User talk:Dank

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

Copyediting

GANs

Library

Links

Milhist Alerts

Policy update

RFA

Shiny things

WMDC

My talk page is watched by friendly talk page stalkers. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

(2007-4/08), (5-7/08), (8-11/08)
(12/08-2/09), Mar, Apr, May, Jun
Jul/Aug 2009 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2010 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2010 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2011 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2011 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2012 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2012 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2013 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2013 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec

Doubt

Dank, you changed "Her father was an officer in the Portuguese navy..." to "Her father was a Portuguese navy officer whose own father..."[1] The Viscount of Inhaúma was a Portuguese navy officer... of the Brazilian navy. His father-in-law was a Portuguese officer... of the Portuguese navy. Do you believe that that should really have been changed? --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the semicolon and changed "an officer in the Portuguese navy" to "a Portuguese navy office"; are those different? "whose" seems to refer to "officer" both before and after the change. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid the confusion that like Inhaúma his father-in-law was a Portuguese who served Brazil when he was actually a Portuguese who served the Portuguese navy. But if you say that the different wording won't change the meaning, then it's fine. --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No you're right, I've changed it back (but without the semicolon). - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Dank. Sorry about the last few days; it's been a pretty heavy week for various reasons. I'm back in the game and I'll take a look at things. It's going to be a busy weekend though, so I'll just let the other two get on with closing the first round though and get stuck in afterwards. If you want me to withdraw I'll understand Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused ... email coming. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA reform

I really appreciate your tenacity in moving things forward and I sincerely hope that the community will finally agree to some positive reforms of the system. I can't help feeling however that the current discussions are a bit like the problem in a country I once lived in for many years: Calling a meeting to set a date to a organise a meeting to set a date for a meeting to deliberate on an issue. This was particularly common in infrastructures that did not have a commercial aim, i.e societies, associations, and other non-profits. I just hope the participant enthusiasm will not tire, and you can rely on my continued support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, and I believe things will pick up shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is my take on the first round of straw polls. I'm posting it here because with you being the principle architect of revived efforts to do something about RfA, I feel that it is more use here than at WT:RfA where it seems to me that there is a lot of IDHT, or people not fully examining the background before they express their opinions. I'm also surprised at the low turnout (14 - 40) and that not all users thought it necessary to vote on all polls. You're welcome to quote from the summary below if you wish. That said, I'm getting more and more confused, because although no one has pointed it out, JC has been on a relentless campaign for a very long time to get some aspects of adminship changed, but with little end support. It seems to me that there are parallel discussions going on and perhaps if the two of you could get together and consolidate your efforts, maybe it would be a great leap forward.

At the end of the day, I would say that witch hunts and mass hysteria against adminship have done far, far greater damage to this Wikipedia than the sum total of any errors or misdeeds by our sysops, and that the destructive environment at RfA is the result of groupthink.

Regarding the closure of the first round of RFCs which were to determine what aspects of reform should be discussed, proposals 3, 4, 6, and 7 have sufficient support.

