Jump to content

User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Blurb tweak

FWIW, I tweaked the blurb for this TFA, javascript kid says it's at 1177 characters, hope that is OK. Can't remember who wrote the blurb or how/if it was submitted for TFAR (was it you, me or someone else?), but I saw a couple of things where the nuance would benefit from some minor adjustments. Hope that was OK. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Blame me for the previous blurb... BencherliteTalk 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Not bad for a non-horse aficionado! Glad the tweaks were OK. Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaws

I've reopened the discussion. I don't imagine it will change anything but just wanted to let you know. Feel free to undo me, I honestly (genuinely, 100%) couldn't care less about it, but felt it better to allow the "debate" to continue. I'm sure you understand.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently page views are part of the death criteria - who knew? And if you define his field as "monstrous character actors", then you can find something he was at the top of. That's not a field, that's a back garden.... BencherliteTalk 21:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I know, some "arguments" are beyond incredible. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wording suggestion for tomorrow's TFA

For tomorrow's TFA, I made a wording suggestion (here) which hasn't been responded to and I think may not have been seen yet. I wanted to bring this to your attention before it goes live in a few hours so that it can be fixed. --SkotyWATC 21:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

St John's Church, Manchester

Still not been snapped up...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

25 September TFA

Hey Bencherlite, haven't been in contact with you in a while, I hope you and your family are well!

I'm sorry I've been traveling out of town and really quite busy with stuff in life -- I've been out of touch with Wikipedia for about a month and a half or so.

I noticed you removed my long-term scheduled request for 25 September.

I was wondering if this nomination could still please be considered?

Thank you for your understanding in this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The TFAR "pending" page is not an actual request for a date, nor does inclusion on the list mean that the article will be scheduled. It merely gives notice that the person adding the article is likely to nominate the article for that date in due course, and has the added bonus that I can avoid prematurely scheduling something if I know that someone wants it to run on some particular future date. I'm afraid you can't have 25th September for your article. You didn't nominate it and for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 25, 2014 we have an article marking the 50th anniversary of the start of the Mozambican War of Independence, which is a very strong date relevancy (and much stronger than your suggested date connection). Sorry. BencherliteTalk 06:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I understand, that 50th anniversary is indeed a stronger date relevance, I agree with you. Any suggestions for a different date that might be acceptable under the current parameters? — Cirt (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any particular dates to suggest, so will leave it up to you. Given the potential for disquiet if people feel that a decision is taken on a potentially controversial main-page topic without sufficient warning, then I expect that I'd leave notices about the discussion in the same places as last time (village pump, main page talk, WP:CENT etc) to ensure that all issues are discussed in advance and as broadly based a consensus as possible is formed, in whichever direction. Cheers, BencherliteTalk 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Last time for a similar article there were lots of objections about it being nominated without a relevant date. After some more thought on that point, any ideas on a relevant date? Coming to you first as I wish to defer to your wise advice about relevant date potentials. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I really don't have any suggestions to make about dates. BencherliteTalk 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, totally no worries, I'll think about it some more and if I come up with any potentials I'll run them by you to see what you think. Thanks very much for your responsiveness! :) — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Two possible dates:
  1. 20 November - 20 November 1789 was date of U.S. state to ratify First Amendment to the United States Constitution as part of United States Bill of Rights.
  2. 15 December - 15 December 1791 was date First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted as one of the ten amendments that constitute the United States Bill of Rights.

I checked and there's nothing at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending for 20 November or for 15 December. Do you think it would have a chance if I nominate for 20 November? — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tenuous, very tenuous date link. To mark the Bill of Rights, we'll have a TFA about the word "fuck"? If you don't have a date connection for the book, then perhaps a non-specific date nomination would be the way forward. BencherliteTalk 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The book is also about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "First Amendment" is in the title of the book, itself. If you recall what happened last time, I'd really rather prefer a specific date nomination rather than a non-specific one, please. — Cirt (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, it's your choice. You choose a date, if you want to, or go for a non-specific date if you prefer. You nominate it. Then we'll see what people think. Don't pass the buck to me. I'm not going to get involved on a potentially controversial nomination and then have critics complain that I've prejudged the outcome. I'm not going to tell you what to do here. For the third time, I don't have any suggestions to make to you about dates. Is this clear? BencherliteTalk 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Bencherlite, it seems I came to you for advice but ended up annoying you, I am sorry for that. I must have misinterpreted your words. I would like to nominate for a specific date, which would be my choice, even if you feel it is a tenuous one, is that okay with you? — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
If you have an idea for a date, go for it, and see what people think. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 21:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, thank you. Once again, please accept my apologies if I've offended or annoyed you in any way, it was not my intent. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid TFA (4 Oct)

