User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 21

Thanks for your comment/vote
On the Rhodes Scholar rename proposal.

Do you know anything about Johnpacklambert's comment, though? "Upmerge all To Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford, but subdivide out by specific college where possible. This is basically an award category, which we discourage, ad has the added disadvantage of putting many people in two categories for attending one edutational institution, which just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)"

As a proposed course of action, there seems to be something about Johnpacklambert's comment that that incenses me so.

I looked into Overcategorization, the relevant policy, but it seems absolutely absurd to suggest that a Rhodes Scholarship is not, in fact, a defining feature of a recipient. What would your thoughts on this be, and would you care to share them? Cheers.

Also, wow, another Oxonian! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thank you for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem - or should I say (as it's you) no worries? ;-) BencherliteTalk 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Simpsons: Hit & Run
Hi there,

I thought we didn't protect featured articles - so that "anybody could edit"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean that you thought we didn't protect TFAs (since many run-of-the-mill FAs have semi-protection for periods up to and including indef). There is no rule that TFAs cannot be semi-protected either before or during their appearance on the main page (e.g. Middle Ages which was a recent TFA was semi-protected for a long while before its appearance). For semi-protection on the day, it is a question of balancing the vandalism / idiocy from IP and new users against any benefit received from edits by other IP / new users.  I took the view that this was all getting a bit silly today so protected it, but if you want to see whether another admin thinks that semi-protection wasn't warranted, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP and link to this discussion - I am quite happy for another admin to lift the semi-protection (but not the move protection, of course) if that admin thinks that semi-protection is not needed.  No further notification to / consultation with me is necessary.  Thanks, BencherliteTalk 18:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not bothered at all - it was a genuine question. Always looking to learn new things - or improve things I thought I knew.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction helmet
This is not a case of opening the choice of a different image. I, as in ME, Amandajm (talk) was asked to present n option. It is my case that is being argued. If you want to start a discussion of an open choice for another object, then do it, but don't confuse the issues. I have only one purpose, as a museum professional, and that is getting a museum replica removed from the lead, because it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and unreliable. This is my case that is being presented. Please don't interfere with the way that I chose to do it. Amandajm (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. You clearly don't (want to) listen to other viewpoints apart from your own and I bet that you won't accept the result of this discussion if it goes against you.  No wonder Ealdgyth hates having her work displayed on the main page as it's just an opportunity for the masses to descend and cause perpetual grief for her.  And, tbh, nobody on Wikipedia cares if you're a museum professional or the Duchess of Bermuda.  BencherliteTalk 23:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * (munch, munch). Thank you for those kind words, which are much appreciated. I look forward to being of service in the future! BencherliteTalk 13:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DNGK/Citizen exploitation (2nd nomination)
It might be possible that someone will want to fix the article, even if nobody did earlier. Please relist. (I'm not sure I personally do, but I want a few days to think about it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, FWIW. BencherliteTalk 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC
Hi! Thanks for your suggestion at the FLC here. I've had a go at sorting the sorting. It is OK now? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace
You did not provide a valid reason for closing this. I would therefore ask that you reopen the discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree and will not reopen it. "Keep, moot, historical, meh" was a valid - even if slightly flippant - summary of the strongest arguments. The RFC has been closed since the MFD got underway, so forum-shopping arguments for deletion carried much less weight than they did when the RFC was still open; now that it has been closed, the RFC is not going to change anything, so there's no need to waste time deciding whether it was the proper way of doing things or whether the underlying issue should have done somewhere else; in fact, whether it was a good RFC or not is moot now that it has been closed; making the RFC visible only to administrators achieves nothing in such circumstances; keeping it around as a historical record at least shows everyone what happened and why it was closed down as a bad idea. Or, in other words, I found that the strongest arguments were those of Jayron32 and Gigs, and saw no point in having a continuing meta-debate about whether a closed RFC should be deleted.  If you want to prolong the meta-debate about all this, then feel free to waste your time at WP:DRV but frankly everyone should have better things to do with their time than to argue about whether Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace should be turned into a redlink. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! OTD eligibility on 28th
(comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 28)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Email
Have replied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeh, thanks. Sorry I haven't replied.  Basically I need to work out for myself how many dates might be free/suitable and what articles could be used - I'm thinking about 4, possibly 5, in the last week of October.  I have a hellish few days of work and family busy-ness ahead, so I can't do much now about it.  BencherliteTalk 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. I'll pull what I had for October 1 and replace it, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You've got Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Diptych
"A work consisting of two painted or carved panels ->that are hinged together<-." That's why I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusancairo (talk • contribs) 10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

