User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

TFA

I'm not Brian either, but (a) I agree with Dweller that using "composition" would wrongly imply completion and (b) this is wording taken directly from the opening line of the FA itself, and WP:ERRORS defers to the article in such cases. Bencherlite^Talk 10:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I can accede to that re implying completion, but "compositional" still sounds awkward to me. Musical? Creative? Last effort at composing? Sca (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss this on the talk page of the article? I'm not the main author of the article, merely a passing commentator at WP:ERRORS. FWIW, "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was his final major compositional project" makes perfect sense to me. "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was his final major musical project" - no, he did other things beside composing. "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was his final major creative project" - not grabbing me but might work. "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was his last major effort at composing" - yuck. Bencherlite^Talk 14:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh well. Cheers. Sca (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References and case links

Hi Bencherlite, can I ask for a contribution from you - I seem to remember you're a lawyer. I've created hundreds and maybe thousands of case pages for English law, US law, and have been working on EU law recently. This includes English contract law, English land law, English trusts law, UK company law, etc, and almost all related cases. Just recently two issues have been brought up (1) whether there can be references with red links to further cases in the "See also" section, and (2) whether drop-down templates are allowed to have external links. We have been trying to get a template - like Template:ussc that would work for bailii but I don't have the expertise. But a dispute has arisen, about whether (1) and (2) are allowed. This has been thrashed out on User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Wikidea - and it has become increasingly personalised, about me, to the point where a 6 year old sanction that I'd forgotten has been reincarnated - that came from me (very regretably) insulting another user. But I don't want that to get in the way of what I know has been an incredibly useful set of tools, and way of editing the law pages. I'd be very grateful if you could offer your opinion.

Here is are a couple of examples of a drop-down case menu - I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. On Talk:Tulk v Moxhay I've posted about the red link issue. Here is another, of the most recent changes. I've done my best to explain the issues, but I'm worried that my stamina is getting thinner, and it's not working. I'm also worried the more I say, the more likely it is that I'll say something stupid. It's also exhausting because I could've been using the time - as I have done for many years - to actually create things rather than arguing about them. Wikidea 14:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		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 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost here!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [1]

Question

Why do you jump on the "nit picking baiting"-train? Do you have such a strong wish to please TRM? No more baiting. Thank you. BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Me, baiting you? That's a laugh. Out of you and TRM, I know which one I think makes the better net contribution to Wikipedia. Bencherlite^Talk 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon

Hi. Could use your help on this, can you identify the really core Welsh churches which might be core articles and help add list of missing articles? Any notable missing churches, add them to the missing article hotlist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK self-nom

Hello. I noticed you reverted [2] my DYK self-nom. Sorry, it has been a while since I made a DYK nomination, did I do it wrong? — Kralizec! (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry... I wondered whether I had mis-clicked scrolling through my watchlist, so I checked my contributions and nothing showed up (and oddly enough the DYK page didn't load either). There must have been a bit of a lag, though, because I clearly did misclick and it's now appearing in my contributions. Entirely my fault. Sorry. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of an amusing wikistory

about the section of mine that you deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot (song) . I started an article, Red Hot (song) and a bunch of deletion stuff popped up. I looked at the dates, Jan 31, the same day I had created the article, so I went and posted what you removed. it was only later that I discovered that the delete stuff was posted on Jan 31, 2010. Whooops. Well I guess that this is what passes for humor on wikipedia. Thanks for helping clear up the mess I left behind. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

R v R DYK

I have responded to your concern at Template:Did you know nominations/R v R. Please can you re-review? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal info

In light of your recent edits to User talk:Dogebro per WP:YOUNG, could you take a look at another account? User:Immu 01, a young man aged 15, also added quite a bit of personal info to his user page, making it look like a cross between a BLP and an advert. I tried getting him to change it, even posting to BLPN. He removed some info and today I removed his birthday and last name. Could you determine if any other changes are needed and if any history needs to be redacted? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 17:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've referred this straight to the oversight team, on the basis that if I revdel anything it would need OS anyway, and if they didn't think it needed OS then it probably wouldn't need deleting! Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now that I know, if I come across something like this again in the future, I'll just email them. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 17:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wythenshawe Hall

