User talk:Bencherlite

Replied to your FLC comments

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you could have another look?

Thanks again,

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

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

FYI heads up

Please see diff.

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

I tried! :)

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

Fuck

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

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

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

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

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

TFAR blurb length

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

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

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

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

Because I'm a PITA sometimes....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFA blurb text

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

Discussion of your actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profumo affair

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

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

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

That really wasn't trying to be disruptive

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

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

Funnily enough:

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

XMAS 2014 TFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, deletion is not consensus

User:Bencherlite:

We had an implicit covenant.

• You allow me to say my peace, just once for the record, so future complainants can search for it and read it.
• In return, I'd quit the Wikipedia project outright. Pretty good deal, huh? Exhile an enemy in exchange for a paragraph?
• But you failed to live up to your end of the bargain. You deleted my "last comment", written entirely in good faith, removing my criticism. This an escalation.

New Deal

You JUST couldn't let this lie, could you?

You tried to white-wash away my words within hours.

Now I have to go over your head and over your overseer's heads in order to to make this right.

Now I have to go outside of the organization to make sure Wikipedia ideas get a fair hearing. I hate to involve myself in external media but if you have the power to delete on-wiki criticism of yourself on-sight, then criticism of you will find root in other more prominent venues.

Quit edit warring away legitimate concerns. If you want to waste six months of your life to prevent me getting a paragraph into history, that's your decision. I have the six months to spend defending my comment-- do you have six months of attacking it in you?--HectorMoffet (talk)