666!
As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
.... for the advice. Check out the alternatives, and chose your fave! I think it's time to sign out and have make coffee! Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Move protection template
For a reason the bot went crazy so Sigma disallowed it until it ready again. I have no problem doing this, though, before the bot I used to do it and it is kinda fun. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  01:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Who's trying to get my password reset?
Who lives in or near Oshawa, Ontario, I wonder? Nice try but no luck there,. BencherliteTalk 23:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Done
I want to "thank you" for pushing out one of the better editors we had here, that being User:PumpkinSky. Of course, last time he was forced out was because of a featured article and that was lead by Raul654. Now with Raul gone (I wasn't aware he had left), the same article and the TFA coordinator shove PumpkinSky back out the door.

PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place? You should know that the Grace Sherwood article was a major sore spot for PumpkinSky and should have approached the subject with a lot more grace (and some research) than you did. That lack of grace and research cost Wikipedia yet another good editor.

I was surprised when PumpkinSky came back, but I don't think he is going to this time. To be honest, I don't blame him. If I were him, I wouldn't have come back the first time after the BS plagiarism accusations and an actual witchhunt (which was very ironic considering the article).

The loss of PumpkinSky is on you and any future lack of TFAs is also on you. The community expected a change from Raul, instead your decision showed you are just Raul II. That's not something I would want to be responsible for or a title I would want. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was on TFA (check the history of Today's featured article/October 31, 2010, not just the current version). As for the rest of your message, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I didn't force anyone out. I don't think I acted without grace or research. I simply refused to make PumpkinSky and Grace Sherwood an exception to the rule that TFAs are not repeated, for reasons that I have endeavoured to explain at length elsewhere. What PumpkinSky chose to do in response to that is his decision, not mine. BencherliteTalk 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the facts are being distorted here. I was involved in the first Grace Sherwood FA, and I know that the accusations of plagiarism were most certainly not BS. In fact when they first came to light I suggested to Rlevse that we ought to act quickly to sort the issue, which we could easily have done had he accepted that there was a problem that needed to be solved. Eric   Corbett  00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eric. I know that the fallout from the TFA for Grace Sherwood caused a lot of grief to several people, including you. To now see it claimed by PS and Neutralhomer that it was never TFA in the first place... well. BencherliteTalk 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't accurate, everyone agrees it was briefly TFA before it was pulled, but everyone also agrees it was pulled and didn't get its full day in the sun. But I think it's best to let the past be the past on all of that; there was more going on there with Psky than the Sherwood article, so let's not pick at that scab.  The problem with the article is solved now and that's the point.  Montanabw (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, PS apparently disputes that it was on the main page (not once but twice: "why if Grace were indeed on the MP why isn't it listed in that link?"). Quite why he wrote in those terms, I do not know, since he clearly knows it was on the main page, but his phrasing has clearly misled Neutralhomer, who said just a few lines above "PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place?". If I am to be criticised, let's at least get the facts straight. BencherliteTalk 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note his phrasing, "truly" he's pointing out an inconsistency - a solid point is raised, there is no "official" acknowledgement that the article was TFA, the fact is buried in the edit history. Don't misinterpret his comment as a denial, it's a form of argument, he was there at the time, of course he knows what happened - but a basic review of the TFA archives does look like a "no." Evidence of the article being on the main page has been buried, thus, it wasn't "there" in the official eyes of Wiki.  You can't really have it both ways,  saying it ran as a TFA when the "official" TFAs doesn't list it due it to the pull.  And, there is a precedent of running a select few TFAs twice for particularly good reasons.  Therefore, I don't think the occasional bending of a rule  will create a slippery slope into running, say, Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo on an annual basis.   Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FA, WP:FANMP, Talk:Grace Sherwood and WP:FFA all mark it as having been on the main page, so I don't think it's fair to say that evidence has been buried or that it wasn't "there" in the official eyes of Wiki. I even wrote WP:TFA oddities which includes this episode. The simple reason that the TFA subpage for the day doesn't list both articles is that no-one since the switch has edited the archive to mention it (obviously both could not have been included on 31st October 2010 because the subpage was transcluded to the main page, but that's not an issue now). If that's what he wanted, he could have said so; if I misunderstood him, then so did Neutralhomer. I don't know whether editing the archive would be welcome or not - would it be seen as drawing further attention to the episode, or would it simply be making the history clearer? Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll take no position on editing the archive, though if you do it for Grace, it probably needs to be done for any/all others pulled partway through the day (is there a list? Can't be very many?)  Perhaps you didn't deliberately misunderstand Psky, I'll AGF there, but the real point is that, frankly, it would have healed a lot of wounds to have done an IAR on this article, it would NOT have set a precedent (beyond the precedent already set by the Transit of Venus article and the couple other exceptions) and what has happened now is more ill will and probably another round of endless drama and criticisms of the TFA process.  The best leaders know when to bend the rules a little; particularly when doing so will solve more problems than it creates.  "Teh usual suspects" who hate Psky forever would have been upset, but they seriously need to drop the stick, their beef with him was three years ago, it's over, and I am certain that there is NO ONE on wiki has done more to repair any problems raised by their editing than has Psky (including active participation with one of the biggest single copyright reviews on wiki, which cleared Psky of all "crimes" other than a few minor close-pharaphrases, by the way).  Wiki needs a rule of law and a common sense approach to the rules where people who make mistakes and fix them can be welcomed back to the community and their contributions valued.  It's a question of justice tempered with mercy.  To stretch the metaphor a bit more, it's time wiki moved from the Old Testament God of judgement model to a New Testament God of mercy and forgiveness one.  (Also known as maturity).   