User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 22

You may be interested...

You're a bad boy as per WP:POLEMIC and WP:CIR ES&L 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh no. What a tragedy. I'm crushed. How will I ever stop crying / sleep tonight / be able to love again etc etc? Bencherlite^Talk 23:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(Lurker) I found the irony here delightful. BlackberrySorbet 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut main nom.

Hello and thanks for your words of encouragement. I do not think I will be nominating the article to main page appearance since there are no appropriate images of the subject :( Thanks a lot anyway -Elias Z 11:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

QAI

Thank you for cleanup. However, on my small screen I see a lot of pending list now, but in the TOC titles broken in several lines. Is there a way of limiting the size of the transcluded pending list or to collapse it? Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to pipe the longest of the titles in "pending" for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "List of..." at the start of a page name is generally a clue that it is a featured list not a featured article, so I have removed it from WP:TFARP. I have undone the TOC-related edit on QAI/TFA, since you're the main user of that page and if it didn't work for you then the page might as well remain as it was before. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 11:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I should have noticed "List" ;) - With normal length article titles, the TOC next to pending was fine, - amicable edit war: eventually I will revert you ;) - Loved the irony above, and the Witch of Pungo on the Main page on Halloween, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Bencherlite,

Thank you very much for the congratulations regarding Nefarious: Merchant of Souls and the reminder about TFAR. I plan to submit a request there in the near future.

Neelix (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks and pending

Thank you for the congratulatory remarks. In terms of pending, I may put the basketball team up around NCAA tournament time next April, but I am not sure if I should do it in the first year or let it sit for a few years. Advice is welcome. Otherwise, I have the only thing in the pending list that I really want to. I think the next thing I will put on the pending list is Tommy Amaker for his 50th birthday in June of 2015. It will be several months before I can put that one in. After that, I don't know if we are going to wait for the 50th anniversary of the chart debut of Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) on May 20, 1967. What are your thoughts on waiting that long for a 50th?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

{{u|TonyTheTiger}, thanks for that helpful reply. WP:FA is very, very thin on basketball articles (only Amaker and Bill Russell, and no other non-biographical articles) so it would be nice to use it sooner rather than later to balance out the other sports (particularly as we don't run as many sport-related TFAs per year as their numbers justify as it is - see User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad#Going just by the numbers... - we could run 42 per year without going out of proportion to the numbers we have left, but it'll be difficult to break 30 in 2013). As for a 2017 anniversary, well who knows what the main page (or TFA) will look like in 2017, but it's not as though we're about to run out of 20th-century music articles just yet, so it doesn't particularly bother me if you'd rather wait for that one. Bencherlite^Talk 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping me but typoed. Well I'm checking in. Russell has been waiting 6 yrs and 9 months, while Amaker has been waiting 5 months. Thus, if you need basketball soon, go with Russell (how about his 80th birthday in Feb). Between April 5 and April 7, 2014 (final four of 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament) you could run 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. That should cover basketball between now and the time Amaker should hit the pending list. If Russell goes nearly 7 years w/o appearing, I don't see why Amaker can't go 2. Hopefully, I will be working more full time on developing my scripts 3 years from now and less full time on WP. I have FAed 2 of the 6 basketball bios (Amaker and Juwan Howard) and am starting to become somewhat of a basketball bio guy in terms of my important WP efforts (see User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews for my high pageview GA and FA summary). I have 3 basketball FAs this year and 3 of my 11 current GANs are basketball (2 bios). Who knows what else I might run through FAC in the next year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:U2 for peer review

• Portal:U2

Miss Bono and myself have requested a portal peer review for Portal:U2.
We would appreciate any helpful advice at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/archive1.