G'day Bencherlite

Are you able to change the blurb by adding "catalysts," after "biological agents, "? I tried doing this myself but there is some kind of edit block on it. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Unusually for a TFA, the blurb has full protection now, because it's being presented with a series of subpages to enable picture rotation and these subpages wouldn't be covered by the automatic full protection given to the contents of today's and tomorrow's main pages. BencherliteTalk 10:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Topolski

Dude, do you have, or do you know of anyone who may have... their own photos of Senor Topolksi that you/they would be prepared to relinquish to Creative Commons? He's been commonly (forgive the pun) photographed thousands of times, I just need a suitable Dark Blue to just let us use one.... Pretty please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, The Rambling Man, I don't know what to suggest - I was a college boatie but not a university-level boatie, and I don't think any of my college friends are likely sources either. Perhaps contact OUBC through their website? BencherliteTalk 11:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea... but it would have been easier if some nice Wikipedian had a pic of they're own they'd be prepared to donate, makes the paperwork so much easier... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TFAR

Just wanting to know, what is the average time a request is held open before you decide to schedule it? Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As the instructions say, "In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have." You nominated Katy Perry at the first opportunity right after I had scheduled a large batch of TFAs to give me a large breathing space (I normally schedule about 10-14 days ahead but sometimes I have a window of opportunity to schedule more than this and sometimes lack of nominations or time mean that I schedule about a week in advance). I still have 11 more TFAs to schedule before I reach 25th October. Patience, please. There is no problem with the nomination. BencherliteTalk 08:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's all I wanted to know. No rush. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor – Madeline Montalban – Mucho Macho Man... A delightfully alliterative run (and more to come, I see). I wonder how many readers will notice the pattern? We must get @Cassianto: working on Max Miller without delay. Tim riley talk 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

some noticed ;) - nice to meet you again, Tim, after you just passed another GA for GA, starting with M, in style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
My ears are burning... Cassiantotalk 14:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitol Loop

Several of us in the roads project think it is actually kind of tacky to run a TFA (or portal SA) with just the marker image. In the event that you determine a photo is unsuitable, I would actually rather the blurb run without an image than rely on using the marker image. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tacky because - why? Is there a discussion about this I can read? BencherliteTalk 21:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Most of the discussions about it have been had on IRC related to setting up the blurbs on Portal:U.S. Roads and the various subportals like Portal:Michigan Highways. In short, many of us feel it is just a poor practice to default to the marker when there are photos in the article. The marker may serve as identification for the roadway, but it doesn't really capture anything about the road's character or setting. A suitable photo will do that. However, I'm aware of no rule that requires us to place an image in the blurb, and running the marker feels like a cop out to satisfy some desire to always have an illustration. Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it's taken nearly two years of me scheduling TFAs for this to emerge as an issue, but there we are. In my view, there are no images in the Capitol Loop article that serve as a good illustration of the road when used at main page size (100px portrait or 133px landscape). The image that was suggested was captioned "A reassurance marker for the Capitol Loop at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Cedar Street in Lansing". In fact, you cannot see the reassurance marker unless you click on the photograph, and I've always taken the view that the main page image should be good enough to be distinctive and illustrative of the blurb without having to click on it. And when you click on the image, you see the Capitol Loop route marker that's currently being used in the TFA blurb, set on a lamppost with a host of other signs. You don't see much of the road at all - you see more of the pavement, in fact. I don't particularly see the point of having an image that poorly illustrates the point that it's trying to make even when you click on it when - for main page purposes only - one can use an image that more directly represents the Capitol Loop. At the end of the day the choice of image is my responsibility based on my judgment, through experience, of what works well on the main page. I won't pretend I always get it right, but I think it is far better to run with a route marker if there is no decent shot of the road than to run with no image at all. I'd agree that there is no rule that we have to have an image with the TFA blurb but if you want to go down that route there is in fact no rule that says we have to have a TFA at all - it's simply custom and practice. Road articles are difficult to illustrate on the main page because image size limitations mean that there are sometimes no usable images. But I do use photos of the road whenever I can, and I agree that route markers are less preferable than images of the road, provided that the images of the road will work on the main page. What I don't agree is that the choice is simply one between having an image of the road, however ineffective it is at getting its point across on the main page, or having no image at all. It may interest you to know that I've only had to resort to a route market in 4 out of the last 10 road TFAs:
Hope this helps explain my position. BencherliteTalk 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, what about a photo of the state capitol itself, since that's the focus of the loop through Lansing, to connect that to the freeway? Imzadi 1979 → 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
Yes, that one works nicely - it wasn't in the article so I didn't know about it. I've boosted the image size to allow for the orientation. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Amusing article alliteration

