User talk:Dank/Archive 19

HMS Speedy (1782)

I don't think there was much left to do, so sure, join on in! Kirk (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Benea's still not around, but it doesn't seem right to me for her not to get credit. Kirk (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"See FAC" edit summary

I noticed this, and I went to the FAC looking for comments that relate to those changes, but found nothing. I don't disagree with the changes, but was wondering what prompted them? If it is the language used, that is (as far as I can tell) a combination of the language used by Fastfission (who first brought the article to FA back in 2005) and by Hawkeye7. If more attention needs to be paid to that, it is certainly worth noting at the FAC (I was going to mention it myself, but hadn't got that far yet, and I only have access to the online sources). Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, got interrupted before I could transfer my notes to the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed your limited support due to getting bogged down in the 'scientific work' section. I hope to go over that at some point and make some suggestions for Hawkeye7 (or suggestions as to where to get more advice), but if you have time, you will find that the science jargon is only in that section. Skipping ahead to the next section, things should mostly be fine again from there to the end of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not just that ... it's a long article, and my comments only concerned my copyediting that was Checklist-related; I did additional copyediting. Also, there was a lot to do because the article hasn't been through our A-class review (that I've seen). I'm hoping someone else will finish up; there are a lot of good copyeditors hanging around FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I should take a closer look at that checklist one day! Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At the MILHIST A-class review, we (mostly I) use a version here that has two additional points (regarding wikicode and references). I'm pointing to the shorter version at FAC because I like to suggest this list to wikiprojects for their pre-FAC copyediting, and not many people feel like they've mastered wikicode or references. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A small favour

Hey Dank, I know you're quite active around the review department of WP:MILHIST and I wondered if you could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Mike Jackson for me. It hasn't been waiting particularly long, so it's not urgent and I've every faith that someone will stop by at some point. I was hoping you might be able to offer something a bit more thorough than a drive-by review. As far as I can work out, it's the first article on a Chief of the General Staff to get as far as GA and I'd like to take it to A-class and even FAC (which would make it the only A-class article on a British general, I think). I'm aware that some of the prose could do with a little polishing, but I'm useless at copy-editing my own writing so perhaps you could help there? I'd also appreciate anything else you could do to minimise nasty surprises in an A-class review. Don't feel you need to rush to it—it's only been waiting a few days and I'm sure you're busy. Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Be happy to. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. Is there anything you can see that might hold me up at an A-class review? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just finished it. Nothing I can see, but I generally focus on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got a couple of replies at the PR. You know the area better than I do, so do you think it would be beneficial to wait for more comments (ie, is it likely to get many more) on the PR or should I bite the bullet and take it straight to A-class review? Thanks a lot for your help! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'll ask over there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I really appreciate all your help. I've taken it next door for A-class. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Any time, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Main page: WT:BLP § Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Further information: WT:BLP § Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)

Remember a couple of years back, when I tried a common subpage for both policy and guidelines? And you objected, so we split them back up?

Well, as I predicted, they've diverged over time. And now the wiki-lawyers are arguing that "policy" trumps "guidelines". Since the BLP policy doesn't specifically mention Ethnicity and Gender, while at least a half dozen guidelines do, it's been disrupting WP:CFD, and WP:EGRS, and quite a bit else.

Could you take a look at the main (above), and see whether you support adding Ethnicity and Gender into the policy?

And do you know of anywhere that the Policy and Guidelines has language about precedence?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, all my time is sucked up by reviewing, copyediting, and admin functions these days. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pat Tillman

Please take a look at Talk:Pat_Tillman#Hew_to_the_source and chime in on the discussion as to how the "Offensive material" guidelines apply. The disagreement is whether the word fucking is germane to the section in question or whether it is gratuitous and therefore in opposition to this guideline. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You've asked a lot of people the same thing, so I'm guessing you'll be okay there without my help. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

		Copy Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. For your work on Manhattan Project-Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Martín García and MilHist project