1. Im staggered (but not unduly surprised) to see that the community wants 9:14:6 (29) no discussion about the negatively charged RfA participation. The only conclusion I could come to is that the community wants to keep RfA as the one playground for obnoxious behaviour with impunity. That would be wrong however, because the oppose voters were not among those who traditionally disrupt RfA. So I think in actual fact that the turnout to this poll was too low to be representative, after all, literally 1,000s of users have voted at RfAs over the years, and just as many have joined discussions at WT:RfA.
2. With regard to qualifications for voters, again at 7:8:5 (20) I contend that the turnout was so low that it cannot bear any relationship to what a much broader section of the community may have concluded, the call was too close and the result is invalid.
3. What happens elsewhere: at 30:5:5 (40) there is no denying the consensus for further discussion, but again, 40 participants don't represent the community. Generally the opposers seem to be saying that RfA isn't itself the problem. But if it's not, why do those who are known for incivility elsewhere tend to congregate around RfAs? Perhaps the supporters are expecting discussions about incivility on RfA to solve the problem of all incivility on Wikipedia.
4. The motion to further discuss candidate criteria was carried at 20:12:7 (39). In hindsight I should have supported this. However, there are going to be many sides to the forthcoming debate: Some just want a simple uniformity of criteria; some want minimum criteria, which at best would probably be low and probably only serve to deter the SNOWs and NOTNOWs which aren't really a problem anyway; some will argue for a lower bar simply to make it easier for them to get the bit in the same way as some argue for unbundling - some people really do think it's a big deal to be able to have some higher measure of control over content and contributors than every registered editor already has - and compared to most web fora and blogs, that is a heck of a lot already and more than most moderators even get. Whatever gets decided won't automatically mean a pass for every candidate who meets the criteria, and it won't stop people like me from continuing to impose high individual standards. For one thing, lowering the bar will only leave us open to a flood of new admins who might have to be desysoped later.
5. At 5:18:0 (23) the consensus of those who voted shows that most feel that the actual system is not broken - a view which I strongly support - and hence needs no further discussion.
6. The participants have almost unanimously concurred with 13:1:0 (14) that discussion is necessary on what should be done to find more candidates. The one oppose was just making sure that recruitment is not to be confused with training for hat collectors.::#I was confused by this. Is it not almost an iteration of No.4?. At 19:7:2 (28)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic ... you'd like to be able to have a full and effective debate on this at WT:RFA or in RfCs, but you find that people tune out before ... well, anything happens. Having said that: it is what it is, the only way to make progress is going to be through RfCs, and we've got a good one going. It doesn't matter that the first round didn't have 1000 participants ... the WT:Requests_for_adminship/Clerks RfC is giving the same results ... currently, we're hopelessly deadlocked on what the current RfC (WP:RFA2013) is calling the first two categories. If anyone wants to explore ways to accomplish some of the same goals as people have wanted to accomplish with clerking, I've made a suggestion at WT:RFA2013. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics

Hi. I see you are listed as a member of the WikiProject Robotics project. Some of us are trying to assess who and how many of those Wikipedia editors who have signed on to the project in the pass seven years are still active, or would like to still be active, in the endeavor of improving Robotics-related articles on the English Wikipedia.

If you have the time and inclination, would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page, or perhaps indicate current interest by your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Participants page. If you are no longer interested in participating, please just remove your name from the Participants page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Dank, I've been working on H. C. McNeile, an author with a MilHist tag, (so I'm partly justified in coming along with a begging bowl!) I've now got the page at peer review; one reviewer commented:

• "...from which he passed out and was commissioned into the Royal Engineers as a second lieutenant in July 1907" If he was commissioned, could we take if for gospel that he initially passed out?
  • As far as I am aware, the two are not mutually exclusive, so both should be OK. I'll drop a line to a couple of the MilHist bods to see if they agree. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • One would assume that if you pass out, your accepted into the lower ranks and thus able to apply for promotion or commission. If you don't pass out, you can't. The "passing out" bit just seemed redundant IMO.

Should the "passing out" be dropped, or both "passing out" and "commissioned" bits be left in? (If there is any chance you could give the page a once-over to ensure I haven't made any hideous errors as far as military vernacular etc, that would be absolutely great too, although I appreciate your time is taken up!) Many thanks indeed for your help. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd drop "passed out". - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great - it's dropped. Many thanks as always. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

However

Hi Dan, I reverted or changed a handful of your copy-edits to British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War. Hopefully my edit summaries explain the things I was concerned about. There were only a few on which I felt that the attempt to solve a problem introduced other problems or affected the prose in other ways. But I wanted to talk to you about "however". I know it's flavour of the month, and I know it's over-used, but that doesn't mean that it has to be removed wholesale. I agree with most of your removals of it on this article, but there are a few which I think were legitimate. For example, this one—where something was intended but circumstances conspired to prevent it (there may be better word or phrases than "however", but "as it happened" doesn't really work). Also these: nevertheless works (better than "however", actually) for the first one; "Despite the risks" doesn't work (though I'll grant you that "however" is ambiguous) because that sentence is elaborating on the one before wrt the risks and Blair's attitude; However, the MoD continued to lack confidence... to me seems like one of the legitimate uses of "however" and the MoD's confidence wasn't really related to the political pressure as "despite" implies; and "On the other hand" just seems like "however" with more words and sounds inarticulate. I'd like to hear your thinking (on "however" in general and those specific examples) before I do anything. Thanks for your through look at the article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Define "however" for me. (The most common meaning is something along the lines of "nevertheless", but Wikipedians seem to use it in roughly ten different senses ... how do you use it?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it another way. I take it that, in one case where you're objecting, "however" implies that "something was intended but circumstances conspired to prevent it"; in another case, it's roughly synonymous to "on the other hand". In other cases, it means "nevertheless". And in the cases where you're not objecting, I take it that my rewriting did capture the sense ... and note that I rewrote it in a lot of different ways, depending on what I guessed was your sense. Now ... if "however" can mean so many different things, how is the reader supposed to know what it means? They may be able to guess, but we're aiming for readability at FAC, which includes not making the reader guess, if at all possible. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Were all of the ways in which you re-wrote it, completely unambiguous? Each and every one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that it has multiple different meanings, some of which aren't the best uses of the word, but the same could be said for many words. In most cases, the reader can establish the exact meaning from the context. I'll reply in more detail later today or tomorrow, I'm abou to get on a train. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling doubt