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs

This seems like more than simple coincidence. :) I see the pattern breaks after that, though. :( IRW0 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It was something I had been planning for some time - I was just waiting an appropriately clear sequence of dates, and the nomination for Metalloid fitted in nicely with my evil schemes plans. Hope you enjoyed it. It also shows off a range of TFA topics without duplication - a racehorse, a TV series, a book, a bird, an album, etc. BencherliteTalk 09:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I liked the variety. And the alliteration was quite amusing. Careful though—if we don't get enough TFAs about video games and storms and other supposedly over-represented subjects, people won't have anything to complain about! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I liked it, also Mucho Macho Man vs. women Montalban, "Mom and me", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GlobalsDB

I have just noted, that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalsDB was deleted. --Marquis4057 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And...? BencherliteTalk 05:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Old FAs reviewed for MP

I've done a few more, mate --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As well as someone who can handle reviewing storm articles, any chance of finding someone who'll do TV shows/movies/books - I'm just not sure how to handle the unreferenced screeds one often finds for plot sections, etc. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Plot sections are never sourced, the source is the TV show/movie/book itself. Eric Corbett 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Eric. I thought that might be the case, and then I thought we probably use secondary sources' summaries, as surely we must flirt with OR/POV/PEACOCK issues... how's that addressed? --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See WP:FILMPLOT for the guidelines. The plots should be a straight reportage of the events without analysis or evaluation. OR/POV/PEACOCK tends to be spotted through the language used, so it's a question of checking for red flags on the language used ("allegedly he..."' "He must have...", etc). - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unintended thanks

In case you wonder why I thanked you for that edit ... I didn't mean to. Bad design of mobile interface leaves the "Thank" button very vulnerable to accidental click, and there's no confirmation step. Sorry for any confusion caused by dropping my phone. (And couldn't edit this talk page from the mobile interface either, hence delay) PamD 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm far more puzzled by the dozens of random "thanks" I get from new editors thanking me for my edit to the Main Page - I seem to be an obvious recipient for testing the "thank" button! BencherliteTalk 09:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Chadwick

The image is local (though it should probably be moved to Commons). I've protected it anyway and added it to the blurb; it just didn't need Commons admin powers this time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, adding a local image to the main page gives it local cascading protection so specific local file protection is not required - if I'd realized that it wasn't on Commons, I'd never have bothered you! Thanks. And thanks, BTW, for that good idea about the DYKBot alerting people to unprotected DYK images - I'll see about getting a similar alert for TFAs. BencherliteTalk 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Btw, I've transferred the image to Commons and protected it there since it's PD-USGov. You know where I am if you need a Commons admin again. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Marvellous. BencherliteTalk 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gather you are aware ...

Of Mr. Whitlam's passing (the man who lasted the longest who I've written on, he made it three months past Ezra Meeker).. I have not yet read of a funeral date but I'd like to see either his article run if you are minded to, or else 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and given the time zone, there's probably room for flexibility by a day. Alternatively, 1975 could run perhaps on 11 November, date of the famous incident. For your consideration, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The BBC says that the family have said that there will be a private cremation with a public memorial service - perhaps 1975 on the day of the memorial service, whenever that is? Or is that unduly negative? I'm reluctant to bump the current TFA request for 11th November (Goodbyeee). Do you want to see what people think at WT:TFAR? BencherliteTalk 08:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Bencherlite:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you. I suspect my kids will enjoy it more than I will... bah humbug etc... BencherliteTalk 22:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That wouldn't surprise me :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl Hans Lody