I would also like to remind all members of WikiProject U2 (and other interested editors) that U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for peer review (PR) by Dream out loud (t · c) on 10 November 2013; see discussion. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance and happy editing,
pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of WikiProject U2. You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at Wikipedia:Portal peer review, you have contributed to the development of the portal, or you are an active member of WikiProject U2. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

To: HowardMorland

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Operation Crossroads to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,324 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The next relevant date would be March 1, 2014, the 60th anniversary of the other famous Bikini test. What do you think? HowardMorland (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

HowardMorland: the date relevance for Crossroads based on a different Bikini test could be stronger, but I've seen worse(!) - feel free to have a go anyway and if nobody else has bright ideas for 1st March, then you've got a good chance of getting that date. Bencherlite^Talk 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

December 4 is great. I rewrote the blurb. HowardMorland (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of TFL on the main page

Following on from a conversation in which you participated over a year ago, a new discussion regarding the Expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Festival Te Deum

Thank you very much for better English for the almost centenary's Festival Te Deum. Why do you think the context of Britten's other church music is not relevant, a topic not (yet?) covered in his article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see knowing that Britten wrote a War Requiem 17 years later increases our knowledge of this particular piece, nor that he wrote a setting of the Venite which was unpublished in his lifetime. It doesn't provide any context. Such general comments would fit in a Choral music of Benjamin Britten article (and there's probably quite a bit to be said on it, I'd guess). (Also, I've fixed the Festival Te Deum article with a hatnote to point towards the Britten FTD.) Bencherlite^Talk 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw the fixing, thank you. - I admit that I wrote the summary of his small sacred music output to overcome 1503 chars which seemed too borderline to the limit of DYK. But I think, as the red link article will not be written until tomorrow, it might be desirable to have, better here than nowhere. I will not fight ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Written for the birthday: A Boy was Born, just a start, please copy-edit and see if it's worthy of a link in the blurb ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice start, Gerda Arendt. It's a great piece, but a complete pain to sing in places. One of my Britten books says that it should have been called "A Ceremony of Carols" and "A Ceremony of Carols" should have been called "A Boy was Born" because each title works better on the other piece! As and when I get a chance to add anything about it, I'll do so, but it won't be for a while. Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think of DYK for Christmas, take your time. Someone who knows about the pain to sing it would be a great contributor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

TFA for December 8

Hello Bencherlite,

Thanks for choosing to feature AdS/CFT correspondence on the main page! I was looking over the blurb, and I think it may need some more tweaks. Please let me know where I should make and discuss changes. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I made changes at this page, but I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do… Polytope24 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the right place, Polytope24. If I see you do anything I have a problem with, I'll let you know. But so far (insofar as I understand anything that blurb says!) your changes are fine. Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused because I don't see the changes showing up at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2013. Polytope24 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary visitation of the University of Oxford

Guessing this might be of interest to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, Charles Matthews - I'm away from my Oxford history books for a week or two but will see what they have on the topic when I get a chance. Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Details in God's Instruments: Political Conduct in the England of Oliver Cromwell by Blair Worden seem pretty useful, at first sight. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Miszabot II

Appears to have bitten the dust. Any idea how to convert WT:TFAR to a different archivebot? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. See WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Lowercase sigmabot III 2. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The art of TFA scheduling

You reached a new level today: TFA 2 years after FA nomination ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for spotting my mistake about the royal music director! Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your copy edits to the Daniel article. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the copyediting you do over on Wikinews. Your work has assisted in making me a more conscientious reviewer there and writer here. (Though with everything, it takes constant practice and sometimes there are misses.)

LauraHale (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection for TFA?

Hello Bencherlite,

I'm not sure if TFA articles are normally protected, but I made a request for protection at this page. Please let me know if this is the right course of action. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

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.

---

I made a mistake, saying A Boy was Born is |other_title=, while it is the title. I regret that I wrote the article and guess better unwatch what is left, - not a version showing respect for Britten's published version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over-reacting. Does Humphrey Carpenter's acclaimed biography of Britten not show respect for him simply because it says "A Boy Was Born"? Bencherlite^Talk 12:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't judge his biography. Likely his publisher also has a style guide which commands to not even mention once that the piece was published differently and there may have been a reason, - holy MOS, holy consistency. - I just repeated Precious for Keep Calm and Carry on. - Go improve the article that pretends the title is A Boy Was Born, I will not disturb you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Bencherlite^Talk 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember not our offences --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. No need to explain, though. Bencherlite^Talk 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I get used to not been understood. Just above, I say "respect for Britten's published version", and you react as if I had said "respect for Britten", - it's not the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (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.

