User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

In the future

In the future if it is alright with you I will first run my potential TFAR noms by you before bringing them to WP:TFAR, because all the rules and points are so confusing and I seem to always mess things up royally when I try to do it on my own at that page.

Hopefully you can help me have a smoother and more enjoyable time of it, while maybe hopefully abiding by the rules and regulations a bit easier.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can think of ways that the rules or points can be simplified, then do say. The list of under-represented FA categories is given at TFAR itself (note 5); if you're not sure when the last similar article is, a quick hunt through a few recent TFA monthly archives e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2014 will help (or check User:Bencherlite/TFA_notepad#Going_just_by_the_numbers... / User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad 2013, or ask me). But the Afroyim blurb is fine, for example (although I might look for a better image) - I don't think you need to run things past me first but you're of course welcome to do so. Bencherlite^Talk 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay fine. It just seems the process and rule and regulations and laws at WP:TFAR seem very very very difficult for me. I always seem to be pissing you off about doing it wrong. Like the time I had to nominate Lisa the Skeptic over 9,000 times because something I was doing each time was against the rules or regulations or point 17a of paragraph C of subsection 4. I am really trying here. Please, please see how I moved the TFAR nom for Afroyim v. Rusk once another date was suggested to abide and go along with everyone and try to please everyone without pissing you off or anyone else off and causing a ruckus for suggesting the wrong thing. I really am trying to do it correctly. I want to do this in the best way possible to be conducive to not annoying you. It just seems difficult sometimes for me to do that successfully. :( — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not annoyed with you for your edits at TFAR. I can't remember exactly what happened with Lisa but now you mention that article I think there was some juggling around to try and keep it and another TV episode a "safe" distance apart - in any case, I've forgotten all the details and I'm not going to search through the edit history to find them. I've already said that moving Afroyim to 20th Feb is a good idea, so thank you again for that. Bencherlite^Talk 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much for your understanding. I'm sorry for the confusion and controversy. I really want to work with you in the future in the best way within any guidance or advice you may have for me! :) — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for TFAR, go check out Wikipedia:QAI/TFA - a whole pile of already-prepped TFAs waiting for just the right moment! (Some are being held for specific dates, but we have a handy chart to check that, too.) For more ideas, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement#TFAR - not pre-prepped, but FAs that haven't been TFAs Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, those are most helpful links! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello; sorry if this seems rather frivolous, but would you be willing to reschedule Perseus (constellation)'s TFA for a weekday? Currently it's on Sunday, February 9. If it's too much trouble, then it's totally fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Operation Kita

Can we drop the supplies of from second sentence in the blurb for TDA for Operation Kita...having the word supplies twice in same sentence is redundant. I was in the middle of commenting but you archived the discussion...no worries as the discussion had been up awhile.--MONGO 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point well made, done. Bencherlite^Talk 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do for TDA and elsewhere...--MONGO 01:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of TFAR nominations by nominator at one time?

I looked but couldn't find it, must've been right in front of my nose. :P

What is the total number of WP:TFAR nominations one nominator is allowed to have up at one time?

Thank you for your help,

— Cirt (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No limit (there used to be a max of one, but I removed it a while ago as part of a streamlining experiment), but I'm not sure about having Thaddeus Stevens in such close proximity to Mark Hanna, particularly with Afroyim in the middle - a lot of US politics in a very short space of time, perhaps. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so when would be the earliest I could nominate Thaddeus Stevens for? — Cirt (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When's the best date (if there is one), rather than the earliest, surely? Perhaps Wehwalt as the principal author has some ideas - you might ask him. Bencherlite^Talk 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I went and asked Wehwalt. But I still would like to know what would be the earliest I could nominate Thaddeus Stevens for a nonspecific date to your satisfaction without engendering negative point evaluations and/or negative criticisms. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think Mark Hanna (another 19th-century American politician) on Feb 15 would count as a similar article so that would give a 3-point penalty until March 1, and a 2-point penalty until March 15. I note that Mitt Romney is now nominated for March 12, his birthday, although there's obviously more of a difference between Romney and Stevens than there is between Hanna and Stevens. Stevens would gain a point for birthday if nominated for April 4 but otherwise I can't see any points to put on the positive side of the equation until then. Articles can run with low/negative points as the points metric is a guideline towards achieving TFA balance over time, not an unbreakable rule, but subject to any thoughts that Wehwalt has (to whose views on points I traditionally defer) or comments of others at TFAR, the options would seem to be either to run it on April 4 or to run it in early March, equidistant-ish between Hanna and Romney. Does this help? Bencherlite^Talk 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that helps a lot, thank you! I moved it to 4 April 2014, at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misclick