Hi Bencherlite, the FAC for Carl Hans Lody is nearly done - I expect it to be concluded within the next 24 hours. How are we doing for 6 November, the centenary date? Prioryman (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Good work. There's a non-date-critical article scheduled, so it's no problem to shift that. If you could knock out a first draft of a blurb in TFA style (max 1,200 characters including spaces) when it's promoted, that'd be great (and will save me some time!) - just drop it here, no need to run up a full TFAR nomination in the circumstances. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, how does the following (1197 chars) look to you? Prioryman (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Carl Hans Lody

Carl Hans Lody (1877–1914) was a reserve officer of the Imperial German Navy who spied in the United Kingdom at the start of the First World War. While he was working for a shipping line, German Naval Intelligence asked him to work for them as a spy. He agreed and went to Edinburgh shortly after the outbreak of war, posing as an American tourist on his way back from Europe and sending intelligence on British naval movements and coastal defences. He was detected almost immediately by the British authorities, as he had sent his communications in plain English and German to a known German address in Sweden. After coming under suspicion, he travelled to Ireland in an attempt to go into hiding but was caught. He was tried in a two-day court martial held in London. Lody made no attempt to evade his guilt, declaring that he had acted out of patriotic motives. His courage on the witness stand attracted admiration in both Britain and Germany. He was sentenced to death by firing squad and on 6 November 1914 became the first person in nearly 170 years to be executed at the Tower of London. Under the Nazi regime 20 years later, he was acclaimed as a German national hero. (Full article...)

OK, I'll sort something out later. BencherliteTalk 11:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And done. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

More holiday business: heads up

Hi Bencherlite, I've worked up Nativity (Christus) and brought it to FAC in the nick of time, hoping it'll get through quickly, so as to make Christmas scheduling easy for you. And to be honest, it was means of thanking you for being thoughtful in regards to scheduling TFAs. I had meant to go way out of my comfort zone and even submit to TFAR. As it happens, it's been picked up for POTD as well, so I'll let you all duke it out, in terms of who runs it this year. If not TFA, then you'll have one in the bag for next year. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, you are of course as wonderful and fantastic as always. I had spotted the FAC and was delighted. Good luck. And thank you especially for your kind words, which are much appreciated, particularly at present. BencherliteTalk 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(after e/c) And now, Victoria, you have Crisco and me fighting over you... BencherliteTalk 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I'd like to see it go this year (if it gets through in time) to avoid the perennial "what shall we run for Christmas" conversation. At least that was the intention. Victoria (tk) 01:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice about TFAR

Bencherlite, would it be alright for me to give a brief matter-of-fact-worded notification to all those that participated at the prior nomination Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), about the discussion Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties?

Would that be okay if I notified all the participants and kept it to a very brief message?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a very bad idea. The people in that discussion, one assumes, saw it either because they were TFAR regulars or because they saw one of the notices at T:MP, Village Pump, etc. As you have left notices in the same place (thanks for that, by the way) the chances are that people who are interested in such things will learn about this one as well, so such notifications are unnecessary. Furthermore, as the previous discussion ended about 2:1 in favour of running the article, notifying (however neutrally) a group that would be expected to have twice as many supporters as opposers of this new nomination would not in fact be a neutral action, and risks being seen (by me and others) as effectively soliciting supporters. Hope this makes sense. BencherliteTalk 11:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll respectfully defer to your above judgement. And you're welcome about the notifications to those places you mentioned, I modeled it after the way you did it for the prior one. Let me know if you think of any other sort of central type notification places. — Cirt (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Bencherlite, another related query: The prior discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) ran for 12 days -- any idea how long this discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties will go for? Will it be open at least that long? Just trying to get a general idea of a sense of time here. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I almost always schedule as and when I need to, in sequence, rather than scheduling days out of turn. There are still 28 days that have yet to be scheduled before we reach the TFA for 15th December. Closing that discussion isn't high on my "to do list" at the moment. BencherliteTalk 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: (1) I've changed the blurb text per helpful suggestions from Imzadi1979, so there is only one mention of the word itself in the blurb. (2) I've also specified that per the last TFA for a similar article and the example from some secondary sources, in subsequent days for other TFAs, this article may be linked via its subtitle, like simply Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, without mentioning the first word of the book title, itself (example The Washington Post). Please see my reply to Imzadi1979 at diff. I hope that's helpful to you, — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added one word back, per comment from David Levy, I feel that two instances of one word in the blurb as written is done in an encyclopedic manner. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Carrite comments

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.