Hi, Dank. I wonder if you could clear a doubt I have: "As second in command of that unit he put down a mutiny of navy artillerymen in the Island of the Snakes on 7 October." Should I add a "," after "unit"? Or is it fine as it is now? --Lecen (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's better with a comma, although this is something I don't generally fix when I'm copyediting since it's also commonly seen without the comma. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the comma, anyway. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: John Van Antwerp MacMurray

Bad luck there, this is a slow time for WP:Milhist reviewers at FAC. Are there any other wikiprojects that might be interested in reviewing this? - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't entirely chalk this one up to bad timing; I had some further improvements I'd hoped to make to the article, but dropped the ball when work got busy. I'll see what I can do this week. As for other projects, maybe Wikiproject international relations? Homunculus (duihua) 03:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask them when the article goes back up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

Hey Dank, I'm not sure what's being asked here: "Gabe, is there anyone whose 'geek skill' is language that I can talk with who's interested in working on this and similar articles at FAC?" Would you please clarify? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure ... I just have a second before supper, but I'm offering to help, on condition that there's someone I can talk with who thinks of the relevant prose problems as interesting problems that they're willing to spend some time on. That might or might not be you, depending on your interests and availability. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed something. What are you "offering to help" with? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The George Harrison FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, right, sorry about that. Evan and I would more than appreciate any help you can give at the Harrison FAC, thanks for offering. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've got the page that will become the next Harrison FAC watchlisted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks again. I hate to push my luck, but if you have some free time before then, please consider taking a brief look here, its not a long article. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• FTR, I don't care "what it sounds like" as long as the prose is high-quality. I apprciate your edits and advice. Thanks again. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My goal was to help, but I don't think I can, on that one. I don't know how to make going to the drugstore to buy paper interesting, for instance ... but I'm not arguing about what needs to be in there, I'm assuming biographers have dwelt lovingly on every detail, so your hands may be tied. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I hear you on details. I was also worried about that part. That's the paper he wrote his last lyrics on. Do you think its overly detailed in general? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I can't say because I don't have experience with the relevant wikiprojects; "whatever is typically done" plays a role in figuring out what's right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Been there, done that. Some reviewers want more and more detail, some want less, but your guess is better than mine, so if you think some areas need a trim please feel free. I can always add back anything that's IMO crucial. I've reworked the lead a bit, have you taken a look yet? If you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts in terms of "The lead doesn't feel right to me"? Thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'm supporting, but I had some questions. This was an experiment, and I wound up not feeling comfortable with it. I like to stick to copyediting history articles, because I'm more familiar with the conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I hear you and I appreciate your help, but I hope this doesn't mean that you are no longer interested in taking a look at the next Harrison FAC. I wouldn't be too concerned with conventions as I'm quite sure any comments and/or edits you make would be helpful and a net positive. I'll keep an eye out for your next MilHist FAC and return the favour with (at least one) review. Thanks again. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, Sarastro was wrong about several comments and correct about several others. I have now resolved the correct comments, and Sarastro has stricken their oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading Sarastro's comments, I decided I better stick to what I'm good at, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thsnk You.Prashant  ✉  18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, at FAC, I'm only doing military history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

H.C. McNeile

Ping! :) ceranthor 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuso

Aloha, just so you know, Fuso has passed it's review. One of the better articles out of all the ones i've reviewed, so well done. Good luck with the wikicup aswell. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Would you mind if I reviewed your Yamashiro article? We worked together fairly well on the Fuso article, but I thought i'd ask incase you'd prefer a different reviewer. Let me know ★★RetroLord★★ 10:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer it :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "I'd prefer it if you'd review my article". - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The Military History Award
	You definitely deserve one of these for your efforts on history and military related articles. Great job on Japanese battleship Fusō and congrats on the GA! Keep up the great work! "Dank"e!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld! Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for your assistance