Homework

Hey! I just received a talk page message about the FA Homework being on the Main Page on Dec. 27. I'm pretty happy about it, but I can't find where the discussion about it was at WP:TFAR. Just curious to read who nominated it, etc. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On average, only about 45% of TFAs are nominated throught TFAR; the rest I have to choose off my own bat in the absence of nominations, and Homework is one of the 55%... Bencherlite^Talk 23:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember not, Lord, our offences

Doubling down on wrong. MOS screws it up yet again. But hey, it's the MOS (a guideline), and we're to obey whether it's right or wrong. Sounds like the Nuremburg defence. Thanks. I give up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Boy was Born

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.

---

I don't care if nominator disagrees about was/Was. I cannot stand by and let this destroy its opportunity to be featured on Christmas. I must overturn the nominator's withdrawal if you can let me. Can you? --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawn means withdrawn. We are supposed to honour these requests. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I - nominator - responded on my talk. George, please be careful using words such as "ruin" (there) and "destroy" (here). I agree that something was ruined and destroyed, something I care about. If was/Was was a minor thing, why a move request and discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I move-requested because I don't want move-warring with you about something so minor. But since you let me attempting to revert withdrawal, I've re-nominated the article. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded again on my talk, - you say minor, I say "care about", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2013 (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.

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi Bencherlite, can you spend sometime for this nomination if you're free. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Date connections

Given how little I'm around on Wikipedia these days, it doesn't make sense to keep the TFA/R date connection list on User:GeeJo/Draft. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection, where you can make changes without feeling guilty about lurking around in someone else's namespace. It's out of the way enough that there's not likely to be much in the way of drive-by vandalism or fractious edit-wars over the listings. Who knows, maybe someone else will stumble across it and lend a hand in keeping it maintained. I'll still try to at least update it every month or two, but my history in that regard hasn't exactly been stellar.

Anyway, happy holidays!

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, GeeJo, and for all the work that you've put into maintaining that helpful list. Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For a truly great year of TFA scheduling. I don't think many people here realize how difficult that must be -- To name a few, I particularly enjoyed the George series and the fact that Phoenix is scheduled for New Years Day. So enjoy this drink on me, and keep up the great work! Ruby 2010/2013 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

NFC Images in TFA/R blurb

Just asking for future reference (a question I've had for a few weeks now so might as well ask). The next article I'm planning to bring to FAC, Finn M. W. Caspersen, has only one NFC image since there are no free images at all available for the subject...can that NFC image be used in a TFA blurb in those circumstances?--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Do you need any help putting together a few blurbs for January...since it's only a week away and we're only scheduled up to 3 January?--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) No, unfortunately, per long-standing consensus reinforced by a 2013 RFC on this very topic (somewhere in the archives at WT:TFA, which is why some blurbs run without any images, or images of tangential relevance. (2) Nominations at TFAR always welcome - it's been a bit quiet in December... Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Still, still, still, weil's Kindlein schlafen will, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bencherlite!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Bencherlite: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Notification of an RfC

The previous discussion regarding an extension of TFLs on the front page in which you commented, has moved on to an RfC on the Main Page. Your comments and suggestions are once again welcome on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Films on TFA

Hi. We talked 5 months ago about you keeping an eye on a good time to put my film FA article Sholay on the main page. Any idea when this might happen? I now have another film FA Mughal-e-Azam to consider as well. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the 'TFA stats' note above. I wont hold my breath. BollyJeff | talk 00:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, thanks for reminding me. I'll aim to stick one or other of them in for February, sorry not to reply earlier... We've already had a film and a Bollywood actress in January, both nominated at TFAR, so I don't want to go overboard on cinema this month. Probably best to put it up at WP:TFAR in the non-specific slots to prevent yet more films jumping ahead of you! (We had a couple of films in December too - obviously lots of cinema FA writers around at the moment!) Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that Sholay has some timing because it was just re-released in 3D, so I added it. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