Montanabw (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The list of articles pulled during their appearance as TFA is very short - just one other apart from Grace Sherwood - see WP:TFA oddities. I don't see the point in repeating myself on the other points. I appreciate your position but we simply disagree and I don't think either of us restating our positions will change the other's view or be terribly helpful. BencherliteTalk 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)But, playing devil's advocate here, if they make a special case because of the editor that requested it (rather than an actual event like the transit or the election in 2012) ... that's actually more unfair. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" Who gets to decide who is important enough to merit an exception? Hell, I'd love an exception so that unless I request it, none of "my" FAs go to TFA. If we make an exception to one rule, why can't I get that exception?? Slippery slope. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - well put (I've been trying to phrase something similar in my answers at WT:TFAR but probably not as elegantly). Once any IAR exception to the "once and only once" principle is granted purely on the basis of the history of the article and the identity of the primary author(s), as opposed to the subject matter of the article (as happened for Obama and Transit of Venus), then it is going to be unfair - well-connected editors will get lots of support for a second run, those without such connections will not and may not even try. BencherliteTalk 19:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And if Ealdgyth gets it I want it too. The Grace Sherwood situation was unfortunate, but I find the argument that she didn't have a full day on the main page and therefore deserves a rerun to be rather unconvincing. Until TFAs are at least semi-protected not having a full day on the main page seems like a blessed relief to me. Eric   Corbett  22:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On one hand, I will wholeheartedly join with anyone arguing in favor of semi-protection of TFA; I think it's a reasonable reform that's long overdue. (And the next time it is raised, I think anyone who has ever babysat a TFA should get their voice to count triple!) But, indeed, Bencher and I are apparently not going to agree, and as he has the "authoriteh", well, the "'cause I'm dad and I said so" argument has never carried much weight with me in 50+ years of life, but that is apparently the only one that matters.  As for the rest, slippery slope reasoning is generally a logical fallacy and intellectually lazy. And Wehwalt, Ealdgyth and Eric, I love ya all and you know I respect the work you do, but the wanting a veto on a TFA is a bit off topic; you are not simply comparing apples and oranges but you're dragging in vegetables !   That said, if there are only two articles in the history of TFA that have ever been pulled from the main page during their day in the sun, then what the heck, fix 'em both and give each a half day to make up their time. I mean seriously.   Montanabw (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have not said "because I say so" - I have given reasons, repeatedly and in some detail, for my decision. You may not agree with them, but you cannot pretend that I have not discussed the issue at length, both here and at WT:TFAR. BencherliteTalk 23:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we have discussed the issue at length. And it seems we apparently are talking past each other on parallel tracks, however well-intentioned. We probably have fallen short of reaching a meeting of the minds.  Whether it was your intention or not, I think your arguments are over-simplistic and too rigid.  And, though not what I intended, apparently you have concerns that going along with my approach would unleash a mudslide of disaster down a slippery slope. So I guess all that can be done is to drop the stick. Most of the time we don't really spat this much, so onward through the fog for both of us, I guess...   Montanabw (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have we ever spatted? Or perhaps spatted? If we have, I don't remember it.  Let's just hope we don't trip over the dropped stick in this infernal fog... (hello?  hello?  Are you there?  Ouch!!) BencherliteTalk 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we directly have before, perhaps over the dethroning of Raul, which I favored, but I wasn't super active in that drama, more on the sidelines with popcorn, cheering on my cohorts. Yeah, bygones good with me, but I miss PumpkinSky, who is a really good egg and was a great collaborator on the Yogo sapphire article, a gem that was the inspiration for Gerda's "Precious" award..    Montanabw (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talking about Precious, it was inspired more by him saying Peace once a day to awesome Wikipedians for three years than the sapphire which is a symbol of it. See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Randomizing
Do you have code sitting around to randomize a blurb (similar to the Middle Ages image?). This December I want to run some of a 20-picture set in POTD for Kipling's birthday, but with that many pictures I'll never be able to get them all into one image.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just used subpages for each image and randomised their selection on the main template i.e. with the rest of the blurb as normal.  It sounds as though you'd need 20 subpages for each image, using the main template only for whatever common code/text the POTDs would share.  NB if you do this - subpages would only be protected automatically while actually displayed on the main page, which would make the other 19 vulnerable to attack. So what I think you'd have to do is to give each of the subpages full protection and protect all of the images too.  I also got a friendly bot operator (Joe Decker) to purge the main page every 15 minutes using, after a suggestion at the Village Pump.  BencherliteTalk 06:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds very workable. However, I would probably go with a whole new blurb too (as each image is captioned). That would mean something like transcluding the "protected" template onto each of 20 subpages and having blurbs there, right? Yes, totally ready for a full 72-hour shutdown of those pages. Adam is (I believe) an admin on Commons so he can handle the pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like that, I suppose. Assuming that the images are at Commons, don't forget you'll have to apply upload-protection locally (because the usual cascade magic that prevents vandals uploading pictures of fluffy white bunnies over the POTD won't work if you're using subpages.  Or it'll will only work for 1 of them at a time... BencherliteTalk 06:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally (and will do). Fluffy white cottontail bunnies heading to Watership Down and unable to count past four. Never imagined it could turn out the way it did... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Template problem
Hi, doesn't seem to have gone as planned: I am guessing that the template is for Wikimedia Commons only? I'm also (a little) concerned that had the template shown up correctly on the page, it would have given the appearance to a casual reader that the FlickreviewR bot had reviewed and tagged the file, which it hasn't. Blackberry  Sorbet  09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I should clarify that I'm not pointing a finger at you, just pointing out the uploader's error to you as an administrator: I don't want to start changing the page as I'm not completely au fait with how these things work. Blackberry Sorbet  09:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've copied the file to Commons and deleted the local version, which sorts out the problem. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