Would you be able to protect Wythenshawe Hall? The reverting is continuing by a number of IP's. Cassianto^Talk 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Tar. Cassianto^Talk 22:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Double negative archive deletion

@Bencherlite: I recently requested that Talk:Double negative/Archive 1 be deleted. The reason it ought to be deleted is that it's not really an archive but just a copy and paste of everything from one talk page to another. The archive page was created without informing any of the contributors and given the fact the creator of that page has also vandalised the Double negative page, his contributions are simply null and void. He has contributed nothing to the article and therefore this 'archive page' should be deleted. There are no plans currently to archive none of the talk discussions under the double negative talk page as most of them are still active. This creation of an archive page was a mistake that must be deleted. Vormeph (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't need permission to create an archive. There was no cut and paste. Honestly, all the talk pages and their archives have been completely screwed up. :::SIGH::: --evrik ^(talk) 01:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I will fix this. Bencherlite^Talk 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Vormeph: The bot archived all the old discussions but left some unsigned ones of great antiquity as well as the most recent ones. I have started again. The very old threads, and the not-quite-as-old-but-no-longer-active threads, are in archive 1. The most recent threads are on the talk page. I have deleted archives 2 and 3 and the material from there is all in archive 1 so nothing is lost. I think we're sorted now. In future, Evrik, if you want to archive some old threads on a talk page, set up bot archiving - moving a talk page just causes problems. Vormeph, you don't need to "ping" me on my own talk page - I get notified of the message anyway! Bencherlite^Talk 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ya know ... I've done that move a number of times. This is the first time it's been a problem. I will note what you said. --evrik ^(talk) 02:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for telling me the right thing to do.

MaranoFan (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

4 years is enough

Nearly 4 years ago, you wrote on my talk page to stop reviewing good article nominations. 3 years is long enough. Therefore, I intend to begin to look at good article nominations but not make comments (which I've been doing for a while). Later this year (but not sooner than July 1, 2016), I intend to communicate with another editor to collaboratively review good articles but only to the extent that I give ideas and the collaborator does the formal review. I intend to review good articles no sooner than July 1, 2017, which would have been more than 5 years since last reviewing articles independently and only after full collaboration with another editor (including writing the review, not just giving ideas). In the interim, I have gained more experience in teaching and education. Thank you for your understanding. Please acknowledge reading this message. TeacherA (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my first foray into offering comments of an article that has applied for GA. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trenton,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=716763950

Trenton, New Jersey I am NOT reviewing this article for good article status. I am also not making comprehensive comments about the nomination. However, a little hint. Look at the history and see if it is missing some notable facts. Is there any coverage about the last 100 years, 1916-2016? If not or not too much, do you think there should be? TeacherA (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Bencherlite: Actually the history section of Trenton stops at 1837 and there is also no child article, such as History of Trenton. Rather than criticize, I posed a thoughtful question. TeacherA (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

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

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Little bit polemicky

Well, not really, but I just thought I'd draw your attention to User:Andrew Davidson/Main Page Errors just in case you hadn't noticed. We're both featured, which is nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I had spotted it, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 13:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 thank you

16 July 2016

Thank you for helpful comments in the FAC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Brian, but increasingly I find that I neither have the time nor the inclination to edit. It is a good idea, though, and I wish it success. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Bencherlite. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

kwinana freeway

yes, i was a bit concerned that I had a file in commons with .jpg.jpg - and decided to delete and replace, so thank you for fixing the link - I had forgotten to chase the links here on wp en JarrahTree 15:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Bencherlite.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bencherlite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Featured portal process

Thanks for the message. I totally didn't notice that User:Cirt all of a sudden stopped editing, especially when nothing outside the ordinary like being sanctioned or did something controversial was done. I wondered if something happened to this editor. Let's wait for others to chime in and see if interest level remains or sparks more interest into the process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		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 01:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bencherlite!

