Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:24, 13 February 2014

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bencherlite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the future

In the future if it is alright with you I will first run my potential TFAR noms by you before bringing them to WP:TFAR, because all the rules and points are so confusing and I seem to always mess things up royally when I try to do it on my own at that page.

Hopefully you can help me have a smoother and more enjoyable time of it, while maybe hopefully abiding by the rules and regulations a bit easier.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can think of ways that the rules or points can be simplified, then do say. The list of under-represented FA categories is given at TFAR itself (note 5); if you're not sure when the last similar article is, a quick hunt through a few recent TFA monthly archives e.g. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 2014 will help (or check User:Bencherlite/TFA_notepad#Going_just_by_the_numbers... / User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad 2013, or ask me). But the Afroyim blurb is fine, for example (although I might look for a better image) - I don't think you need to run things past me first but you're of course welcome to do so. Bencherlite 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay fine. It just seems the process and rule and regulations and laws at WP:TFAR seem very very very difficult for me. I always seem to be pissing you off about doing it wrong. Like the time I had to nominate Lisa the Skeptic over 9,000 times because something I was doing each time was against the rules or regulations or point 17a of paragraph C of subsection 4. I am really trying here. Please, please see how I moved the TFAR nom for Afroyim v. Rusk once another date was suggested to abide and go along with everyone and try to please everyone without pissing you off or anyone else off and causing a ruckus for suggesting the wrong thing. I really am trying to do it correctly. I want to do this in the best way possible to be conducive to not annoying you. It just seems difficult sometimes for me to do that successfully. :( — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not annoyed with you for your edits at TFAR. I can't remember exactly what happened with Lisa but now you mention that article I think there was some juggling around to try and keep it and another TV episode a "safe" distance apart - in any case, I've forgotten all the details and I'm not going to search through the edit history to find them. I've already said that moving Afroyim to 20th Feb is a good idea, so thank you again for that. Bencherlite 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much for your understanding. I'm sorry for the confusion and controversy. I really want to work with you in the future in the best way within any guidance or advice you may have for me! :) — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for TFAR, go check out Misplaced Pages:QAI/TFA - a whole pile of already-prepped TFAs waiting for just the right moment! (Some are being held for specific dates, but we have a handy chart to check that, too.) For more ideas, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement#TFAR - not pre-prepped, but FAs that haven't been TFAs Montanabw 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, those are most helpful links! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello; sorry if this seems rather frivolous, but would you be willing to reschedule Perseus (constellation)'s TFA for a weekday? Currently it's on Sunday, February 9. If it's too much trouble, then it's totally fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Operation Kita

Can we drop the supplies of from second sentence in the blurb for TDA for Operation Kita...having the word supplies twice in same sentence is redundant. I was in the middle of commenting but you archived the discussion...no worries as the discussion had been up awhile.--MONGO 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point well made, done. Bencherlite 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do for TDA and elsewhere...--MONGO 01:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of TFAR nominations by nominator at one time?

I looked but couldn't find it, must've been right in front of my nose. :P

What is the total number of WP:TFAR nominations one nominator is allowed to have up at one time?

Thank you for your help,

— Cirt (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No limit (there used to be a max of one, but I removed it a while ago as part of a streamlining experiment), but I'm not sure about having Thaddeus Stevens in such close proximity to Mark Hanna, particularly with Afroyim in the middle - a lot of US politics in a very short space of time, perhaps. Yours, Bencherlite 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so when would be the earliest I could nominate Thaddeus Stevens for? — Cirt (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When's the best date (if there is one), rather than the earliest, surely? Perhaps Wehwalt as the principal author has some ideas - you might ask him. Bencherlite 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I went and asked Wehwalt. But I still would like to know what would be the earliest I could nominate Thaddeus Stevens for a nonspecific date to your satisfaction without engendering negative point evaluations and/or negative criticisms. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think Mark Hanna (another 19th-century American politician) on Feb 15 would count as a similar article so that would give a 3-point penalty until March 1, and a 2-point penalty until March 15. I note that Mitt Romney is now nominated for March 12, his birthday, although there's obviously more of a difference between Romney and Stevens than there is between Hanna and Stevens. Stevens would gain a point for birthday if nominated for April 4 but otherwise I can't see any points to put on the positive side of the equation until then. Articles can run with low/negative points as the points metric is a guideline towards achieving TFA balance over time, not an unbreakable rule, but subject to any thoughts that Wehwalt has (to whose views on points I traditionally defer) or comments of others at TFAR, the options would seem to be either to run it on April 4 or to run it in early March, equidistant-ish between Hanna and Romney. Does this help? Bencherlite 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that helps a lot, thank you! I moved it to 4 April 2014, at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/pending. — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misclick

Thanks for correcting my error. (I tried to to it myself, but you beat me to it.) —David Levy 16:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we both misclicked when moving things back and each came up with new and exciting hybrid namespaces as we did so! All sorted now, thanks for your help, great minds think alike etc. Bencherlite 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that when I looked at our contribution histories and found that the trail of moves was even more confusing than expected. Thanks again for getting it straightened out.  :-) —David Levy 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Going forward

Going forward, please try to "let" bad proposal fail of their own accord. Twice now, on two separate proposals, you've controversially edited the proposal text of proposals you oppose.