George Week
I see you've gone with a George Week this month. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudos for a particularly crafty use of the feminine equivalent :)  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What could you possibly mean? BencherliteTalk 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. What a preposterous insinuation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. POTD would never do anything quite so silly, let alone join in with TFA to do so.  BencherliteTalk 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On a completely unrelated note, 21 October appears to be Nelson day. Check out the POTD (which has been scheduled for something like six months) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely related, in fact - I sometimes remember to look at User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs to see what's coming up elsewhere. I was in fact tempted to schedule "Lisa the Vegetarian" for 22nd October but decided that there ought to be some limits to the game-playing between POTD and TFA... BencherliteTalk 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice edit summary "his/her duty" ;) - as far as I know I was the only female TFA scheduler who did her duty for 23 September 2012, - thanks for helping then already! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bencher: That was good for a belly-laugh. Now I'm hearing "Lisa needs braces" and seeing braces on the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thin pickings
The TFA requests page seems a little inactive at the moment, with no open-date requests showing at present. I do have a few non-musical FAs which I can nominate, if that would be helpful; on the other hand, I have had quite a share of the main page recently, and still with Bizet, possibly A Child of Our Time and possibly Britten to come in the next few weeks, so if you think enough is enough, that's fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A few reasons keep me away from the nom page for now: real life, other interests like actually writing articles, the limit on classical music which is still my primary topic even after I left the project, and the frustration how a majority of voices in a discussion was ignored. I will be back for a special case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Brian, I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "Oppose, principal author is hogging the TFA slots with all these high-quality articles"! As far as I'm concerned, if you've got things you'd like to see at TFA (or wouldn't mind having there), fire away - there are of course plenty of FA authors who regard TFAs as an absolute curse, so I've no objection to someone who takes a different view. Every little helps, as they say. @Gerda, thank you for what you have done at TFAR to date and I look forward to seeing you there again more often in the future when your time and inclination permits. BencherliteTalk 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll pick through my backlist and come up with something soon. We haven't had an Antarctic explorer in ages. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd nominate some of mine, but I like to give at least a month between them usually (Lie Kim Hok is a shoo-in for 1 November, and I have plans for 1 December too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bart King TFA
There were a couple of claims in the Bart King article (Saturday's TFA) that I think are dubious, and I've taken them out. I changed the TFA blurb slightly, and thought you may want to have a look. I've explained (in unfortunately long-winded and slightly incoherent fashion) on the article talk page. Even by my standards, it's a fairly obscure cricketing point, and not a huge matter, but I wanted to raise it before TFA day and wanted to keep you up-to-date. I've not been too active recently, so apologies for leaving it relatively late. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My TFA jitters
Chuckle ... one for today ... typifies what worries me:  Still working, and the DSM5 changes affect every sub-article, so lots to do before I even turn my attention to the main article! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was in the article for 2 minutes (or less) and I suspect that it would be reverted even quicker if it were TFA. Have fun updating (and thanks for your FAC talk comments). BencherliteTalk 21:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lisa the Skeptic
I've done as you suggested.