Thanks for correcting my error. (I tried to to it myself, but you beat me to it.) —David Levy 16:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we both misclicked when moving things back and each came up with new and exciting hybrid namespaces as we did so! All sorted now, thanks for your help, great minds think alike etc. Bencherlite^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that when I looked at our contribution histories and found that the trail of moves was even more confusing than expected. Thanks again for getting it straightened out.  :-) —David Levy 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Going forward

Going forward, please try to "let" bad proposal fail of their own accord. Twice now, on two separate proposals, you've controversially edited the proposal text of proposals you oppose.

No hard feelings, everything worked out. But going forward, I sincerely would encourage you to adopt a more hands-off attitude. RFCs are for finding out what the community thinks, not about trying to convince them to think a certain way. Sit back and watch-- bad proposals will fail of their own accord, every time-- without your intervention; and with a lot less drama too!  :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh? I add two links (no commentary, no attempt to tell people what to think, no !vote) to the RFC (The Day We Fight Back and WP:Surveillance awareness day) and that's "controversial editing"? Er, no. I find it highly amusing that you think you can tell me that RFCs are for finding out what the community thinks when you removed the RFC discussion from the village pump after only one person had commented! Bad proposals don't just fail of their own accord - people have to point out that they are bad, otherwise there is a risk that they take on a life of their own.

Please explain what you are doing with User:HectorMoffet/likelyunneededinfo, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Film TFA query

I'd like to nominate to WP:TFAR an FA article about a film which educates viewers about freedom of speech and censorship.

Do you know when the next date would be where such an article would have positive points at WP:TFAR?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming I'm correctly guessing what the F*** you're talking about, as it were, it has no points for nominator history, importance, date relevance (at the moment), age (at the moment) or diversity. It would only gain a point if (a) we went for more than 3 months after February 8 without a film article [but it would not suffer a points penalty if more than 1 month had elapsed since the last film article]; (b) it was nominated for November 7, 2014 (release date, 1 point) or November 7, 2015 (2 points); (c) it was nominated after November 22, 2014 (age, 1 point). In other words, it will have negative points until March 8 (or correspondingly later if/when further film articles are scheduled), thereafter zero points, and it will not have any points on the positive side of the equation until Nov 7, 2014, at the earliest (although, as I said before, points are not the be-all and end-all). HTH. Bencherlite^Talk 17:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like very much for it to get to the Main Page before then, if at all possible. What date would you suggest for it to be considered? — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest specific dates, because it seems as though there are no directly relevant/appropriate dates at present and so there's no point in me or you putting it forward at TFAR for an arbitrary date in February/March/April/whenever. If you want it on any available date, then there are four non-specific date slots at WP:TFAR for that purpose to use as and when you want, although as noted it will suffer a points penalty until March 8th is scheduled (or later, if another film article runs in the meantime - and both Sholay and Dredd were recent unsuccessful film nominations, Sholay for the second time, so either or both might be renominated in due course). Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So what method is there, for me to both adhere to your advice and wait until after March 8, and also make sure to somehow not have another film article appear in between, so as to knock this candidate out of the running? — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about scheduling for March 8 onwards (not nominating on March 8), which will probably be in mid-February, a couple of weeks or so in advance of that date (we're scheduled up to Feb 15th I think at the moment, so 20 days ahead at present after a batch of scheduling last night). There is nothing to stop you putting up your nomination at whatever point you like, noting if you want that it would have a points penalty if scheduled before March 8; and if another film article is nominated in the meantime, you can nominate yours as well, on the basis that it might well be that people didn't want two films to appear close together. I can't prevent people nominating other articles that might compete with something you want to run, in the same way that I can't stop you from nominating something that might compete with something that someone else wants to run. But if your article ends up at TFAR at some point, with or without other similar/competing nominations, then we will see what people think. Bencherlite^Talk 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I really do appreciate these thoughtful explanations. How about 10 March? That's the anniversary of the screening at South by Southwest. Could we get one measly itsy bitsy point for that? :) — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Would that date be satisfactory to you, Bencherlite? I appreciate your advice, — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to reply to your previous message after reading it. I don't think it should get a point for the anniversary of its second showing. The first showing is the important one. But nominate it for whatever date you think fit (or for a non-specific date) and we'll see what people think. Bencherlite^Talk 08:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

