again: I was told that I have to ask permission before improving my own references, and when I asked by what standard a place is a city, I was suspected to have an agenda.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I might be interested in your disagreements over such issues... I have enough to do as it is, and would like to write some articles from time to time! Bencherlite^Talk 13:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)