User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 18

Istanbul for TFA on January 12

I must say I'm quite surprised to see Istanbul selected as TFA on January 12. I thought it was standard that the FA nominator was at least notified of an article's pending selection. And, I'm surprised this was selected so soon, given it has been less than three months since the TFA. There are certainly far more notable dates in relationship to Istanbul, such as May 29 (when the city was conquered in 1453) or related to Istanbul's potential selection as host of the 2020 Olympics. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As I selected the article directly to appear as TFA without a prior request at WP:TFAR, there was nothing of which you should have been notified earlier. (Most TFAs are in fact selected directly by Raul or one of his TFA delegates rather than being nominated first.) Notification on FAC nominator talk pages (and those of other leading editors) that a particular article has been selected as the TFA is handled by User:UcuchaBot (BRFA). I add the |maindate= to the talk page as I have the page open anyway. There is no rule that articles have to wait for x months or years before being selected as TFA - in fact, there are advantages in selecting articles that have relatively recently passed FAC because they are less likely to have deteriorated since promotion and are more likely to have active editors keeping an eye on them). Nor is every TFA date-related – some are, but many are not. I simply selected Istanbul because it was a recent FA on an interesting topic that would help give a better range of topics at TFA in January; if you would rather I scheduled something else with a view to an appearance at a later date, that's fine by me. But there are no guarantees that it would appear on 29th May, or that it would be possible to select it around the time of the 2020 decision. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for swapping it out, but between zero chance of date relevance and some chance of date relevance, I'd choose the latter, especially as there are so many dates relevant to Istanbul (e.g. May 29) and, perhaps more importantly, the city has a good chance of winning its bid for the Olympics this September (which would generate more direct relevance). After then, I probably wouldn't care. This is a very stable article, especially for an article of this size and importance, so I don't think you'd have to worry about deterioration. I'm aware it's ultimately your decision, so consider my input as you like. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Feb 14

Nice idea if we can't come up with anything better, but how many points would (the equal to both sexes!) Romances get if its FA nominator supported the idea? --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding that nomination in an obvious bid to kick my nomination out was, for want of a better word, dickish. Shameful. Prioryman (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

TFAR issue

You may or may not have noticed, but an editor alleged that I cannot schedule or decline that editor's submissions at TFA. I think this needs to be resolved before the situation reappears. I have some views, but I would like to hear yours first. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may ... there is no basis for such a claim. He made a similar claim once when I promoted one of his articles, so I actually had to unpromote an FA, if you can imagine that ... bizarre is the best word I can use to describe that! I can't recall correctly if he backed down on that, but I suspect he did ... not sure. Anyway, your job as delegate is to gauge consensus, which occasionally requires that you overrule consensus. You should only have to recuse if you are overruling consensus-- not acting with consensus. Someone can't come along and say, you can't promote my FAC or TFA with consensus, or archive it with consensus, just because you and I have had past differences. That would open the door for everyone to stir the pot so delegates can't act on consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see it as having merit. Even assuming for sake of argument that there is something between that user and Raul, that only involves Raul. If my interactions with this user are such as to prevent scheduling TFA, then so are Bencherlite's, leaving only Dabamb as possibly being able to schedule any of these. (And possibly not even that, since Dabamb was also appointed by Raul.) That doesn't seem workable. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Other issues: I think we should coordinate scheduling holidays and other significant days. It would probably make sense to do that at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates. The one coming up that directly concerns me is Feb 14, for which I object to scheduling the Museum article. I'm not opposed to some other day, but not that day. So if we disagree on that, we should work it out now. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lugo's Law

Nice essay. BTW, it was only meta-proven... check out the rook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod's edits

I respectfully disagree that Johnbod's edits were not deliberate vandalism. He initially advised me to use a separate paragraph for the Manuscript entitled The Three Marys Manuscriipt. I complied. He reverted because "he did not like it" - a frequent occurence for him, and reduced it to a sentence using the French term which is not advised on English wikipedia as you know. He also deliberately edited in a manner as to make it difficult for me to change back to the separate paragraph (which he advised in the first place!). He also then followed my contributions (as his contribs clearly show) to Jean de Venette and did the same. He also had the pic of the manuscript showing where he indicated a fresco. That was clearly inaccurate. I simply moved the pic back to where the Manuscript paragraph was. I usually do not use the rollback feature on my own articles but my understanding is that am allowed if vandalism is clearly utilized for the editor's own purpose which is to frustrate and obstruct. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