  1. By hatting my note, you are shielding others from viewing what Carrite did at the last time at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).
  2. So not only are you not taking any actions with regard to his violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but you're also hiding my DIFF of his comment from last time, on top of that.
  3. If you say you've been criticized for taking admin action against TFA contributors, that's one thing, but why hide my note about his comment from last time?

Confused: Bencherlite, I want to defer to your actions and judgment at TFAR, but I'm really confused here, because I myself don't think I could personally get away with making comments like that on Wikipedia without any consequences whatsoever.

— Cirt (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling up his comments from months ago again, and again, is just... unnecessary and ill-advised. Now go to ANI if you want, but I do not have time today to deal with this, as I have already told you. And I've only hatted, not deleted the comments - and the comments are fully visible at the last discussion, which has been linked 10 times already at least. I've asked people to help not increase the length of the discussion unnecessarily - that goes for you too, Cirt. BencherliteTalk 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying my best to reply as minimally as possible. But it is quite difficult under the circumstances when individuals such as above focus on the contributor as opposed to the content. I don't think I've "called up his comments again and again" it was just the one cite of his DIFF. I don't see why that needs to be hidden from view. It seems like protecting him and therefore enabling or even rewarding such behavior. Which is quite confusing, Bencherlite, because I don't think I could get away with calling someone that, do you? — Cirt (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You quoted his comment, then when I hatted it, you decided you would place his comment above the hat without asking me first, clearly thinking that you knew better than I did. It was unnecessary to mention his previous comment to start with, let alone contest my attempt to de-escalate matters in the way that I did. In any event, which part of "I do not have time today to deal with this" is unclear? Sorry, Cirt, but this whole nomination, let alone your dispute with Carrite, is so far down the list of priorities in my life at the moment that it's not even funny. If you want uninvolved admins to look at it, you know where to go. I do not want my involvement at TFAR or my limited WP time to be side-tracked by this. I am archiving this discussion now to help you get the message. BencherliteTalk 17:55, 3 November 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.

You're right

My apologies, Bencherlite, I've thought about it some more and read your comment and you're right. I guess it was a re-post for me to move my comment above your hatted version, and I'm sorry about that.

You do a great job as TFAR director and I'll try my best to defer to your judgment.

I hope you understand it's not the most pleasant experience to go through sometimes for the TFAR nominator, to successfully get through FAC and have the article promoted to WP:FA and then have users make comments like those, focusing on the contributor.

I guess having the fortitude to not respond to comments like that, is not always easiest in practice.

I hope you can understand it's a bit of a stressful time for me.

— Cirt (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, I've supported you when you've needed to be supported and appreciate all the good work you do. But I call them like I see them, and you yourself need to "assume good faith" that that is what I'm doing rather than "focusing on the contributor." There is a difference between "troll" as a descriptive adjective of an internet action and "troll" as a noun as a characterization of an individual. YOU are not "a troll," just so that we are clear. All the best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Carrite, I greatly appreciate that. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand this.

How come you can refocus the debate by asking how a featured picture discussion is relevant, but I cannot ask how a featured article discussion is relevant?