But at the very least it won't have negative points for that day? — Cirt (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like zero points for that date at present. Bencherlite^Talk 13:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. And when would be the earliest it could be nominated? — Cirt (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anytime from now onwards (anything up to March 23 can be nominated at the moment). Bencherlite^Talk 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, you mentioned above I could put it up for a non-specific date -- would that then not have negative points as it wouldn't technically apply to a specific date, rather deferring to whatever date you would then choose? — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You can just say that it would be -1 before 8th March and 0 points from 8th March. Bencherlite^Talk 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about IP address comments at TFAR

Is this DIFF okay at WP:TFAR?

Or should it be moved somewhere else, like the talk page?

I'll defer to your judgment,

— Cirt (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's OK. I will give it - and some of the support comments - the weight that they deserve. Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Potentially selfish TFA request?

Hi, I was just informed on my talk page that one of my featured articles is going to be on the main page on February 19th. I don't know if there's any significance to the placement of Brabham BT19 on Feb 17, but it would be super cool if that and Cave Story could be swapped so my TFA could fall on my birthday (2/17). If there's a specific reason for the 2/17 placement (I can't really tell from the article and I couldn't find a TFA request) or if that's too against protocol, that's totally fine, not a big deal. Just thought that since it was so close anyway, I might as well ask. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Got slightly distracted at the end of last week by the fun and games at TFAR... Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

With that in mind, can something please be done about this violation of WP:NPA?

"Blatantly obvious troll."

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: And again at diff. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update:

And see this analysis by ColonelHenry:

"I think calling a long-time contributor on free speech issues, and a frequent participant here at TFA/R a "troll" is a needless personal attack."

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm not going to be online at Sunday 4am UK time. If you want something done urgently about someone's comments, go to ANI. Nor am I here to police Jimbo Wales's user talk page - I'm sure that's watched by many admins, and none of them seem to think it worth taking action about as far as I can see. I've left him a polite note but I'm not sure if there's anything else I can do at this stage - as you have already noticed, there are others who have already stuck up for you in that debate. Best for you just to move along rather than carry on that particular argument with him, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problems, I wasn't expecting you to be or not be. :) But yes, I agree with your assessment and I am quite touched and moved that others have stuck up for me in that debate! I will do my best to keep my head above the fray as much as possible. How long will you let the discussion run for? — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