After looking at the matter further I found a better use for the material. The (very predictable) description of what must be a much later manuscript copy (not findable by your reference) was not relevant at Three Marys. You are mistaken if you think the Lorenzo Monaco miniature (from a choirbook) is from a manuscript of the poem. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That reference was given to me by User:Doric Loon who has identifed himself as an expert in languages and medieval manuscripts as Professor Dr Raymond Graeme Dunphy at http://www.dunphy.de/ and an editor of the reference http://www.brill.com/publications/reference-works/encyclopedia-medieval-chronicle-2-vols which I correctly gave. The date of the manuscript is correct. This is the link for the most recent addition http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F. Mugginsx (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the French manuscript blog, which no doubt due to the strange layout of that site you can't locate now where you say. You don't see any problems with "The Three Marys or Maries is a long poem written circa 1357 by Jean de Venette in the form of a manuscript on vellum from the mid-fifteenth century,...."? I'll copy this to Talk:The Three Marys Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 8 January 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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwich City F.C. players. Well played sir! ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Single Ladies

No worries buddy. I am very happy that you went ahead and proposed for SL to appear on Valentine's Day. It is an excellent choice. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not to reply that that editor. He is the opposite of this. I really don't want a headache. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

about the resent changes to the article i have changed

Hello, i go the message you sent me before about the COI issue and i understand why you have deleted most of the article so i have reviewed the text and tried to lectore it to the best of my abilities so from other universities wikipages i have seen. The problem was writing in 3th person and not promoting so i have striped it down from that and i don't see a problem why have you deleted again please contact me for more help about this, in my defence i am linking the wikipage about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University wich has realy good page bout the style of writing is the same. Thanks for fixing the article title thou.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goran.petroski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

TFA thoughts

Hi We currently have a page for nominating TFAs that's very focussed on things from the article perspective. We then in a fairly ad-hoc way discuss in a number of different venues (including user talk pages) what might suit certain forthcoming calendar dates, like April 1, Halloween, etc.

This makes me think that we ought to have a page where notable calendar dates (annual, less frequent and one-offs) are listed and editors suggest articles for them.

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I see your point but I'm not sure that adding another board to WT:TFA, WT:TFAR, WP:April 1 etc would improve matters; it might just be somewhere else that people complain they were never notified about discussions taking place at (apologies for the grammar but you know what I mean). Perhaps people need to be encouraged to start discussion threads in good time at WT:TFAR if there's a date that they'd like to mark? From memory, Hallowe'en (goodness knows why, it's only an excuse for supermarkets to see buckets of sweets), Christmas and April Fools are the main ones that are discussed at present at TFAR. I've tried at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad#Possible dates for 2013 to list a few dates that it might be nice to mark (and we'll see how many people notice that I've chosen an Australian artist for Australia Day on 26th January) but I'm bound to miss many possibilities. Ideally, of course, we would have a joined-up FAC and TFA and XYZ process that says "Right, this year it's the 100th anniversary of this happening, the 200th anniversary of this person's birth, the 75th anniversary of this invention, so who wants to write FAs about them?" But we don't, I think, tend to do that. Larger Wikiprojects such as MILHIST can target occasions such as the anniversaries of WWI, for example, but away from them it seems to be more a case of pot luck whether someone is interested enough to write about someone or something, with the help perhaps of one or two others and a hand at PR, for example. Sorry, I seem to have got side tracked. Why not make your suggestion at WT:TFAR, since it's quite topical and there are some extra eyes on the place. (And if you see a date I've missed in my brief survey of 2013, just add it!) Bencherlite^Talk 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that reasonable objection after I posted here. And I wondered if the structure for TFAR could incorporate both? Shouldn't be beyond the intelligence of the very capable people we have round here. Advantages would be that as trying to find date-relevant articles for the annuals, like Christmas, we could attempt to find relevant ones for events like the Jubilee, opening or closing of major sports events, religious festivals that are minority occasions for WASPs, breaking some of the accusations of systemic bias, etc. Best of all, I think we could even incentivise editors to produce articles relevant for a date that they can see is, say, six months away and nothing relevant is in the cupboard. Generating enthusiasm for developing new FAs (and reviewing them!) would be the best outcome possible.