Hi Dank,

Thanks very much for your earlier help on the FAC review of Fortress of Mimoyecques and my other related FACs. I wonder if I could ask you to look at my most recent FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1? It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history involved) so it might be something that you would be interested in. If you have any comments, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Life is hectic right now, I don't think I'll have time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Hope things get a bit quieter for you soon! Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

USRD comment

Hi! Would you mind doing me a favor? So in short, a lot of our GAs and FAs say whether the road is a part of the National Highway System (United States) and briefly explain in a sentence what the NHS actually is to provide context to the reader.

However, someone, encouraged by the Help Desk, is concerned that this violates WP:SYNC as 1) the definition of the NHS could change and make all those articles invalid or 2) some of the articles say "a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense" versus "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility", the latter of which I purposefully rephrased to avoid any sort of attribution or plagiarism issues in my own articles. The editor does seem to take concern at "most" being missing from the second sentence.

As a prolific FA writer not associated with the U.S. Roads project, would you mind commenting at WT:USRD? The editor refuses to listen to "Road editors with some overarching agenda." Thanks! --Rschen7754 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're not objecting in any particular GAN or FAC review, then I'll answer here, if you want to point them here. If no one has suggested redefining what NHS means, then IMO a concern that the definition might change wouldn't be a reason not to promote an article being reviewed. I have no problem with omitting "most" in your second example. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that my comments have been misinterpreted and/or mischaracterized. My reply is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Boilerplate prose copied from another article. Please address any replies there. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data

Hi Dank, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Yamashiro

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: A-class

Hi! Thanks for the offer. I plan to submit the Operation Flash and Operation Winter '94 to the WP:MILHIST A-class review at some point, but I plan to wait until the Operation Storm A-class review is out of the way. Any help is most welcome, and I suspect prose will require copyediting since English is not my native language.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The prose looks pretty good, actually. Okay, glad to help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for volunteering. Having thought a bit more about the matter, I'll nominate the articles for A-class review as soon as they pass GA - they're probably bound to sit around in the nominations area there for a while anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading them again, I think whoever reviews these needs to have more perspective (and should be able to read Croatian or Serbian or both). Sorry, I'll help out when they get to A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'll nominate them at the A-class review as soon as they clear GAN, much like the Operation Storm that's already there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Dank, just trying to see if I can find a GAN reviewer for American Saddlebred, which has been languishing in the GAN queue for a while. I'm not in the wikicup, but my co-editor, Dana boomer, is, and I'd like to help her get this one in the can, so to speak. Any chance you could pop by there or get someone you respect to do so? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Montana, I'm sorry, my new job of writing copyediting software and my old job of covering military history articles take all the time I have, and more. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Perhaps you have a TPSer who is interested. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MiniHostels

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MiniHostels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Unforgettableid (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create this page; I deleted it in 2009. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination issue

Hi! I got a warning in the GAN template that "Warfare" is not a recognized topic when I tried to make a new nom - I pressed the "show preview" button (it might as well sit there in the queue). I'm not sure if something else should be used - I never got such a message before. What should I do? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Try "subtopic=War and military". - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Did that, no warning this time. I'll check later on if it appears in the list as expected.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You don't get nearly enough credit for the work you do on WP:UPDATE, and I just wanted to acknowledge that. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I remember you showing me a long time ago how you went about finding the collective diffs and such for changes to policy. Then letting me post a couple updates. I'm guessing that at the end of March there will be a LOT of changes to account for. OS stuff, Block/unblock stuff, Admin. stuff maybe. Anyway, if I have time, and you'd like a hand with a bit of it - please don't ever hesitate to ping me on it. Cheers to the guy who's more up to date on policy than all the Arbs, Crats, and Admins. combined. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, and consider yourself pinged ... anything you'd be willing to do with deletion or enforcement policy would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Old discussion

[2] The issue at my second RfA was not multiple accounts. It was that Deskana had found a few IP edits I had made while logged out. There were no other accounts. Enigma^msg 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and if you follow the link I gave there, I was clear that it was about IP edits ... sorry that I wasn't clear (3.5 yrs ago!) for people who didn't follow the link. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see a link, only to a new name RFA. I mention it now because I didn't see it way back then. I was looking through wt:rfa for a discussion about inactive admins losing the bit and came across that. No way for me to do anything now, but I wanted to clear it up that my case was rather different than the cases you were talking about (two editors who didn't want you to mention their names). Enigma^msg 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I said "Enigmaman had a similar issue with IP edits, and he passed the next time around" ... but if anyone didn't click on the RfA and got the wrong impression, I'm very sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2#Round_Three