While the discussion is still progressing, there's no particular rush for me to jump in and make a decision. And whatever I decide might well be an unpopular decision, so I'm in no rush for that either! In any case, it's not much more than 26 hours since it was added to T:CENT so there are probably still people out there who might like to make a comment but who either haven't seen the notifications yet or who are still reading the discussion and working out what to say. Bencherlite^Talk 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and that's a good explanation, I guess I was more wondering about a general ballpark timeline. What is the average length of time for these discussions? Is it similar to that for AFDs and RFAs? — Cirt (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an exceptional discussion for TFAR - the History of Gibraltar nomination ran for a week before I'd seen enough, and that had 35 people or so comment. This nomination has had 57 votes in 4.5 days - another nine, 5:4, came in overnight - so I don't see it being a 7-day discussion. Beyond that, I'll just have to see how long the nomination attracts new comments and thoughts. Bencherlite^Talk 09:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, Bencherlite, thanks for the response. It is a most fascinating discussion about freedom of speech and censorship, in its own right, regardless of the outcome. — Cirt (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't envy you the closing of this, Bencherlite. How about a nice video game instead? Those are relaxing. And will start popping up on POTD soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  I commented early and short. For a video game, how about Duck Attack!? (25k+ hits for my homage on the German Main page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I know what - why don't you run pictures of birds at POTD instead? Everybody loves a pretty bird. Bencherlite^Talk 09:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Shoi. Give me a boid like Jenna Jameson, and I'll schedule it forthwith... or should we wait for the merkin to run first? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, Jenna turns 40 in a couple of months... Bencherlite^Talk 09:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Now that'll be interesting (I actually have Merkin scheduled for her birthday). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your knowledge and helpfulness in technical and impossible coding dilemmas. Much appreciation! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck updates

1. I responded to your helpful suggestions at Talk:Fuck (film), thank you.
2. Per some comments by editors at WP:TFAR, I've changed the blurb image from the prior cartoon by Bill Plympton to instead be File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, as was recommended by a couple folks in the discussion.
3. I hope this helps address some of the issues raised there in a satisfactory manner.

Thanks for your attention, — Cirt (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Interestingly it looks like at least one editor has changed from Oppose to Support after my changes, as noted, above. So I'm glad I made them! :) Whaddya know, several recommendations for quality improvement from the community have proven to be most helpful! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Any chance the Fuck nomination is drawing to a close (I really hope it runs)...I'd like to put TFA/R back on my watchlist when it's back down to 5-10 edits a day...its 120 updates a day happened to overwhelm my ability to watch the articles I need to watch. :)--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, well, of course I certainly agree with above comments by ColonelHenry! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bencherlite, I wouldn't be averse to it appearing on a date over a weekend, if that helps your thought process. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI heads up

Please see diff.

I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.

I tried! :)

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied to your FLC comments

Thank you for participating in the FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

I agreed with your helpful suggestions, and so I've directly implemented them on the page.

I noted as such back at the FLC discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

I see that I had successfully responded to comments at that same discussion by DragonZero, who changed his position to "Tentative Support" (diff), contingent upon your response to my response to your suggestions. :)

I think the list page looks much better now, thanks to your helpful recommendations.

Perhaps you could have another look?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I've asked DragonZero instead to look over my responses to your helpful suggestions and see if my actions are satisfactory. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck

Seems the TFA/R discussion was longer than the article...by a factor of just over two.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The TFAR discussion also used the f-word almost exactly as many times as the article (excluding references etc). Not sure what that tells us either... Bencherlite^Talk 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the TFAR discussion used the f-bomb just about as many times as The Wolf of Wall Street...obscenity is the crutch of an inarticulate asshole, and ever-incorrigible wikipedians have a fuckin' problem. ;)--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm responsible for about 50 of them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Bencherlite, for your most detailed and well-written closing statement. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFAR blurb length

Re: "total length of blurb when previewed (including spaces) as close as possible to 1,200 characters maximum." I added 550 words, so is this inaccurate? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Nevermind. I see now that its characters, but how do I count them? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy the on-screen display (not the wiki-code) and paste it into a word-processing program that has a tool allowing you to count words/characters. In my copy of MS Word, for example, it's the "word count" button on the "review bar". Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the blurb look OK now? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I'm a PITA sometimes....