If the idea's a goer, we can cross-reference your page with WP:OTD. I'm sure that creative Wikipedians will add more - for example, 2013 offers people like me the excitement of not just one but two Ashes series! --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I nuts or is this just being a pain in the ass to be a pain in the ass...

here - this isn't something I like having some strange person swoop in and decide for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I am strange but lets not talk about that. You have to realise that nobody decides for themselves how things are decides. Consensus rules. Neither you or I don't really have the final say. But anyway, the edit I did was the closest approximation to the vast majority of pages on WP. I would dearly love to see a prescriptive MOS on it instead of having thousands ^{[citation needed]} of different styles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, I've been around for a while. And I generally don't think that getting "consensus" happens from someone edit-warring to get their way. Also - the method you used isn't the preferred method for getting a bolded subheading - using a semi-colon like that can interfere with screen readers. I note that you imposed this "convention" on several of the DYKs today - are you planning on doing this all the time? Perhaps you might want to check out the last few featured articles of the day - none of them conform to your "approximation" nor do several other of the DYKs right now. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that we don't prescribe everything... we leave some things to editor choice. Since I did the majority of the work on the article - it's up to my choice and consensus needs to be shown to change that choice - do you have such a consensus? (One that doesn't arise from just reverting and reverting... that can get you into trouble for edit warring). Now, can we leave this alone while the person I actually asked the question of gets back on it? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have also been around a while but that's not important. What is important is that we achieve the best out come for WP and hence the readers. Not prescribing things leads to the exactly this sort of problem - continual change because there is no standard. We see it with US vs British spelling. We see it all over WP. So this supposed strength of WP is also a weakness. Point taken about the screen readers. Anyway, it is not a biggie in the overall scheme of things. Adding content and battling vandalism is so much more important. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"continual change" is avoided by retaining the established style. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, this kind of behaviour is what lands you in trouble. Don't edit war, discuss. And fwiw, Ealdgyth has an outstanding record of creating the highest quality peer-assessed content on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are now discussing it and if Ealdgyth is really interested in creating high quality content s/he should strive for consistency across ALL FAs. How am I supposed to edit article if everyone has a different way depending on the whims of its editor? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Thanks for hanging out on my talk page tonight - presumably this is what it feels like to be popular. Incidentally, while I think of it, Ealdgyth, any chance that you have an English translation in your history book collection of Audita tremendi, the papal bull that launched the Third Crusade? Mrs (Dr) Bencherlite is lecturing tomorrow (someone's away, long story) and the bull is part of the lecture... could be interesting without it!

So, back to the issue. As far as I can see, Ealdgyth's choice of section headers was fine, as was her use of level three headings instead of the ";" trick, which is increasingly being squeezed out as it's an accessibility issue for screen readers (e/c, I see Alan takes that point now). Different people do things in different ways, and as long as the initial choice on a minor thing like that is fine, I'd agree with Ucucha about retaining the original author's style on such points, as a courtesy if nothing else. Bencherlite^Talk 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have two gin and tonics, a diet Coke (of course) and a Jagerbomb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Urf - no, I don't believe I do. Did you try here? Im not really an "in depth" Crusades person ... it's always been a bit past my interest period. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, who's buying? Mine's a double burger, preferably without any horse. --Dweller (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is great! A party at Bencherlites instead of a riot at my place. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to have a guideline spelled out and set in stone (!?) in the MOS so this scenario is not repeated over and over. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we need to stop mindlessly changing minor and irrelevant details of formatting and trust that the authors who are able to write good content are also able to format that content well, so this scenario is not repeated over and over.