Besides being busy with anti-vandal work I have been mostly working on translations from es:wp, generally within my main interests of history and military history, especially the neglected wars of independence of South America. I have been a member of Project MilHist for a while but have not had the time to actively work on it, therefore I am not up to date on their requirements for article nominations. As coordinator, could you please take a quick look at Battle of Martín García (1814) and guide me to the next step? No need to answer here; at the article's Talk page would be fine. It the article does not pass muster, that's fine too. I'll then see what I can do to improve it. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Forgot to mention that article was reviewd some time ago (as shown in the Talk page) but they mentioned it needs improvement in "coverage and accuracy". I am not clear on that point. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, but you're the only editor to the talk page; do you know who reviewed it? - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. no idea. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've responded there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting input

Hi! You commented on my MILHIST PR for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore). A content dispute is brewing there, see the page history as well as User talk:Foxhound66. This user first added a line regarding the current CDF taking part in an operation back in 2000, when he wasn't CDF, and I removed it. The dispute then degenerated into (most recently) him removing three whole paragraphs from the article as he claims he doesn't feel what he removed is relevant to the office despite this all being sourced to the defence ministry's change-of-command press releases. I'd like third opinions on the issue, and I hope you're able to mediate. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy this over to the peer review and see if someone can help there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough if you can't help directly in the content side per se, although I'd appreciate it if you could leave the user a word to encourage him to take part in discussion before making any further reverts, as from his talk page and the message he left last night he seems unwilling to do so (where I asked him not to revert and discuss it instead as I had to head off, but he said he could care less). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Arado FAC

Nope. If I strike all of my comments, that means I'm happy with the changes or explanations and am done, unless I happen to spot something else, in which case I mention it at the time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Task force

I have both the time and the inclination, so in principle, definitely.

I'd give a firmer answer once the nature of the task force is slightly more concrete, although I can't imagine that I'd change my mind. Regards, —WFC— 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have commented at length on my talk page regarding my thoughts. Thanks and best wishes, Jusdafax 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I was just reading it. I'm not sure what to say, except that I'm not sure if it can have whatever effect it's going to have before Jimmy steps in and does something by fiat. I was thinking of something a little faster. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with the need for an expedited solution. I see the 'Council' as a three or four week process at most, with a pre-set deadline for an action plan, and can't help but think a task force that deliberates in text would take longer, and be subject to various pressures. I am of the opinion, by the way, that the issues of de-adminship should be dealt with at the same time. That's why my proposed Council needs WMF approval, needs to disclose identity, and should deliberate in conference call and email, as I see it, to avoid bogging down. Jusdafax 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'd love to help out, though I'm not sure where to find editors who "think like me", the only place I've discussed RfA is at... RfA ;) But I'll see what I can do - count me in. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I just posted at WT:RFA:

• Every effort at reform so far has been derailed by people who have goals other than making RFA work well ... and the main two groups are people who would like to see admins have less power, specifically the power to block established users, and people who want admins to keep that power. My firm belief is that if our voting would have an effect either way on that wiki-reality, then our voting will completely lose the focus of improving RfA. I can only support proposals that apply to people who are promoted after some cutoff date, say May 1. Our deliberations should have no direct effect on what current admins should or shouldn't do.
• RFA voters tend to be more or less okay with the rationales in, for example, the current RFA Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NickPenguin. RFA voters generally don't understand that we're in the minority in this view. Most Wikipedians believe that, if it's already clear that someone isn't going to succeed at something, it's un-Wikipedian to let them know in great detail exactly why they fail and exactly who thinks they're not worthy. I can only support proposals which ask candidates to start by submitting their application to the crats (or to some other elected group, if for some reason crats don't want to do it, which is fine with me). Feedback from the community would be emailed to the crats, and if it becomes clear the candidate won't pass at this time, one or more of the crats would post a message giving the candidate a reasonably clear idea of what areas they'll need to work on in order to pass. (Possibly, we could make this more acceptable to everyone by allowing the failed candidate to demand an open RFA if they choose, as long as they understand that the results are likely to be even worse if people have to vote a second time when the result is already clear.)
• Bottom line: if it looks to me like we can agree on these two points for a minimum of 6 months, I'm in. Otherwise out, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Added "6 months" per WT:RFA Striking, other good options have popped up.
  • I haven't commented at WT:RFA recently, but I did read through you're interest in starting up a task force. While I am uncertain as to whether I can make a long-term commitment to one, I'd certainly be interested in the concept of creating one. I apologize for bumping in here, but I figured I'd let you know of my interest to help you gauge the interest of the community here. Best of luck with this. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, thanks. Like I say, I'm waiting to see how people respond to my two proposals. Glad you want to help! - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Although I needed the tools anyway, as a regular contributor to RfA and WT:RfA I knew that my own recent RfA was going to be testing my theories that I have expounded on WT:Talk over the past 12 months. With the exception of SNOW/NOTNOW, most oppose votes are based on hate, revenge, or simply conflicting opinions on the interpretation of some policies or guidelines that are still ambiguous and open to further discussion. Some oppose votes are genuine concerns about lack of contribs ofcertain kinds, experience, and insufficient knowledge of policy. Clearly there needs to be a better way of calling bad admins to order, but I do not think this is in the back of the minds of all the people who vote 'oppose' at RfA, and I do not think it's a major concern for those who are still brave enough to run for office. Issues such as length of tenure and recall are a (slightly) relatively separate topic, and IMO, a task force should focus on making RfA a less unpleasant experience, attract more editors of the right calibre, and nip time wasting candidatures in the bud. A task force, as a working method, is required because of the need to work without the background noise and constant side-tracking that is endemic in Wikipedia discussions. The members of the task force do not necessarily need to share the same opinions for change, but they should be able to review, and objectively evaluate all the suggestions that get perennially lost in the mulch. Kudpung (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure, that would be useful. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ygm

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

Autobiography of Malcolm X at FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Autobiography of Malcolm X/archive3

The last two failed due to lack of comment either way. I'd appreciate it if you could mosey on over at your leisure and be hard on us. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a read-through, I've got some catching up to do first. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My partner has offered to copyedit it tomorrow, and he's a great copyeditor. I'll go through it after he's done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

You might like to see this, and this. --Kudpung (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at WSC's and I like yours too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thought on RfA reform

Hi Dank,
I'm concerned that we're trying to improve the job interview whilst we don't even have a job description. Or, if there is a job description (I'm sure that "what an admin does" has been summarised in a dozen different places over history), nobody seems to refer to it. I think it might be worth linking to a short list of "What actions admins perform which nonadmins can't, in practice" - it's one of those things which everybody has at the back of their mind but is rarely explicitly discussed, and such things can often be an obstacle to consensus. The focus is on specific technical abilities rather than a job description in prose, because the latter is more likely to mire us in another tangential debate.
I don't want the discussion to be about this; rather, it would be a handy point to refer to so we could get on with more productive stuff. Do you reckon that would help? I'd like your thoughts first - don't want to be the person who derails yet another RfA debate with something that doesn't help. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, I agree that's a key point, and I'll post something soon at WT:RFA with my thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A very good idea - I've never seen a precise list of admins tasks either. --Kudpung (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page.
Message added 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks...

...for all your help with John of England. It was deeply appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I always smile when I see your articles show up at A-class or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist

I have two questions—one for the MilHist coordinator and one for the content reviewer—that you might be able to shed some light on. For the first, I'm wondering what the conventional wisdom is at FAC and ACR on citing the subject's (independently published) autobiography as a source. I'm generally very hesitant, and have only cited Mike Jackson's to fill in small gaps that can't be filled by any of the other sources, but his closest comparison I've been able to find at FA seems to rely very heavily on the subjects memoirs, so should I be making more use of Soldier or should Ismay be making less use of his memoirs?

It depends on the reviewers. An article that feels POV-ish to the reviewers is much more likely to trigger a complaint over an autobiographical source. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My second question is probably better placed at WT:MILHIST, but I don't want to cause a fuss if I'm being an idiot! Why do the A-class reviews take place on subpages of the review department when they're transcluded onto the assessment department's page? It's confusing to see requests for B-class when one was expecting to see PRs and A-class reviews. Or perhaps it's just me? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Try this one at WT:MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered about that as well but never thought to ask... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Titanicfan1999

Hi Dank, I have come across some edits from User:Titanicfan1999, which seem to either create over linking or potential vandalism to articles. What do think of their edits and whether a warning should be given. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann

Thanks for your work on this article. It has become dear to me, and I like to see it shine. Rumiton (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A great little captain's biography. Anything I did you'd like to change? I generally miss stuff when there's that much to do ... and you generally find it :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I find in copyediting there's no substitute for time. I always find something tomorrow I couldn't find today. Lucky there's no deadline. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

• Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.