May I suggest that Jersey Act and Norman conquest of England run at some point? (For that matter, I really should get off my behind on Epikleros...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but who are you and what have you done to the real Ealdgyth...? Bencherlite^Talk 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Would the real Ealdgyth use "PITA" or "LOL"? Any particular dates in mind for the NC article? Bencherlite^Talk 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

None, actually. I was just yanking your chain. You might note what all three of those articles share (or a lack they share...) ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "fuck"? I bet there was a lot of swearing during the Norman Conquest... "Oh fuck, there's an arrow coming towards my eye!" "That's not an arrow, that's a collapsed infobox!" [etc] Bencherlite^Talk 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I never thought to use infoboxen as projectile weapons... (And I have to say .. I'm glad Middle Ages has already been on the main page - it's been interesting on the talk page for the last few months. I'm about to start revamping Protestant Reformation for the Core Contest - I gotta be insane.... or maybe space aliens invaded my brain?) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you cover the Bulgarian angle. Bencherlite^Talk 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd only take me 10 or so hours to get to London... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do - I suspect you'd get on very well with my medieval historian wife! It's been a while since academic conferences have taken us to the US, but hopefully we can find an excuse in a few years when the boys are bigger. Bencherlite^Talk 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFA blurb text

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/March_1,_2014#TFA_blurb_text.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave an example of a minor copy edit here, I'd like to discuss other changes at the TFA talk page, please? :) — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Bencherlite, I replied to your email. — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That really wasn't trying to be disruptive

My last edit [1] really was a good faith attempt to improve the template. At least two people have failed to read the instructions properly, myself being one of them, and both of us wound up resigning over it.

It's your page. if you didn't find the edit helpful, of course you should revert it. But going forward, you're going to want to think about how to make those instructions clearer to outsiders. Going forward, you're going to want to think about a lot of things, I expect, with all that's been put on your shoulders in the last year since raul's job fell to you. A lot of people say some horrible thing about you, Bench, but nobody doubts you carry a job that takes a LOT out of a person. I don't know much about anything, but I know the attrition rate for coordinators is pretty hellish and you outlasted them all, so probs to you for that. Your friend Four Tildes HectorMoffet (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough:

1. There are scores of people with many more edits to the TFA page than you, and I've never heard one of them say "Do you know what would make the instructions clearer? Putting Bencherlite's role in big, big letters between horizontal lines." You were obviously making a point, given your earlier complaints about me.
2. You can search the relevant page histories for the last 14.5 months since I started scheduling TFAs and I doubt you will find more than a few TFAs suggestions with supporters that I didn't schedule. On a couple of occasions, I've had to decide which of two very similar articles to run. There was the Grace Sherwood nomination, of course, and I see you've found it and plastered it all over Jimbo's talk page even though it had nothing to do with the conversation. That was a rather different situation to anything else at TFA or TFAR in the last few years, as you've been told already and as any reading of the extensive discussions would have told you. That situation certainly didn't come from any misreading of the instructions.
3. There may well be lots of people who say some horrible things about me. I also know that I have support from a lot of people whose opinions I value but who owe me no favours. I also know that there are many people who appreciate the work that I do for TFA.
4. I'm always open to constructive ideas to improve the TFA and the TFAR process, including the instructions. If you have any, please come forward with them. Or you can carry on complaining on the sidelines about how unfair it is that I said I wouldn't make an exception to the TFA rules (about no repeats for TFA) for your pet project, when lots of people were already telling you you that TFA repeats were a bad idea. Your choice. Of course, if you can persuade the community that the best interests of the TFA process are best served by having me step down, then I'll gladly hand over the reins. Your call. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