Happy New Year!

Bencherlite,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Refund

Bencherlite,

Please restore KoshVorlon/gits. There was no template in my signature. As I explained to Irridescent, there was one in there from Jan 3 to Jan 5, which I removed as it wasn't working the way I itntended. Because there was no template in my signature from jan 5 onward, your rationale for deletion was not correct. Kosh

Your signature here is 298 characters. WP:SIGLEN says "The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the signature box." Therefore you were evading SIGLEN by using User:KoshVorlon/gits as a substituted template in your signature box. Therefore I will not undelete it. Please create a new signature in the signature box alone, without using substitution. Iridescent has listed here instances of you being told the rules about signatures plenty of times over the years. Enough. Bencherlite^Talk 13:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Bencherlite, please accept my apology for remarks made about you on my page. I'm deeply embarrassed. I thought I'd help Gerda address your comments on the FAC (which I agree with) because ... well ... because. That action wasn't meant to be divisive and I regret, deeply, that it has become so. <Ducking out now, head down in shame>. P.s Belated Happy New Year to you and the Bencherlite family. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and a belated HNY to you and yours too. None of this is your fault, V. Well done for trying to improve the article, irrespective of Gerda's plans for it. Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Bencherlite. I'm just posting to let you know that Keeper of the Archives – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 20. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured portals

I have noticed that you have tagged the featured portal pages as historical. You have sound reasons for doing so, but it may be better to have consensus for this. I noticed that you announced it at a talk page, but it's an obscure and little used page (which was precisely the point), and people may not notice it. So, I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Featured portals, to have more imput, and clarify a pair of details that you probably did not think about. Please check it and add your opinion, explaining in higher detail than my introductory comment why those pages should be marked historical. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't WP:SUBST the {{rfc}} template, because this is what happens when you do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it's obviously been ages since I last started an RFC! Bencherlite^Talk 21:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

T:DYK and "recently created"

Sorry, I know what's happened. In the past there was always a link to Special:NewPages from the main page - useful if you are patrolling. Somewhere along the way this got removed and replaced with a link to Wikipedia:Recent additions. Then someone changed the wording; I know I had a discussion about this a few months back - or maybe longer, because I can't find it now. Following that, we changed the name of the link. I can't remember if I did this myself or if someone else did, and I forgot about it until just now. Any proposal for resolving this? Or do you feel that a link to new pages from the main page is unnecessary? Deb (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Has there ever been a link to "Special:NewPages" from the DYK box? No, not as far as I'm aware. This is how it looked in 2008, for instance: the link is to "Recent additions" and labelled "Archive". There's a link to Special pages in the toolbox on the left hand side. We don't need one in the DYK box when "NewPages" isn't relevant for DYK readers. Bencherlite^Talk 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't in the DYK box originally but it was on the main page. And it was in DYK until this recent edit. Deb (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deb, why do you think that that diff helps you? It shows a change from '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Recently created articles]]''' to * '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Archive]]''', which is the same target, just a different label. What it doesn't show is a link to Special:NewPages being removed from the DYK box, does it? Bencherlite^Talk 08:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point. There used to be a link to NewPages from the Main Page. It moved around a bit and this was the nearest thing to it and had been there a long time. But I still think linking to Recent Additions - the title of the page - is better than linking to Archive, which isn't really what it is.Deb (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA question

I finally figured out that the comments in the wikitext of WP:TFAR meant "don't remove the headers or table rows even if it would leave multiple blanks". I had never spent any time at TFA before I became a coordinator, so I didn't have the background of knowing how it worked; if you see me making other mistakes, or have advice, please don't hesitate to let me know.