TFA stats

Started analyzing 2013 TFAs at User:ColonelHenry/FA2013analysis - finished with December, some surprising data. In December 2013, the average FA promotion to TFA appearance was 849.26 days (28.3 months) and 13 of 31 TFAs were over 2 years old, 20 of the 31 were over a year old (7+13). 8 of those old TFAs were older than 4 years. Only 8 of the 31 were promoted within the last three months (5 within 30 days of their promotion). So if we take 6 months between FA and TFA as a dividing line...the ratio is 11 (earlier than) to 20 (longer than). I'll continue my analysis for the rest of the year, and then start 2014. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing that the three TFA nomination I proposed last week are now scheduled (Bohemian Waxwing, Nigersaurus and that Oregon peak), did that work well for you? If you want, with each issue of the Signpost every week, I'll write blurbs for a few of the new featured articles they mention and propose them, that way not as many of the newer FAs slip into the "never appeared on the main page" category. Let me know your thoughts--and if there's anything I can do to help make your job a bit easier. I'm preparing stats for November and October 2013 on my TFA analysis...do you see any information you'd like added to my chart? --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the blurbs ColonelHenry (any relation to Lt. Colonel Henry Blake?), they were useful (obviously). The difficulty is that if TFA concentrates on the 2014 promotions then those that were promoted in previous years stand proportionately less chance of being featured. Using older FAs isn't necessarily a bad thing - some hit the spot anniversary-wise, others are on different subjects to those coming through FAC today (which produces a lot of films/TV episodes/warfare stuff at present - not a bad thing, but there's a limit to how many TFA can take in a week! Any useful and varied nominations you can find - be they from 2014 or 2004 - would be much appreciated. Thanks [started this message this morning, got distracted, closed up the laptop without finishing it, back home now!] Bencherlite^Talk 21:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The CH reference is a piece of Rutgersiana--to Colonel Henry Rutgers the donor who saved Queen's College and ended up getting it named after himself. I understand your concern with focusing too much on recent FAs--that isn't my intention--I only did three from the recent FA promotions list, and three seemed to work rather well. One thing that I'm noticing as a trend in last year's stats--if a FA doesn't get proposed at TFA within 60 days of its promotion, it likely would languish without an appearance for 2 or more years. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers

I am seeking reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. I would hate to see it archived simply for want of reviews. If you could help, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Is there any chance to nominate Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2014? I've been a little busy and I couldn't nominate it before. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll nominate it for February 20 as an extended play will be on January 17. Sorry for this. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Steamtown

hi, an article that I began Steamtown, U.S.A., and am the prime editor of, is scheduled to be feature article on January 16. It had gone untouched for a long time but a few months ago another editor decided to chop it up. It went through dispute resolution, but I really do not understand what conclusion it came to and the editor in question nominated it to be removed as an FA. That review determined to keep it. After I got the notice that it was to be featured, I started to try to undo some of the damage that the editor had done to it, but as I feared, they noticed I was editing it and has taken to chopping it up again. I have asked the person to please not do that, but if their edits are not successfully reversed (and it pains me to say this) I would rather it not appear as FA at this time. The person appears to not understand the purpose or content of the article and I have no fight in me to try to deal with this. Thanks. --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The person is not going to be reasoned with. I feel that since the article is under edit attack, it should not be featured. Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I'm reluctant to unschedule TFAs particularly when this has just come out of FAR where I would have thought that issues like this would have been sorted out. Bencherlite^Talk 08:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that it was in FAR and dispute resolution at the same time, while the cutting was taking place. Some of my questions were never answered and the consensus was unclear. Thank you for you intervention.--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion!

Hi, your opinion is needed here. Regards, —Zia Khan 12:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Question!