In any case, you should certainly avoid using ";" for bolding: it technically creates a definition list, and it will greatly confuse screen readers or any other tools that attempt to distill meaning out of the page's generated HTML. Ucucha (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to have consistency in layout. We have an extensive MOS for it and we should extend it to this issue as well. The issue with ";" is a new one to me and I don't know if the help pages document its use thoroughly enough. Do you know it ''' as a heading is acceptable for screen readers? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, I think Ealdgyth's layout has to stand, according to the WP:CITEVAR guideline (even though I think your edit improved the look of the article). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, Alan, we're coming over to yours later once we trash Bencherlite's place. <hic> Oh, I am Bencherltie. <hic> Benchlirete... <hic> becnerhlite... <hic> Another G&T please, TRM, I'm still too sober. I think I just read Alan asking for something to be discussed and agreed in the MOS to prevent conflict. Because that plan always works without any problems, doesn't it? Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And now Ucucha and Gimmetoo are here too! Trebles all round! I've never had so many edit conflicts on my own frigging talk page before! Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And now I'm going to be blamed for turning Bench into a lush... I can see it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her. Thanks, Ealdgyth. (Actually, it was TRM who started the drinking, though he'll claim that he was only having the Diet Coke and that the rest were for us. Bencherlite^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to creat onother BIG msg banner and another edit conflict Bencherlite but if we take this party elsewhere everyone will be able to join it the fun. Maybe move to WT:MOS? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party for no Semi colon for bold, 3 July 2012, "It's always going to be a matter of judgement, and our mission has to be to help as many others develop their judgement as we can." I changed my established style. Happy developing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Papal bull

Bencher, does Mrs need the entire speech? It's in this book in translation, but I can't find it online. If I had a better idea of what she needs, I might be able to help more. --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Infuriatingly, Papal encyclicals online, your friendly repository of bulls in English, starts in 1216, and your missus needs 1187. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller, that's very decent of you to look as well. I've found that translation used here as well so hopefully that'll do. Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodoh. Meanwhile, I'm off to drop the Vatican librarian a stinging rebuke. A piffling 797 years of bulls on their website, I ask you... Haven't they heard of our views on recentism? --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. They probably even support the Aussies at cricket just to get their revenge for Henry VIII. Bencherlite^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that the Vatican has generally been fighting a losing battle since the mid 80s, it's sadly more likely they're in England's camp. Though the Pope must surely be encouraged by the sterling Ashes wins by the Poms since 2005. --Dweller (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dweller, I can't tell if you're joking or not, but papalencyclicals.net is not a Vatican website (read the small print) and it's not official in any sense; it's financed by one Catholic layman. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Was joking verily. --Dweller (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Joel Brand

Hi Bencherlite, I'd prefer that this not go on the main page on January 27 as scheduled. To do a final check I would need to order some books via inter-library loan, and they can take several weeks to arrive. I hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to get round to ordering the books. The problem is that they take weeks to arrive, then I have them for a short time only with no renewals, so I basically have to drop everything else when they arrive. It means I keep putting it off, but I'll try to knuckle down and do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Waitangi Day

I have removed the maint tags from the Waitangi Day article and removed some contentious material. The sections that were tagged could do with references but it is factual and therefore not really in need of them. Can you reconsider its use for On This Day? I doubt that we will get Waitangi Day to FA status by the 6th of Feb. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (reply here)

I'm not head honcho at the OTD pages, just a labourer at the TFA coalface... in fact, OTD is a more easy-going about who edits the pages in the run-up to the day, so as you had addressed the tag, I had already tweaked Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 6 (even before I saw your message) and moved Waitangi Day out of the "ineligible" section into the glorious daylight of visibility! Bencherlite^Talk 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been to Waitangi, tourist trap, give me your dollars etc etc etc. I also went to Auckland to see the Treaty of Waitangi which is an incredibly depressing series of "sign away my land" crosses on a manuscript. Most tourists just head north without bothering with the treaty itself. No chance the article will be ready by Waitangi Day, but perhaps a project we can work on for next year?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Us British were rather good at that sort of deal, weren't we? "Here's some pencils and some amusing toys, now sign here and we'll take your land and make your wildlife extinct"... Bencherlite^Talk 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Glyn Mathias

Hi Bencherlite. Thanks a lot, and thanks also for your citing of the MOS:LAYOUT. You'll be glad to see I've put it back in the right place! Also, I have a reputable source for the family members (one of those already cited), so I've now reintroduced the section and entered the source name at the end of it.

Also, I wonder if you could possibly help me with the coding for the repetition of a source, if you have time? I've also provided a reputable source (another, also already cited), for the subject's place of residence. That has been entered immediately after the place of residence in both of the places it appears in the article (that is, in the Infobox and the 'Family' section), in case a reader only part-reads the article. Many thanks again. Regards Zhu Haifeng (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Help on an article?