I placed comments on the page, thanks for including me. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you made lots of sense, thanks for commenting :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuso

Hi Dank, I saw your featured article submission for the Fuso class so I thought i'd try and help as the non milhist person, let me know if you need anything else regarding your noms. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that will help, thanks much. You've been doing a lot of great reviewing at GAN; let me know if I can help. I've got another article at FAC at the moment, Japanese battleship Fusō, and plan to do more soon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Feller

Hi. Finally got the comments done there is you want to take a look. Wizardman 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looking at it now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Hardboiled

Hi! You were kind enough to look over my FAC of Dudley Clarke a little while ago, and I wondered if I could interest you in the FAC of Operation Hardboiled :) Your insight before was really helpful, so I thought I would be cheeky and solicit your comments :D --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but be aware that Ian and Graham require two people going over prose at FAC, and I might not be the first one. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Milhist question...

Think Middle Ages should be part of the project? I lean that way but am not sure. I'd love to take it through an A class review before I brave FAC with it... I think we're getting really close on FAC status for the thing. I just put it up for PR also... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey V. It's really up to you guys in WP:MA ... if you tag it and nominate it, I'll look at it. Just be aware that A-class and FAC are both running slower than usual these days, don't know what's up with that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. WP:MA is pretty much moribund. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who even bothers with assessing articles for it. Heck, I may be the only person seriously writing in it! I keep meaning to find time to review but honestly, I'm enjoying the article writing I'm doing way too much. And when I'm not writing, I'm busy with real life... so... I doubt that MA will hit FAC before summer - it's so big it'll need a good PR then A-class then Malleus and then FAC (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looking forward to seeing what you got. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really in our scope; it's too broad. If I remember right, though, we give a wide leeway to the articles we allow at ACR. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, per User_talk:Hchc2009#User talk:Dank#Milhist question..., Ealdgyth and Hchc prefer a Milhist tag for this one, and it does have a lot of military history. In general, I'm happy to review something if it has any military or warfare task force tag, whether it's tagged by Milhist or not. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive2

I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at the article again, and see if there's anything we can do to bring it to FA? At this point it's all ready is in copyediting, and several editors, including you, have spend quite a lot of time on that already. I think it would be a shame to forget your efforts and let it slide from the FA... it's so close. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 10:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look, and I'll repeat most of what I said there ... a few things were fixed, and I've removed those from these comments:

• Sigh. I finished copyediting about half of it, down to Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#The Great Sejm, but things get worse at that point, and I'm not going to be able to finish up. FAC and A-class aren't mandatory, of course; lots of wikiprojects get by without them just fine ... but if they're important to you, then please find someone who's reasonably familiar with either copyediting in general or FAC in particular; I'm willing to do a lot of the work myself, as long as there's someone who's taking responsibility for learning this stuff and doing their share of the work. As things stand ... well, in the first paragraph of the section where I stopped, there are problems with every sentence:
• "so as to avoid": I don't personally have a problem with this, but other FAC copy editors prefer "to avoid", so that's my recommendation.
• "In the words of the May 3 Constitution's preamble – from 1790 it met "in dual number" when": comma instead of dash. Also: why are the particular words important? The phrase isn't repeated here, and it's usually better just to translate into clear prose.
• "Russia and Austria were engaged in hostilities with the Ottoman Empire (the Russo-Turkish War, 1787-1792 and the Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791)), the Russians also found themselves simultaneously fighting Sweden).": Where do I start. One hyphen should be a dash. Sweden is an WP:EGG problem. Avoid "))". And there's a redundancy here that is better avoided; I'd probably go with: "The Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791), Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) and Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790) were keeping two of Poland's neighbors busy."
• Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer. I hope you can find some help, and I sympathize that help seems to be harder to find on Wikipedia than it used to be. I'd be very happy to see you and your wikiproject succeed here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

- Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the two issues above; I left "dual number" because I think it sounds good. Personal preference, de gustibus non est disputandum... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Impressive work on Fusō-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did enjoy the research on this ... thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