Can File:Capcom logo.svg be used for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 23, 2014? « Ryūkotsusei » 23:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not, and I prefer it to the poor image of the producer. Bencherlite^Talk 09:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of people under surveillance

Hey, thanks for showing me how to sort out the names, I really appreciate that. If you're interested in helping me improve the list, I would be glad if you could drop by at:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1

and help me do a quick review. I know you're a very busy person, but if you could just tell me what exactly is wrong and how should it be be changed, I would really appreciate it, thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sudirman at TFA

• Very interesting choice. Bravo.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Fortunately there are some interesting articles to choose from... Bencherlite^Talk 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you need me to sort through the new FA crop to propose one or two or three soon? We have quite a few now at TFA/R, but I'll defer unless you give the greenlight.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      • We're probably OK at the moment on new FAs for now (Interstate 70 in West Virginia, Jin vs Song battles, Chaplin, Hattie Jacques are all scheduled or soon to be scheduled) but some (non-film!) general NSD nominations would be interesting - the older the better, perhaps? Bencherlite^Talk 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll see what I can find in the next day or so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent question

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.

---

You pose an excellent question: "Why are you ignoring the established method for the community to discuss TFA appearances - WP:TFAR?"

The answer is I don't think Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day is something we can seriously do as if it's "just like april fools". We've never used that url in this way before, and I don't think it's somethin a few insiders should decide, whether they be at TFAR or UT:Jimmy Wales.

So, despite stylistic similarities, I don't even really see the custom content we'd display as an actual "main page" in the traditional, status quo sense of the word. It's custom content, created to send a custom message, timed to coincide with with a outright protest run by our allies. We need to alert our readers this isn't a status quo regular page. Indeed, we may not even STORE the custom content at "Main"-- it might be stored somewhere else entirely.

So we keep all our options available. In the event the proposal does get support, who is to say how much weight the supporters will give to the suggestion that we not use a re-run in the Feb 11 content?

Either way, this thing has NOTBUREAUCRACY all over it. I understand people who are objecting on the grounds of NOTADVOCATE, but I don't get the objection about "normal mainpage rules don't allow re-runs" or "normal mainpage rules don't allow lists on tuesday". Normal mainpages don't coincide with online protests-- this isn't a normal mainpage!

We may do it, we may not-- but I can't fathom reruns or "no lists on tuesday" being decisive in the minds of too many people.

For example, would you really support this if only we didn't re-run an FA? Or are you opposed to whole idea on NOTADVOCATE principles? --23:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorMoffet (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to be supporting the use of TFA in particular or the main page in general in any way, shape or form to send a message to coincide with a protest run by "our" (who are "we"?) allies (whoever they may be). And the sooner you realise that you have no hope in hell of this political activism appearing on the main page, least of all in the TFA slot, the better for you. Frankly, the best you can hope for is to get a few new or recently articles (or new GAs) that are related to the topic through DYK, but you're losing time for that to happen while you come up with lists of ever-more-irrelevant TFA possibilities. PS please use four tildes to sign - you took five edits and still couldn't manage to sign your message properly. Bencherlite^Talk 23:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So that answers your question about why I don't value your opinion on the proposal at this stage-- you oppose it here and there, you oppose it anywhere--- so why in the world would we look to you for crafting the proposal? Your friend, Four Tildes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorMoffet (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 January 2014‎

I didn't ask whether you valued my opinion. I was just trying to save you some time in recognising the difference between "slim chance" (any of this happening) and "no chance" (a repeated TFA) but you clearly aren't interested in listening. Bencherlite^Talk 23:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've actually did take your suggestion for finding FAs that haven't been at TFA before-- I want to present a wide array of options, including ones that may be the least controversial. Of course, if you really OWN a fourth of mainpage, then you've already told me they're all equally a waste of time, more or less. And in quite hostile terms, I might add, considering I'm not the person who thought this up, I'm just doing my best to implement what was suggested by people like Jehochman and Jimbo. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whose idea it is, frankly. I await the completion of the proposal so that it can be for the community's comments. This is now as a matter of urgency, seeing as there is diminishing time left for discussion. At the moment, it seems as though there is considerable procrastination taking place, and your time might be better spent in getting on with that. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 20 January 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.

Thank you

Thanks very much for your TFA actions regarding Afroyim v. Rusk.

They are neutral, with matter-of-fact wording, and I support your decision to neutrally inform other centralized type discussion pages about it, no worries!

I think we can all agree that Afroyim v. Rusk is a high quality article that does deserve being featured on the Main Page. :)

I hope you are well,

— Cirt (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

It was not my intention to canvass.