Hello, wanna help me write an article on the NY SAFE Act? IronKnuckle (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on February 11, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 11, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The position of Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture was established at the University of Oxford in 1847. This professorship in the critical interpretation or explanation of biblical texts, a field known as exegesis, was instituted by John Ireland, who was Dean of Westminster from 1816 until his death in 1842. In his will, he left £10,000 to the university, with the interest arising to be applied to the professorship. Edward Hawkins, the first professor, was elected on the strength of his reputation gained opposing the Oxford Movement. In contrast, the third professor, Henry Liddon, was a prominent member of the Oxford Movement. Since 1932, the holder of the chair has been appointed to a fellowship at The Queen's College. Before taking up the position, two of the most recent Dean Ireland's Professors taught in Canada: G. B. Caird (pictured) at McGill University and E. P. Sanders at McMaster University. Christopher Rowland became the twelfth Dean Ireland's Professor in 1991.

Your GA nomination of Prelude and Fugue on a theme of Vittoria

The article Prelude and Fugue on a theme of Vittoria you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Prelude and Fugue on a theme of Vittoria for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 12:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:GeeJo/Draft

Glad to see someone using it! I've updated it with the newly-promoted articles (that haven't been delisted or appeared on the main page) since I stopped looking at the requests page in 2011. The more up-to-date version should be a little more useful, at least. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's article for improvement and the main page

The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Interwiki Coordination Barnstar
		Thank you for your support for expanding the articles, styles and management of Wikipedia and a variety of support to other global webpages for the safety and expansion of Wikimedia. Please accept this award of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving mutiple pages, solving sources and incidents to secure the sights of Wikimedia; you deserve it. Keep up the affable work. --GoShow (............................) 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prelude and Fugue on a Theme of Vittoria

The article Prelude and Fugue on a Theme of Vittoria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prelude and Fugue on a Theme of Vittoria for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 18:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! - It reminds me that I placed a Britten red link long ago, now would be the time to make it blue, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your tweaked comments

Sorry about any unintentional formatting errors at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society, thanks again for your participation! — Cirt (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Way too many manual closing steps

Way too many manual closing steps at WP:FPORTC and at Wikipedia:Featured portal review, any ideas on how to make this process for closing these simpler? — Cirt (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to implement and trim some of those closing steps per your suggestions. I think a bunch of these pages should be deleted, instead of just marking as historical, it will help clean things up, because the "historical" tag accidentally gets re-transcluded on pages where it should not go. — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you go back over my recent contribs with regards to this particular suggestion and just see if what I've done so far makes sense? I've tried to take inspiration from your suggestions and remove steps. With regards to Portal:Featured content/Portals, and Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, I'm not sure about those because it looks like they are linked on tons of pages, but we could try either marking them "historical" and/or nominating for deletion of those pages. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

April Fools

If you're still looking for an April Fools article, Pig-faced women has intentionally been pulled from the queue in the past to be kept as a reserve April Fool TFA; it's arguably the strangest article on Wikipedia, and almost certainly the strangest current FA. I'm not wildly keen on it ever being on the main page, let alone April 1st—I was always very vocally opposed to the "liturgical calendar" approach to the main page and if I had my way article selection would be truly random; it would need to be heavily protected and constantly monitored as it would have a constant stream of people adding their teachers/friends/celebrities to it; it's an inflammatory topic which covers hot-button issues of sexism, disability and animal cruelty and could be seen as running all three for laughs, provoking legitimate complaints and tying up a lot of volunteer time explaining that an article about sexism and animal cruelty doesn't mean Wikipedia endorsing sexism and animal cruelty; it's been a Mattisse target in the past and would probably stir her into a fresh spree of attacks; it covers (in part) the same Georgian English territory as Cock Lane Ghost and Wife selling (PFWs were a broader phenomenon, appearing in Amsterdam, Dublin and Paris as well as London). However, if Wikipedia is going to insist on maintaining the "Weird crap on the main page" tradition, it's probably as good as any, and if one of the more striking illustrations were used it would have a fighting chance of breaking the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed record. (The "over my dead body" on the talkpage dates from the period when TFAs were unprotected; provided it were semiprotected and heavily watchlisted I wouldn't have an issue with this appearing.) – iridescent 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

SR 78

CA 78's probably not a good article to put on the Main Page, if that's what you were thinking... there's a whole bunch of sources that need to be added that I didn't have access to when I wrote the article. (If that's not what you were thinking, then never mind - I just saw your copyedit and was quite alarmed ) --Rschen7754 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:REX#Essays on Montesquieu and on the Enlightenment