• Complete that template and add it to existing cases.

• Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.

• Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking

• Create new articles for UKSC cases

• Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

• Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Formatting script

I use a formatting script for sundry formatting which you are welcome to try out. It does the   in a number of instances, but is by no means exhaustive. It should save you quite a lot of tedious work. Let me know how you get along. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I see it does a.m. and p.m. and several units; does it do months? I don't see a button to invoke the script in the regular or edit screens. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't do date strings. I deliberately excluded such systematic insertion of the nbsp into date strings because will create havoc for my script-based alignment of date formats (format consistency in MOSNUM). As to the button, I will add that for you. (FYI, I've only ever use it as a called-up function in another script.) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• actually, a button to activate the script does exist in the sidebar. You need to click on the toolbox to find "General formatting" in the drop-down menu. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see it, thanks. As long as I can get away with not inserting nbsps in dates at FAC, I'm happy ... it looks like a lot of people don't insert them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Most people don't, and I hope it stays that way. Having said that, those people who do tend to insert nbsp into dates have usually made the effort to have all their dates in consistent formats. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, you will have noticed that the script removes the full stops when it does a.m. or p.m. This could potentially upset some people, as MOSNUM does not mandate am/pm over a.m./p.m., although nobody has ever complained to me about it yet. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sleepy, but off the top of my head, AP Stylebook requires the full stops, and Chicago can go either way. I'll look it up tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AP still seems to prefer the dots. I'll fix it by hand after I run the script. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, MOSNUM only mandates consistency throughout each given article, and expresses no preference one way or another. When you run the script, at least it should catch all instances of am or pm, and then make sure they are all pointing the same way ;-). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC

I can't thank you enough for your help at the PR and ACR. Perhaps you could do me yet another favour and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Jackson/archive1 when you get chance? I think it meets the criteria, but it'll be interesting to see what FAC regulars make of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for your reviewing work. I review all the Milhist FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		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 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 10:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS vs TITLE

Re. this, that wording was added by one of the primary editors involved in this dispute, despite an earlier failure to convince people of it on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied in the current thread, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Naming_wars:_the_only_way_out. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 

FYI, I just got it from the horse's mouth that the   within date strings was never regarded as either necessary or helpful at WP:MOS. She also reaffirmed to me that she does not enforce NBSP at FA --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing

Thanks for the copyediting. One thing, though. "Confederation", when we are talking about the Canadian Confederation, does not take a "the". So it would be "Manitoba entered Confederation in 1870." And of course, the Fathers of Confederation. I'm not Canadian myself, but this is how I've always seen it expressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reply at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John A. Macdonald/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Maria Amélia of Brazil

Dank, English sources simply call her by her original name in Portuguese, that is: Maria Amélia. There is no doubt on that. Unlike other royals, such as the Spanish monarchs, or Italian monarchs, for example, American and British historians prefer to call Brazilian royals by their original name. That means that "Pedro II" is not called "Peter II", or Isabel is named "Elizabeth".

The problem is that readers will not know that Brazilian royals are an exception, that their names are in Portuguese, while Maximilian I of Mexico is not "Maximiliano I" or Ferdinand VII of Spain is not "Fernando VII". To avoid confusion, since "Maria Amélia" it's written quite similar to the English name "Maria Amelia" (although the pronunciation is very different) that it was added the English version of her name. The same occurs in Pedro II of Brazil, for example.

The name "Maria" translates to "Mary", (Maria, mãe de Jesus -> Mary, mother of Jesus) and "Amélia" becomes "Emily". Any simple dictionary says that. I can not understand what is the problem about it. DrKiernan also tried to erase the "ma'am" from the infobox even though it is the same as "senhora" in Portuguese. I can not deal with someone who does not speak Portuguese and knows nothing about Brazilian history and refuses to listen.