Hi, Dank. Could you, if possible, review Uruguayan War? If you're not interested, don't worry. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably switching over to reviewing at the end rather than the beginning, to help Ian and Graham. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:We'd like your opinion

Just returned from a wikibreak, I will look at it now... thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, strike commenting on the RFC2 discussion, I guess I'll just hop into RFC3 :) Tiggerjay (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for participating. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually brought up a concern/question over here before I jump into the RFC #3... I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

better late than never, I just got around to replying to your comments. Not sure the best way to bring this back up to the community. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Chubb illusion

Hi Dank– was wondering, could you take a quick look through this article? Need a pair of eyes on this one. If you're not interested don't worry. Mikecf10 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Aye there, 'Dank', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Great effort, I'll let you know if I come across anything that might be useful. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

help!

Can you figure out how to explain Template:Campaign to me so I can make a box about the Norman Conquest? I can figure out the parameters, but do I make a NEW page such as Campaignbox: Norman Conquest or do I just slap {{campaign}} on a page within to start or what? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It would follow the format at Template:Campaignbox American Civil War, so you'd make a new page (Template:Campaignbox Norman Conquest) and go from there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. I'll get to work on it tomorrow... I still can't believe someone hadn't already made one... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here .. what should I do with this diff? Not sure HOW to fix it... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted and left a message on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks .. you're a dear. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor

Does it need to be a crat to be the second closer of this proposal or can it be any regular user/administrator. I'm willing to be the second closer in that discussion as an independent administrator with no opinion on this and considering early May is when I got my two week break from school thus I could read the entire debate carefully with Wizardman. Secret ^account 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. My only thought so far is that both parts may be relatively easy to close ... and if it turns out that way, then no harm would be done ... and there might be some benefit ... if more than just two or three people offered their assessments at the end. Wizardman and Sven Mangard have both offered so far (at WP:BN). - Dank (push to talk) 09:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit for you or a TPS

Hi! If you have time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1 that needs a copyedit? If not, do you know of anyone who would be interested? (Out of the three articles I've sent to FAC the last few months this is the shortest ) --Rschen7754 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I only do history articles. I don't know of anyone who's currently offering to copyedit on request. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Petar Baćović/GA1

G'day Dan. Good to go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Great work, both of you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hello! I'm contacting you because you were one of the editors who reviewed Istanbul's FA candidacy. I just created a RFC concerning its lead (Talk:Istanbul#RFC). If you have time, we would appreciate your input. Thanks! Cavann (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:Protected Page Editor

Sorry for the slight delay, I was doing a research assignment for a sports website. I spent a few hours reading the debate last night, and I am available for an email/IRC/Skype chat later tonight. I will be expecting you and RegentPark emails, and probably Wizardman and I will reply accordingly. It is a complex debate indeed. Thanks Secret ^account 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx, email coming. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Really great article, I'm sorry I didn't have time to cover more of it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks

	This user helped promote Arthur W. Radford to featured article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Arthur W. Radford, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. - Dank (push to talk) 10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sock puppetry"

This baseless and mean-spirited accusation appears to be an act of petty vindictiveness by User:MarcusBritish because I strongly opposed his viewpoint at [[3]].

In nine years on Wikipedia, I have never edited from any platform other than my own registered user name. This is personal attack on me, completely undeserved and apparently a reflection of POV nationalism on the part of User:MarcusBritish, whose home page features a large RAF roundel. I PROTEST — but thank you for lifting the restrictions imposed by User:MarcusBritish.

Sca (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, happy to help. I'm going to copy this to your talk page and reply there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. As it happens, my reading of late has centered on the various conspiracies against Hitler. I just finished Giles MacDonogh's biography of Adam von Trott zu Solz — tragic but fascinating. Sca (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [4]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'd really like to focus on copyediting software for now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll copyedit

Hi Dank. I currently have Alan McNicoll at A-Class Review (which it seems likely to pass shortly with four supports and no outstanding comments), and would like to take it to FAC in the near future. As the resident prose expert, I was wondering if you would mind having a look at the article to see if the writing is up to a sufficiently high standard? If you are too busy I completely understand. Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a little copyediting, down to Alan McNicoll#Second World War. It looks good so far. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I appreciate it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign

G'day, Dan, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. I'm hoping to get as much input as possible. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some copyediting, down to Gallipoli Campaign#Allied preparations for a landing. Best of luck. I'm spending most of my free time on copyediting software and a manual. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Dank, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)