Hi! Did you got it! I already sent it by email... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Eagles

I admire your scheduling again, four eagles in a row! - A question for the future: Wagner 22 May, Rite of Spring 29 May, it's close, but both should appear on their special anniversaries, right? Actually even if they were on consecutive days, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so what am I missing? Eagles, eagles, eagles... I'll see about getting some POTDs with eagles too if you want to really blow their minds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Swagle

You blocked User:Swagle, and quite rightly - he was repeatedly messing around with test edits on articles. Judging by the talk page discussion, it looks like he now understands that he should not do that and that if he wants to test anything he should use his sandbox. Also, regarding the article he created which was speedy deleted by CSD:A7, I have offered to help him on his talk page and he has agreed - my intention would be to ask him to provide the sources he thinks show notability, and we can take it from there. So, would you consider unblocking him under those conditions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For persistent vigilance against vandals, in defense of the article Lady Saigō on the day it was the Featured Article on Wikipedia's Main Page, User:Bencherlite is awarded the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Your efforts are appreciated! Boneyard90 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Thanks for the heads up, I've started scheduling 'em. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you for your help! It is good to know that fellow Wikipedians have our backs so that we can contribute to Wickipedia without fear of retaliation! I am One of Many (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your continued help!--I am One of Many (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again and I'm hoping this will work! I think this is in connection with the SYSWOX spam page I nominated for speedy deletion and which was deleted. The IP stalker was obsessed about an article I nominated from his comments. If he is from SYSWOX, he has nearly unlimited access to different IPs. The company website is not working at this time, but I found this information [1]--I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi mate, since you're active right now, have admin tools, and are clearly in the mood for cleaning up (!), would you mind deleting this out-of-process nom page for me? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic advice requested

I've added some alternative images to the TFA blurb mockups at User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb. Which do you prefer? Prioryman (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the copy-edit to the list. Regards, Zia Khan 17:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Re Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) — The Pop Culture wins again. Sca (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-stated reply on my 'Talk' page. However, when I consider that (the late) Whitney Houston gets more than 12,000 words on Wiki, I conclude the cross-cultural battle has been lost, and I don't feel like participating, as you suggest, in featured-article discussions. I think it would merely degenerate into me arguing with pop fans about their heroes of the moment. (See comments re article length at Talk:Lindsay Lohan).

Re yesterday's Featured Article on Beyoncé's song: It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that Beyoncé et al. have fostered an international publicity campaign on her behalf that began with the infamous lip-synching at the presidential inauguration, continued with the Super Bowl and — now this. Also, I found the photo used obnoxious.

PS: I rather think Bob Dylan is in a different category than the pop stars mentioned above.

Sca (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

PPS: Newsweek now proclaims: "Whether your assessment of Beyoncé is that she’s a pop princess, hip-hop diva, a conspiracy theorist’s latest incarnation of the Illuminati, a feminist icon, an overexposed celebrity, or just another working mother—albeit one who seems to have Oprah, Prince Charles, and the president of the United States on speed-dial—one thing is for certain: we are now—for better or worse, for good or ill, or all the malaise in between—living in the Age of Beyoncé...."

Re the Age of B, see also:

http://www.inquisitr.com/519855/the-age-of-beyonce-resistance-is-futile-vogue-video/

The campaign continues. Has Wiki been sucked into it?

Sca (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Err, no. It was chosen as a bit of fun for Valentine's Day, that is all. Bencherlite^Talk 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, coincidence. But not a great choice, under the circumstances, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Hi Bencherlite, I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions for me?

1. What is the current status of my Icelandic Phallological Museum nomination? It has been up (if you'll excuse the unintentional double entendre) for over a month now and has unanimous support, though not for April 1st. How much longer do you think the nomination needs to be listed?