I'm tired of Wikipedia and I'm eager to live this place once and for all. All the work I had here was for nothing. I'm tired of dealing with "Sacred cow" editors who believe that their opinions, even though they are wrong, are treated as dogmas. I'm tired of the suffocating hostile environment in FAC towards me. You may oppose the article, since it is your right. But I will remove the nomination since I know these changes are wrong. 99% of all complains and ideas I resolved in here. This one, however, is simply wrong. He doesn't even know the correct treatment to Brazilian royals (first he tried to add "Dona Maria Amélia", then "Senhora", then he simply erased) and did not pay attention to the text. The Princess is Brazilian, and in Brazil we speak Portuguese and he insisted on a "French" name. He didn't even know that "Maria Amélia" doesn't have the same pronunciation as "Maria Amelia". Instead of working on historical character itself, I'm losing my time with someone who knows nothing about the subject. --Lecen (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry things didn't work out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, if you don't mind, I'd like to make a few comments about the present situation. If you see the FAC nomination page you'll notice that I resolved all points raised by Dr Kiernan with no problem at all. However, once he began making edits with no summary and no sources I had to do something about it. When he said that I should write her name in French (simply because she was born in France even though she was Brazilian) I opposed since it made no sense. Now he is trying at all costs to have me blocked and I believe that's an unfair move with the sole purpose of preventing me of working on my nomination. I'm amazed and scared by his behavior and I went to ed17 looking for help. This is not the first article which I've nominated (I have plenty of other FAs which I'm very proud of) but it's the first time I see a reviewer with rage and desire to ruin another Wikipedian. I don't write a single message to him since yesterday, even though he keeps writing on my talk page asking over and over to have me blocked. He is obviously unfitted for the task of reviewing this article.

Which is why I've asked him not to post on the FAC page any more. He's obviously passionate about the point, and if he sees that I'm taking care of it, hopefully he won't see a need to take it any further. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding above. I have suggested "Marie Amelie" as a replacement for "Mary Emily" since that is one of the names used in English-language sources. The fact that it is the same in French and English is a happy coincidence not the reason why it is chosen. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading up on all this now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc... --Lecen (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting this to both talk pages: okay, if we were talking about a word whose meaning the readers couldn't guess that all the sources kept in Portuguese for some reason, we'd need to provide a translation, but since we're not going to have any readers wondering what "Maria" can possibly mean, we should just give "Maria". If we translate it, we're telling readers that we think they need to know the anglicized version ... and they don't, they shouldn't use that version, according to the best sources. Is this acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rarely a historian calls Emperor Pedro II simply "Pedro II". He is usually called "Dom Pedro II". I believe almost every person who reads it will think that "Dom" is actually his name. But that's merely a title. Spanish and Sicilian (Italian) monarchs were also called "Don". However, historians rarely calls Ferdinand VII of Spain "Don Fernando VI". When I wrote the articles about Brazilian royals I could have simply ignored the "Dom" and "Dona" but I believed that the title itself should have an explanation. I'm saying all this because I'm talking by personal experience on how necessary it is to make easier to the average or casual reader understand the subject even in the smaller and apparently unimportant details. When I nominated Empire of Brazil as a FA candidate an editor believed that the "Dona" in "Dona Isabel" was the given name "Donna" and "corrected" my "mistake". As I said, I learned this by personal experience.

The articles about Pedro II of Brazil and his wife Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies have both a translation to English of their names. Both are featured articles and no reviewer opposed the anglicized names "Peter II" and "Theresa Christina". In fact, not a single reviewer of Maria Amélia opposed its inclusion, but only DrKiernan. Perhaps one day you migh explain to me why his opinion is far more important than everyone else. But we're leaving the tracks. Pedro II of Brazil is the brother of Maria II of Portugal, uncle of Pedro V of Portugal, son of Pedro I of Brazil (Pedro IV of Portugal) and grandson of... John VI of Portugal. Weird, huh? Everyone has their names in Portuguese, but João VI (you should pronounce as in the French "Jean") is called "John VI". A mess, in sum.