I removed Lisa the Skeptic from 23 November in the pending queue.

I nominated it for 24 November at TFAR.

Hopefully my nomination will not be futile.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or how about some other date in November? Per your discretion on the date? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about 4 November? I've added Lisa the Skeptic for 4 November. That way, it won't detract points too bad from The Stolen Earth, and it will be enough of a gap time between two different episodes. Sound better? :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Points aren't everything"
I appreciate you saying that, Bencherlite.

A lot.

Very much.

Because as this is now the third (3rd) date I will be attempting for Lisa the Skeptic, things are becoming quite interesting.

Hopefully this 3rd attempt will be more fruitful.

I hope you are doing well,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A 4th date perhaps?
What about a different, later date, still in November, and yet late enough to avoid the penalty? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

4th try. 6 November.
Let's try this a fourth (4th) time.

6 November.

Hopefully to avoid some of those pesky penalties.

Please feel free to redo your comments, I have no ideas as to what you want to say about it.

Though of course I'd appreciate a kind word about my repeated attempts at good faith over this! :)

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could try for a later date, such as 19 or 20 November 2013, to avoid the month penalty from Quartermass? But that would buck up against The Stolen Earth a bit too much. So, again, as another gesture of good faith, I am holding off from doing that. Sound good? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any other suggestions? Would 19 November be too close or would that be okay? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your user talk page working? :P &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very funny, Cirt - I don't just drop everything to respond to you, you know. It's been hard enough keeping up with what you've been doing at TFAR let alone here as well, and I was on the phone for a while as well. How many times have I now had to type my comments about points? (Three, I think) How many times have you given the same incorrect points analysis? (Three) How many times have you explained in your nomination what's going on with the date changes?  (err, none?) How helpful is all of this date-swapping? I'd just leave it now and wait for some comments to come in, then you and I can judge the mood.  I know you're trying to do the best to get it as the TFA and not tread on toes for Doctor Who but if you keep moving it around, there's a risk of confusing people - not just me! BencherliteTalk 22:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, and thank you, and I am sorry. Please do understand I am trying my best to show good faith and be accommodating for Doctor Who, which it appears you are a fan of, as well as myself! :) I just hope we can all enjoy our Doctor Who and still help educate our readers about scientific skepticism. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How did you guess?! I'm of the generation that started watching in latter years of Tom Baker, although I suspect it would look horribly dated if I saw those episodes now... BencherliteTalk 22:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I like Tom Baker's The Doctor, as well! ;) But, I have to admit, bow ties are cool. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