As you were kind enough to add some comments on this article at its PR, you are invited to do likewise at its FAC, now open. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton. I'll try and look in properly but I doubt you will need my help! Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not (who knows), but a lawyer's comments on the legal aspects (the Ward trial, Denning etc) would always be welcome, if only by way of an aside. However, I am not reqesting or expecting any great priority here. Only if you have the odd spare moment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

XMAS 2014 TFA

Seeing that the hubbub of "OMG too much Jesus, bejebus, on the main page" comments brought up briefly at Jimbo's talk page about the Xmas2013 TFA, I was thinking of a topic for next year's Christmas TFA...Eliot's "Animula" (the darkest Christmas card ever) or Journey of the Magi might be appropriate, or his later simplistic poem on "The Cultivation of Christmas Trees", or maybe some obscure irreverent think like the movie A Christmas Story? Any ideas? Something I can work on manageably, alone, for the next few weeks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 for A Christmas Story, hilarious stuff. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• How about Santa Claws... "his slay bells are RINGING!" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen A Christmas Story, so am clearly missing out. Journey of the Magi I know, Animula I don't know. Surprise me! Anyway, as there is apparently a gang of people who would rather have anyone but me choosing TFAs, by Christmas I will probably have been deposed (or whatever the word is for doing away with czars and fuhrers) so someone else will have the fun of keeping everyone (un)happy. Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, we won't get rid of you. Just rebrand you. How's Bigwig Bencherlite? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure I like the sound of being rebranded... although as I do wear one of these for a living, the title might be apt! Bencherlite^Talk 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bigger is better. We'll even get you a Wikipedia hair pin, reading "I ruin TFA" or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take notice, TFA Coordinator is now Grand Poobah and the second uncrowned King of Scotland. "Animula" is a very dark, pessimistic poem that Eliot wrote as part of the Christmas-card Ariel series for Faber (it was 3rd after Journey of the Magi and recent TFA A Song for Simeon) we currently have no Animula article. "Cultivation of Christmas Trees" Eliot wrote later when Faber briefly restarted the ariel series 20 years later...it is not one of his best poems. I was thinking of getting "Journey of the Magi" ready for next year's epiphany (6 January 2015).--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite...if you've never seen the movie, this scene alone makes up for it [2], and Crisco 1492, if I could bear getting through D-list horror films, I'll consider it...but I deserve a bottle of Whisky for that endeavour.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd do it, but I'm gonna blame the volcano. Just woke up to an inch of ash on my balcony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of your actions

I'm just letting you know that this has occurred at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 157#Themed days on the Main Page. —David Levy 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I need to add to what you and Crisco 1492 have already said; my thanks to you both. Bencherlite^Talk 15:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure that you're aware, Hector's criticisms eventually landed in Godwin's law territory. I can't say that I expected that. —David Levy 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I made an executive decision and closed that thread, due to Godwin's law. diff. Others may feel free to modify, of course, but after that point it seemed the likelihood of positive constructive dialog had been exhausted. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, Jimbo rolled back your edits. —David Levy 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Most inappropriate use of the WP:ROLLBACK tool. Wasn't that tool to be used only to rollback vandalism? — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a few other suitable applications, but that wasn't one of them. —David Levy 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! :( — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this exchange, I'll note that I somehow forgot about this discussion. (As you can see, I received no replies.) —David Levy 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Most interesting discussion, thank you. Still, it comes across as … removing someone else's actions with zero comment as to why, know what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm baffled as to how that ever made it onto the list of acceptable uses (and I seriously doubt that this reflects consensus). —David Levy 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose it's possible in this instance it was an accidental click. But that's just the thing. With use of the WP:ROLLBACK tool, there's no edit summary. No explanation. So we are all just left baffled. — Cirt (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt and David Levy (and ColonelHenry) for your words/actions here and at that conversation. Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Anytime, Bencherlite, we may disagree from time to time, but I have a lot of respect for you and for your work. I will always defend someone I respect.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated. Bencherlite^Talk 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite, I'm glad it all worked out alright for you. I had attempted to work with HectorMoffet and posted to him a few times to try to get him to back off. I'm sorry my efforts didn't work. — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, thank you for trying. Various people tried to talk to him but unfortunately the situation ended up the way it did. Bencherlite^Talk 10:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! He could have been a valuable contributor if he was more polite and collaborative in nature, it's too bad it went down that way. — Cirt (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You do an excellent job on the front page in what is sometimes may seem like a thankless task; I'd like to change the balance to add something positive in appreciation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a thankless task, and has been particularly thankless these last few days, but then people stand up for you when there are problems or express their appreciation for the work that I do, and it doesn't feel so bad. Thank you, SchroCat, much appreciated. Bencherlite^Talk 10:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• + Seconded!  :) — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pending requests