I am sorry it came across that way.

Jehochman and HectorMoffet were the managers of this initiative, I was not and did not want to be.

I saw that WP:Surveillance awareness day was not progressing fast enough with regards to the already scheduled TFAs.

I thought that I had seen people upset that the normal WP:TFAR process was not being used.

It is clear that using the WP:TFAR process would be a waste of time because some folks don't want anything related to The Day We Fight Back.

That is fine. That is part of the community consensus process and I respect the consensus.

I was just trying to abide by the people I had seen that were upset that the normal WP:TFAR discussion was not being used, to have that discussion.

Once again, my apologies,

— Cirt (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, Cirt. I happen to think the WP:Surveillance initiative is a bad idea but unless and until there's a full discussion we won't know where the true balance of opinion lies and whether there would be community consensus to run something related at TFA, let alone DYK etc. (Obviously if there was consensus to run something then I'd have to think very carefully about where I stood and what to do). I too am frustrated that the concrete proposals are a long time in coming, so I think you did the right thing in taking a suggestion to TFAR to test the water, although I was surprised that you withdrew the nom so quickly. Our discussion about "controversial" wasn't me opposing the nomination but only relevant to the extent that I only give notice of potentially controversial nominations (a Gibraltar-related TFA, for instance, where I notified a few discussion pages like the village pump and T:MP); as the use of an RFC had already been mentioned at the surveillance initiative talk page, I used one of those tags as well. (In the past, people have complained about TFAR insiders not thinking about potentially controversial TFAs and not alerting anyone to discussions, something I try to do in appropriate cases, however rate). Anyway, I see you've suggested it for 20th Feb now, which is a good idea. Thanks for that, and best wishes as ever. Bencherlite^Talk 02:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes to you too. Obviously it is highly unlikely anything would run at TFAR without your support and approval for it. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know - I really don't get these articles about highways and strong winds, video games aren't my cup of tea, most modern music is rubbish, one battleship looks much the same as another to me, my father tried and failed to get me to enjoy birdwatching, I never get to see the stars at night, I was always useless at sports at school, I will always ask for "no mushrooms" with my fried breakfast - so what does that leave me to enjoy at TFA? Not much, really ;-) Bencherlite^Talk 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It was clear from your multiple replies at TFAR that it was not going to run. Your confusion at my removing my nom so soon is itself confusing. Why beat a dead horse to a meaty pulp? Just so I can suffer? At my stupid and brazen idea? — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're both overthinking this, and the moment has passed, but as I said above, you did the right thing in bringing it to TFAR, so I wouldn't say it was either stupid or brazen on your part. I certainly won't be holding any grudges about this. Bencherlite^Talk 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying I did the right thing by bringing it to TFAR. Please note I was specifically responding to comments I had read about people complaining it had not yet been brought to TFAR to use the already established process there! That is why I did it. Please understand that. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I think I had previously asked why no-one was using TFAR! Bencherlite^Talk 03:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was responding to that very notion. I hope yourself and others such as yourself opposed to The Day We Fight Back can understand that is why I did that! — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So were you against Wikipedia:SOPA initiative? — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't join in the discussion. From memory - it was two years ago, of course - I missed the start of the discussion of the issue and by the time I realised that there was a discussion taking place about whether/how to respond I didn't have the time or energy to get up to speed and form an opinion. Bencherlite^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is your opinion, reflecting back, now, on WP:SOPA initiative? — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to go back and consider the issues just to give you an answer, I'm afraid. Bencherlite^Talk 03:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, you have time to expound on this initiative, however? — Cirt (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That was then, this is now. So I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this because I didn't express an opinion two years ago on something else? Blimey. Bencherlite^Talk 03:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Are they that different? — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm half-tempted to ask why you care as to what I think about SOPA or what the differences between the issues are, but I don't actually want to know the answer to those questions, nor do I want to know why you feel the need to interrogate me about my use of time. Cheerio for now, Cirt. Bencherlite^Talk 03:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Both were initially proposals by Jimmy Wales to black out the Main Page, if I remember correctly. That is why I ask. — Cirt (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)