11 November TFA idea
Hi Bencherlite, Before I nominate it, could you provide some informal feedback on the suitability of John Treloar (museum administrator) as the TFA for 11 November? Treloar's career was mainly focused on World War I, but I'm not sure if this really comes through in the article. The topic is also a bit obscure (the article averages around 7 page views a day!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 John Treloar (1894–1952) was an Australian archivist who was the director for over 30 years of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), the country's national memorial to the members of its armed forces and supporting organisations who have died or participated in its wars. Prior to World War I he worked as a clerk in the Department of Defence and, after volunteering for the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1914, formed part of the Australian Army officer Brudenell White's staff for most of the war's first years. He was appointed commander of the Australian War Records Section (AWRS) in 1917. In this position, he improved the AIF's records and collected a large number of artefacts for later display in Australia. Treloar was appointed the director of what eventually became the AWM in 1920, and was a key figure in establishing the Memorial and raising funds for its permanent building in Canberra. He headed the Department of Information during the first years of World War II, and spent the remainder of the war in charge of the Australian military's history section. Treloar returned to the AWM in 1946, and continued as its director until his death.

Something like this, perhaps, ? Don't worry about obscurity - neither the TFAR formulas nor my own personal preferences take into account whether an article has high page views (just as well, otherwise none of my FAs would ever had made it to TFA!) I think the angle of the AWM is an interesting one, so others might think it would work well for 11.11. Stick it up at WP:TFAR (feel free to use or change this blurb, of course) and see what happens! BencherliteTalk 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Thank you very much. I'm glad it good be worked out to everyone's satisfaction of all involved. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sankararamank
Hello Sir! This is User talk:Sankararamank talk I Request you to Please Remove the Speedy deletion tag of Ayan II. Because When I see that article i feel guilty. So I Request you to Remove that tag

Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Five TFA's in a row
By George, I got it! ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it - and don't forget thanks are due to for playing along at POTD, too. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to extend thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A TFA theme idea
Just as a thought, since you seem to like running themed TFAs in sequence (The recent Georges, and I recall the Eagles too), I had a flick through FANMP and had the idea of running a group of royal-but-not-royal articles. Just searching for King, Queen etc. on that page we can get an animal, a musical, a video game (or 3), a court case, a battlecruiser (well, several naval ships really), a famous scientist, an Australian soldier, a Ska Punk album... this is all just by article title, I'm sure there are more by description. I'm willing to go through these and look for some date relevance if it'd help at all. Just random ideas from a reader. :) Organics LRO 11:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that idea, . I have a similar one, in fact, but I won't run it until sometime in 2014, once I've found a suitable range of dates to use.  (Running TFA "themes" too close together would diminish their impact). If you have particular suggestions / dates in mind, then I suggest you email me - let's keep an element of surprise! BencherliteTalk 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

GFN
With regard to the use of the word presbytery, nobody has been able to demonstrate what exactly is meant by the existing sources, but since it appears to have no demonstrable link with GFN anyway, current consensus seems to be to remove the offending section completely. Bear in mind that last 5 November, GFN got almost 420,000 page views. Parrot of Doom 10:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. No doubt it will need semi-protection in a few days anyway... BencherliteTalk 13:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric Corbett
I'm not sure what your connection is to this entrenched user, but I'm not sure how people can look the other way at comments like this by him: and. This isn't helpful to anyone. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (watching) I don't know what "entrenched" means but can testify that Eric Corbett always treated me politely, - but then so did I treat him. It's easy. - Go up and down my talk page and his and the archives if you don't believe it. Start top of his, "We need a perspective", written mid of 2012. We still do, and looking for certain words is not it. - It would have been polite to tell him that you use his name as a header here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Volubilis
Thanks for your kind words - I see you've scheduled the article already (which is fine, btw). I just hope it doesn't prompt some nutter to start complaining about Wikipedia being used to boost Moroccan tourism! Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw it then thought, what the heck, let's schedule it now rather than wait for you to ask. After all, even if you're not sponsored by the Roman Empire to promote its ruins, I am... BencherliteTalk 21:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but they're not paying enough for my liking - when they only offered asses I gave them the bum's rush... Prioryman (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Check this edit summary by Cluebot
Hi, I know this sounds stupid but see this Cluebot edit summary here...it says reverted to last version by you but clearly it meant an anonymous IP. Is this some sort of bug? It happened again a few times for some other article revisions like this one and a few others. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How curious. I am obvious Cluebot's new best friend... BencherliteTalk 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added to the report about Cluebot misbehaving at WP:AN. BencherliteTalk 23:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)