No hard feelings, everything worked out. But going forward, I sincerely would encourage you to adopt a more hands-off attitude. RFCs are for finding out what the community thinks, not about trying to convince them to think a certain way. Sit back and watch-- bad proposals will fail of their own accord, every time-- without your intervention; and with a lot less drama too!  :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh? I add two links (no commentary, no attempt to tell people what to think, no !vote) to the RFC (The Day We Fight Back and WP:Surveillance awareness day) and that's "controversial editing"? Er, no. I find it highly amusing that you think you can tell me that RFCs are for finding out what the community thinks when you removed the RFC discussion from the village pump after only one person had commented! Bad proposals don't just fail of their own accord - people have to point out that they are bad, otherwise there is a risk that they take on a life of their own.

Please explain what you are doing with User:HectorMoffet/likelyunneededinfo, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Bencherlite 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Film TFA query

I'd like to nominate to WP:TFAR an FA article about a film which educates viewers about freedom of speech and censorship.

Do you know when the next date would be where such an article would have positive points at WP:TFAR?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming I'm correctly guessing what the F*** you're talking about, as it were, it has no points for nominator history, importance, date relevance (at the moment), age (at the moment) or diversity. It would only gain a point if (a) we went for more than 3 months after February 8 without a film article ; (b) it was nominated for November 7, 2014 (release date, 1 point) or November 7, 2015 (2 points); (c) it was nominated after November 22, 2014 (age, 1 point). In other words, it will have negative points until March 8 (or correspondingly later if/when further film articles are scheduled), thereafter zero points, and it will not have any points on the positive side of the equation until Nov 7, 2014, at the earliest (although, as I said before, points are not the be-all and end-all). HTH. Bencherlite 17:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like very much for it to get to the Main Page before then, if at all possible. What date would you suggest for it to be considered? — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest specific dates, because it seems as though there are no directly relevant/appropriate dates at present and so there's no point in me or you putting it forward at TFAR for an arbitrary date in February/March/April/whenever. If you want it on any available date, then there are four non-specific date slots at WP:TFAR for that purpose to use as and when you want, although as noted it will suffer a points penalty until March 8th is scheduled (or later, if another film article runs in the meantime - and both Sholay and Dredd were recent unsuccessful film nominations, Sholay for the second time, so either or both might be renominated in due course). Yours, Bencherlite 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So what method is there, for me to both adhere to your advice and wait until after March 8, and also make sure to somehow not have another film article appear in between, so as to knock this candidate out of the running? — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about scheduling for March 8 onwards (not nominating on March 8), which will probably be in mid-February, a couple of weeks or so in advance of that date (we're scheduled up to Feb 15th I think at the moment, so 20 days ahead at present after a batch of scheduling last night). There is nothing to stop you putting up your nomination at whatever point you like, noting if you want that it would have a points penalty if scheduled before March 8; and if another film article is nominated in the meantime, you can nominate yours as well, on the basis that it might well be that people didn't want two films to appear close together. I can't prevent people nominating other articles that might compete with something you want to run, in the same way that I can't stop you from nominating something that might compete with something that someone else wants to run. But if your article ends up at TFAR at some point, with or without other similar/competing nominations, then we will see what people think. Bencherlite 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I really do appreciate these thoughtful explanations. How about 10 March? That's the anniversary of the screening at South by Southwest. Could we get one measly itsy bitsy point for that? :) — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Would that date be satisfactory to you, Bencherlite? I appreciate your advice, — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to reply to your previous message after reading it. I don't think it should get a point for the anniversary of its second showing. The first showing is the important one. But nominate it for whatever date you think fit (or for a non-specific date) and we'll see what people think. Bencherlite 08:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

But at the very least it won't have negative points for that day? — Cirt (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like zero points for that date at present. Bencherlite 13:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. And when would be the earliest it could be nominated? — Cirt (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anytime from now onwards (anything up to March 23 can be nominated at the moment). Bencherlite 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, you mentioned above I could put it up for a non-specific date -- would that then not have negative points as it wouldn't technically apply to a specific date, rather deferring to whatever date you would then choose? — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You can just say that it would be -1 before 8th March and 0 points from 8th March. Bencherlite 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about IP address comments at TFAR

Is this DIFF okay at WP:TFAR?

Or should it be moved somewhere else, like the talk page?

I'll defer to your judgment,

— Cirt (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's OK. I will give it - and some of the support comments - the weight that they deserve. Bencherlite 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Potentially selfish TFA request?