Bencher, if your TFA queue is light, do you patrol Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending or not? (Saw you tossed one article, did it run as TFA or vanish into the ether?) Just trying to figure out how and when to move one I have there over. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do keep an eye on suggestions at the /pending page, and have been known to take articles directly from there even if not nominated. Most of the ones that are listed do get nominated and so get on the main page that way. Sometimes, though, people put a note about an article that isn't one of theirs, and those articles just then take their chances with the rest of the pool, depending on what's run recently, what's already nominated, what I think would work best etc. The most recent one on the pending list that I didn't use was because it didn't have a strong date connection or other high points, and (best of all) I had a more appropriate article in mind for that date already (a doughnut for you if you can work out why...) Another benefit of the pending list is that if I know someone has a particular date in mind for an article later in the year it stops me taking it as a "free pick" before the desired date. So, yes, please do use the /pending list. Bencherlite^Talk 13:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• A donut? You only offered me a cookie. Next you'll be offering brownies... though I must say, I agree with your reasoning for not running the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, I only answer those kinds of questions if offered a fine merlot! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, someone else at T:MP noticed the reason why Tropical Depression Ten (2007) ran instead of the suggestion at WP:TFARP - the otherwise-uncelebrated 10th birthday of WP:TFA! Bencherlite^Talk 08:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Bencherlite, Thanks very much for your congratulations and advice about dates for articles appearing on the main page. I have added St James' Church, Sydney to the list with a request for it to appear on 26 January, which is Australia Day and a time when many tourists and citizens are visiting notable places, including this heritage-listed church. As I have never done such a nomination before, I hope I have done it correctly, but if not, please correct it. Thanks again. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Whiteghost.ink, thanks for stopping by. I've moved St James' Church, Sydney to the "pending list" as the main nominations page only looks one month ahead, not to next January. (Don't worry, it's not a problem.) Being on the pending list is a good thing - firstly, it stops me picking the article for an earlier date without checking with you first, and secondly it's a reminder to you, me and everyone else that you've had an idea for a TFA on Australia Day 2015. It doesn't guarantee that it will run on that date, of course, but there's no harm in asking! Other possible dates (if you want to run it on a significant date) would appear to be the Feast of St James (25 July), the anniversary of the foundation stone being laid (7 October), or the anniversary of consecration (11 February), although I don't know whether the church tends to mark either of the latter two dates. Otherwise, it can run more-or-less at any time if you want, which is where the "nonspecific" date nomination slots at TFAR come in. Hope all this makes some sort of sense - let me know if I can help / explain further. Bencherlite^Talk 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bencherlite. Very informative and helpful. I would prefer Australia Day but St James' Day is a good option. Do I need to make the blurb longer? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We can work on details like that next time round. Bencherlite^Talk 08:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol TFA

Hey, Bencherlite, and thanks for sending Sevastopol to the March 3rd TFA (I would have nom'ed her for it sometime in the distant future...). Just curious, was this a decision by you or via a TFAR nomination? Buggie111 (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. My choice - TFA needs something every day but TFAR doesn't even come up with nominations for 50% of the slots, so something has to go up. Bencherlite^Talk 08:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)