— Cirt (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Entire section removed ? I really am confused. I don't understand here. Can you please remove the the bit about the featured picture comparison? — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because the POTD discussion was more recently than the film discussion, and not back in 2012. Because the fact that something was done in 2012 for a very different article does not mean that the same result has to follow in 2014. And because when you start saying things like "I'd like to hear thoughts from people on comparisons [etc]", you've lost sight of the purpose of this page. SchroCat gave you some good advice. Why not unwatch the page for 48 hours or more and find something relaxing to do? And the answer to your question is - no, I will not remove the POTD section. BencherliteTalk 00:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Bencherlite, you said you wanted comparisons to the picture. A picture is not an article. They are two different things. By doing that you refocused and shifted the tone of the debate to be about something else that was rejected from the Main Page. Don't you see how that could be viewed as odd from the person judging the debate itself? Why can you add a request for comparison about a picture, but I cannot about an article? How does that make sense? I really am confused. Please, Bencherlite, please help me understand. — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I wanted to know whether people thought there were any points in the POTD discussion worth noting, seeing as that was (a) well-attended (b) more recent that the film TFAR and (c) reached a consensus against. I wasn't saying that there is anything in that discussion that helps determine the TFAR issue in either direction. I didn't participate in that discussion, although I was aware of its existence, and I didn't / don't have the time to go through and work out whether there are lessons to be learned for or against. I wanted to be informed by participants, lest we have a situation where it looked as thought the right and left hands of Wikipedia didn't know what the other was doing. I am not going to be helped by a brief discussion from 2012 about a different type of issue, or a sub-thread about whether the 2012 article was a good idea or not because it is entirely possible and respectable for someone to think that the 2012 was a good idea but the 2014 was not, or that the 2012 article was a bad idea but the 2014 is not, or that both are good, or both are bad. It would advance the actual discussion no further. The sub-thread would be a complete waste of bandwidth and my reading time. This is not a complete meta-discussion/free-for-all on the rights and wrongs of Wikipedia over the years. BencherliteTalk 00:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

May I ask your permission please

Bencherlite, you said before removing my comments that I had referenced a prior TFA that was too old, from 2012.

May I please make similar comments referencing a more recent TFA from 2014 about a murder, specifically TFA blurb on the article, Murder of Joanna Yeates ?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Enough with the comparisons. A blurb about a murder with no sensational words (let alone swearing) is not going to inform the debate about this book. And why on earth did you feel it necessary to wikilink the word "murder" - were you in any doubt that I would know what it meant? BencherliteTalk 00:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I don't have much choice in the matter or further alternatives so alright. But you don't think it's a worthwhile question to ask Wikipedians why murder is okay on the Main Page but some may feel word taboo is not? — Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No - not at that discussion page. If you want to have a 17,000+ word discussion on the topic of main page appropriate content in general terms, please find somewhere else for that. BencherliteTalk 01:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I think it's a fascinating debate, both on Wikipedia and in society. I'm not sure if we have a Wikipedia article making those sorts of comparisons, but here are a couple that show what I mean: Sexual content vs. Violent content in movie ratings and Sex and Violence: American vs. International Media. It seems that lately Wikipedia has higher tolerance for murder on the Main Page than word taboo, but I guess we'll see. That's one of the things that has me very confused lately about this whole discussion, and even what is or is not allowed to be said at the discussion. You see? — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
And by "somewhere else", I didn't mean my talk page. Good night, Cirt. BencherliteTalk 01:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, no worries, sorry about that. Good night to you too. — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A beer!

For the "poor wretch." Let the hoppy goodness determine consensus. NeilN talk to me 20:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
And the answer is... pumpkin beer (not that the pumpkin taste was particularly noticeable in last night's beer, but perhaps I wasn't trying hard enough). Thank you. BencherliteTalk 08:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
May I add here, to pumpkin taste? You broke the rules to honour a person, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce blurb

Hi Bencherlite, thanks for moderating TFA; that sounds like a big job. I notice the blurb for the Franklin Pierce article for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 23, 2014 is the version before I made an edit to it. I had tried to help by raising the character count of the blurb. Was my edit bad? Prhartcom (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I often play around with blurbs, no matter who wrote them! And I started from your version, not the version before. But, for example, I changed "brigadier general in the Army" to "brigadier general" (saves space, eliminates unnecessary detail), and changed "before his election as a compromise candidate for president" to "before becoming the Democrats' compromise candidate in the 1852 presidential election", thus getting in a link to the 1852 election article". Some other space-saving edits allowed me to work in a reference to his family, and so on. Thanks for your help. BencherliteTalk 09:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, in fact I gratefully remember you once made a blurb of mine better by parenthetically explaining the image I supplied! I see you are right; this blurb is as you said; I was wrong; thank-you for explaining. I see you even mentioned the president's wife, which I had considered also; that looks good. Only one change of yours made the impact worse, not better, in my opinion; the former sentence was: "Although he fully expected to be renominated by the Democrats, he was not supported by his party for re-election" instead of just tacking on "and the Democrats did not support his bid to be re-elected" to an unrelated sentence. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bencherlite/Archive_27&oldid=1140779068"