Hi, I was just informed on my talk page that one of my featured articles is going to be on the main page on February 19th. I don't know if there's any significance to the placement of Brabham BT19 on Feb 17, but it would be super cool if that and Cave Story could be swapped so my TFA could fall on my birthday (2/17). If there's a specific reason for the 2/17 placement (I can't really tell from the article and I couldn't find a TFA request) or if that's too against protocol, that's totally fine, not a big deal. Just thought that since it was so close anyway, I might as well ask. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Got slightly distracted at the end of last week by the fun and games at TFAR... Bencherlite 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

With that in mind, can something please be done about this violation of WP:NPA?

"Blatantly obvious troll."

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: And again at diff. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update:

And see this analysis by ColonelHenry:

"I think calling a long-time contributor on free speech issues, and a frequent participant here at TFA/R a "troll" is a needless personal attack."

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm not going to be online at Sunday 4am UK time. If you want something done urgently about someone's comments, go to ANI. Nor am I here to police Jimbo Wales's user talk page - I'm sure that's watched by many admins, and none of them seem to think it worth taking action about as far as I can see. I've left him a polite note but I'm not sure if there's anything else I can do at this stage - as you have already noticed, there are others who have already stuck up for you in that debate. Best for you just to move along rather than carry on that particular argument with him, I think. Bencherlite 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problems, I wasn't expecting you to be or not be. :) But yes, I agree with your assessment and I am quite touched and moved that others have stuck up for me in that debate! I will do my best to keep my head above the fray as much as possible. How long will you let the discussion run for? — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

While the discussion is still progressing, there's no particular rush for me to jump in and make a decision. And whatever I decide might well be an unpopular decision, so I'm in no rush for that either! In any case, it's not much more than 26 hours since it was added to T:CENT so there are probably still people out there who might like to make a comment but who either haven't seen the notifications yet or who are still reading the discussion and working out what to say. Bencherlite 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and that's a good explanation, I guess I was more wondering about a general ballpark timeline. What is the average length of time for these discussions? Is it similar to that for AFDs and RFAs? — Cirt (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an exceptional discussion for TFAR - the History of Gibraltar nomination ran for a week before I'd seen enough, and that had 35 people or so comment. This nomination has had 57 votes in 4.5 days - another nine, 5:4, came in overnight - so I don't see it being a 7-day discussion. Beyond that, I'll just have to see how long the nomination attracts new comments and thoughts. Bencherlite 09:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, Bencherlite, thanks for the response. It is a most fascinating discussion about freedom of speech and censorship, in its own right, regardless of the outcome. — Cirt (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't envy you the closing of this, Bencherlite. How about a nice video game instead? Those are relaxing. And will start popping up on POTD soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  I commented early and short. For a video game, how about Duck Attack!? (25k+ hits for my homage on the German Main page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I know what - why don't you run pictures of birds at POTD instead? Everybody loves a pretty bird. Bencherlite 09:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Shoi. Give me a boid like Jenna Jameson, and I'll schedule it forthwith... or should we wait for the merkin to run first? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, Jenna turns 40 in a couple of months... Bencherlite 09:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Now that'll be interesting (I actually have Merkin scheduled for her birthday). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your knowledge and helpfulness in technical and impossible coding dilemmas. Much appreciation! ⧐ Diamond Way 13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck updates

1. I responded to your helpful suggestions at Talk:Fuck (film), thank you.
2. Per some comments by editors at WP:TFAR, I've changed the blurb image from the prior cartoon by Bill Plympton to instead be File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, as was recommended by a couple folks in the discussion.
3. I hope this helps address some of the issues raised there in a satisfactory manner.

Thanks for your attention, — Cirt (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Interestingly it looks like at least one editor has changed from Oppose to Support after my changes, as noted, above. So I'm glad I made them! :) Whaddya know, several recommendations for quality improvement from the community have proven to be most helpful! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Any chance the Fuck nomination is drawing to a close (I really hope it runs)...I'd like to put TFA/R back on my watchlist when it's back down to 5-10 edits a day...its 120 updates a day happened to overwhelm my ability to watch the articles I need to watch. :)--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, well, of course I certainly agree with above comments by ColonelHenry! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bencherlite, I wouldn't be averse to it appearing on a date over a weekend, if that helps your thought process. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

==

This is going on your permanent record

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Bencherlite 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. Bencherlite 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 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. Bencherlite 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 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? Bencherlite 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 19:26, 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. Bencherlite 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 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. Bencherlite 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 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? <bump> Ouch!!) Bencherlite 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 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)

I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to say reading this discussion led me to leave Misplaced Pages after multiple years of positive editing experiences. The TFA coordinator threated to close any nomination I made, regardless of consensus. I never made a nomination, so I assumed he was just talking. Discovering this discussion showed me the TFA coordinator really does overrule overwhelming consensus, closing a discussion in which he himself participated in, in which he himself raised the only objection, where 13 supporters dismissed his objection, and where he closed the discussion a month early while discussion was still on-going. When WP:CONSENSUS has left, it's time for me to join the others above who have left because of this disrespect. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, WP:DIVA much?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)