2. You probably didn't see my earlier request on this particular subject when your talk page was spammed by a vandal, but you suggested that I should look for different images for my German V-weapons sites triple TFA. I've done a few mockups at User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb. Which do you prefer? Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) For the first one, it's possible that Bencherlite is not scheduling it to avoid the wrath of Raul and his supporters for appearing to "bite the hand that feeds him". If so, this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We should have an essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not realpolitik — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

On the IPM nomination, Raul did email the delegates the other day about the way forward in the light of your comments. I have raised the issue in my reply of the April Fools situation and suggested a way forward, but I don't think Raul has had a chance to reply as yet. I hope he does soon. As I have previously said, I don't think IPM should be the TFA on 1st April but I would like to give Raul the chance to respond before any decisions are taken. I have also, incidentally, suggested a way forward in future for unusual TFA nominations such as double/triple headers or repeat showings, and again I await Raul's views. You will note that I haven't removed the triple TFA nomination from TFAR for breaching the rules... ;-)

As for the V-weapons photo, sorry, I didn't get round to replying although I did see the photo alternatives. (Trouble is that my phone pings with an email that my talk page has changed, I check the issue, then forget to reply when I get onto my laptop!) As nobody else has commented on your choice of photo, who am I to disagree with your original choice?! Regards to you both. Bencherlite^Talk 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I count 10 people against running it on April Fool's Day and 5, including Raul, for running it on that day. I don't think Raul would override a 2:1 consensus against the idea; he's more sensible than that. As for the photo, I don't mind if you think an alternative is better. Be honest. Which of the mockups on User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb do you think is best? (Crisco, if you want to give your opinion too, feel free.) Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the tunnel has more atmosphere, but since these are about missile bunkers then the missiles should take the spotlight (i.e. I have no issue with the original image you chose) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but Crisco effectively says the same as me) I quite like the tunnel, to be honest, although a picture of a rocket is probably the way to go given the subject matter. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd high five you, but we'd probably kill some electrons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• What's a few electrons between friends? Or I'll just borrow a rocket from Prioryman, fill it with sweets and send it in your general direction. Can't imagine that causing any problems as it crosses the Middle East or the Koreasmy Asian geography sucks... Bencherlite^Talk 00:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Separated at birth, eh? FYI, the tunnel image has appeared before on the Main Page when Fortress of Mimoyecques appeared as a DYK. It's still the 8th most viewed DYK of all time (over 57,000 views within only 8 hours). So perhaps I will go for that, in the hope that the image will once again attract interest. Prioryman (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Brother! (Seriously though, the missile may be more relevant... although I can't fault your reasoning. Not when my TFAs average some 10k views) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're doing better than me, then; my average is just under 8k. Fortress of Mimoyecques was by far the biggest outlier, followed by R. v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal with 42,632. Bizarrely enough, The Hole (Scientology) is now up to 160,000 page views in 3 weeks (Reddited twice) even before it's got onto the Main Page. On that subject, Crisco, could I ask you to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology) as the reviewer's closure is being challenged. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Scientology? I'd say I'm crazy, not stupid, but then my students challenged that assertion yesterday. How can you have an average for TFA when these will be your first? Oh, for DYK my average is probably under a thousand. I've seen some get like only 100 clicks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But yeah, I'll try and look tonight if I don't forget. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you posted - I was referring to DYKs, you were referring to TFAs. I've had 8 TFAs on the Main Page so far. One was before grok.se was set up, so I don't have stats for it, but the other 7 have an average of about 152,000 page views for the 4 days in which they were on the Main Page. My record was Sinking of the RMS Titanic to mark the centenary last April with about 275,000 (though I guess Bencherlite would consider that to have had some wind assistance!). Actually, I just noticed an oddity on my list which maybe Bencherlite could advise on. Execution by elephant ran as TFA on March 14, 2004. However, that was a completely different version of the article (which I didn't write) which was subsequently de-listed as featured. I rewrote the whole thing and got it up to featured status again a couple of years later. Since it's effectively a different article now, is it eligible again for TFA? Prioryman (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• That question goes straight to Raul, per the header at WP:TFAR. Ah, nice nice. I think Frank's Cock will have some good views when it runs (1 December 2013!... in case I forget) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not one for April Fool's then? ;-) On that subject, I've come up with two more hooks that I think will get some interest on Fish Day: Did you know... that thousands of people in Mali are bozos? and ... that Arnor Hairy-Nose, Eystein Foul-Fart, Hergils Knob-Buttocks and Olvir the Child-Sparer were among the first settlers of Iceland? Forget Christopher Columbus, the Vikings had real names. Prioryman (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Considering what happened at WT:DYK.... Oh my, reminds me of the Anal people of India. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)