I think jimknut must have substed the Temperatures Rising TFAR subpage when he added it; I just undid that and put the template reference back in. Is there any more clean up needed when that happens? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything else to do, but I'll check. On the technical bits of being a coordinator, I suspect you've got it all under control now - I did a "how-to" sheet for Dan, Brian and Chris when they took over, but I've no idea what I've done with it anyway... Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have it, and will go back through it. It was very useful indeed. I've done a condensed "TFA for dummies" one-pager for myself, as a quick reference, but now I have a clearer idea of how it all fits together I will go back and re-read your notes. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! Bencherlite^Talk

Why seek ye

Why seek ye the living?, my Easter egg 2017 (which we'll sing then) - I am surprised how little I find online. Do you know more about the background, chorister? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the piece at all - but why on earth are you referencing so much to an unknown editor's version of the piece uploaded to a wiki? Unreliable source, surely. If it was a scan of the original publication, perhaps that might have some use, but how can we know if the edition is accurate? And why do you give an external link to a site which adds nothing apart from showing us where a copy of the music (from the unreliable source) can be bought? WP:ELNO, surely? Bencherlite^Talk 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a different score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Life outside Wikipedia" prevents me from taking care of it today. Just one question: we have readers from international cultural background. I thought explaining that the men in white garments are traditionally identified as angels would help them. I hope to have more time tomorrow. I wonder if the topic should be expanded to church music by Stanford, or Why seek ye the living? at the end of the 19th century, - really surprised how many settings and this images were created within a short time, while I don't know any by Bach or Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article still says that they are angels - look again at my edit. As for a general article, do you have any source that discusses the topic as a whole, or would it just be a random assortment of factoids thrown together? If the latter, there wouldn't be the makings of an article really. Bencherlite^Talk 18:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have sources yet, and am tired of digging, that's why I said tomorrow. I am in love with the music and therefore foolish ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

After more days of real life: I restored some of the music section, arguing that it is like the plot of a book. I find this particular score decent, and said so on the article talk. (I've seen others, where many mistakes had to be corrected.) - There are different approaches to writing an article. My view: for a featured article, solid sources as a basis are great and wanted, but for new topics, one fact as a stub is better than nothing, and a collection of facts are puzzle pieces, from which a more complete picture may arise, especially if others add their pieces. - Thank you for copy-editing, that article and others! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK

As a result of discussion on the DYK talk page, you unarchived this nomination. Please could you reverse that edit because the NDR Chor hook is currently on the main page and the template needs to be archived. Of the four hooks that were being discussed on the DYK talk page, I returned two to the nominations page for further discussion of appropriate hooks, and in the other two cases, I rephrased the hook and left the hooks in the prep area. NDR Chor was one of the latter pair. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not sure why you didn't just fix it yourself. Not a big deal, anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You had reverted my edit, and I wasn't going to start an edit war. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

198.236.67.17

• 198.236.67.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

When blocking this IP address, did you happen to see their block log? I ask this in considering how much vandalism this IP has made across articles, a short block may not stop them for long... Thanks! 73.106.78.204 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did. No vandalism between 27 January 2017 and 9 May 2017, so I took the view that a short block would suffice for now. If there's more vandalism, the next block will be longer. Thanks for asking. Bencherlite^Talk 07:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Norm Daniels, Balliol College alum

Please stop removing the designation Alumni of University of Oxford from Norman Daniels. In 1966, Dr. Daniels earned his M.A. at Balliol College at Oxford University. MaynardClark (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't the article stays on status quo [3] until we reach a consensus? He inflated all the numbers on his last edit. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: no. To avoid a protecting admin being deemed to have taken sides in a content dispute, the article is simply protected in whatever state it is. BLP violations might make a difference but that doesn't apply here. See this link for a more light-hearted explanation of why I have carried out the time-honoured mistake of protecting 'the wrong version'. Bencherlite^Talk 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are those who misunderstand what "The Wrong Version" actually means, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191#Page protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Groan... Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)