Frederick III, German Emperor, Nicholas II of Russia, John II of France and almost all the others have their names in English, followed by their original versions. Why the opposite can not occur? If the Portuguese/Brazilian royals do not have a standard set of names readers should know that we are using Portuguese and also should know its equivalent in English. If João VI is called "John VI", but their sons are Pedro I of Brazil and Miguel I of Portugal (and not Peter I and Michael I, respectively) we must make readers' lifes easier by letting them know when we the names are anglicized and when they aren't. Also, if other Brazilian royals have their names in Portuguese and the anglicized version of it, why the article about Maria Amélia can not? Where is the consistency, then? --Lecen (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"The articles about Pedro II of Brazil and his wife Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies have both a translation to English of their names. Both are featured articles and no reviewer opposed the anglicized names "Peter II" and "Theresa Christina".": It's the responsibility of the people who know the material well to tell us how the people are referred to in the best sources; the reviewers were taking your word for it that those people were referred to that way. (Also, don't assume that things are always done right at FAC.) Translations are only needed in our articles for words that are rarely translated in sources if the readers won't even have a clue what the word means; no reader is going to be confused by "Maria". Let's get agreement on this first, then move on to the slightly harder questions about "Dona" and "Senhora" - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, I really appreciate your concern and everything you're doing. I know you lose a lot of time reading and writing messages. Time that you could spend in the "real world". However, I see that I'm losing my time in here and the effort to make a stubborn (I wish I could call him a dick, but it wouldn't help much) editor understand a little bit of Portuguese is not worth it. Translating "João" to John, "Eduardo" to Edward, "José" to Joseph and on and on is something so obvious that I can't understand why am I spending so much time with this discussion. My partner (Astynax) has clearly give up on this article and perhaps on everything else. I'm doing the same. Wikipedia is not worth the trouble. Now I understand why there are fewer and fewer editors every year that passes. My only regret is because there is no one else working on articles about Brazilian history besides me. I hope you won't see this as something againt you. It isn't. You're a great editor and did some wonderful articles with ed17. Please, remove the article's nomination. If one editor has more voice than several others, then there is clearly something wrong about this place. Thank you very much for everything. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll need to hear from the other nominator, Astynax, before I can remove the nomination. While I'm waiting to hear from him, is it acceptable to you not to translate "Maria Amélia" in this article? - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should ask for the removal of Mary (given name) and Emily (given name). You're asking me to ignore my own language (Portuguese) and English, which is not possible. And why only this article? What about the others? Only to please DrKiernan because he is regarded as somekind of guru because of his work on articles abou British royals? Queen Elizabeth I of England is known in Portugal and Brazil as Isabel Iand Queen Mary I of England as Maria I. Do you understand that DrKiernan does not know how to speak, read and write in Portuguese? That he also does not know a single word about Brazilian and Portuguese history? P.S.: Do you understand that this entire discussion is ridiculous? Just as Talk:Mexican-American War#Revisit requested move (March 2011)? It's like discussing a paitning with a blind man (DrKiernan). He doesn't even know that "Mary" means "Maria" and that "Emily" means "Amélia". --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What I said above persists. However, if there was any common sense in DrKiernan, all this could have been simply resolved with a simple footnote. It could be read like this:

• Dona Maria Amélia (English: Mary Emily1 December 1831 – 4 February 1853) was a princess...
• The note itself would be: "The known English sources prefer to call the princess by her original, Portuguese, name, that is, Maria Amélia.[Source 1], [Source 2], [Source3], [Source 4] Thus, there is no standard anglicized version of her name. The name Maria can be translated to English as Mary, but also as Maria and Marie, for example. While Amélia can be rendered as Emily and also as Amelia, Amalia and Emilia.

I believe this is simple, direct and reasonable. --Lecen (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't acceptable to DrKiernan; you can see his reply on his talk page, which makes some sense to me, although I wouldn't use any of the adjectives he uses; I'd just say that we almost never translate foreign names to their English equivalents in a footnote. I've got a lot of copyediting to do today. Hopefully Astynax will get back to me; if he's not in favor of withdrawing the nomination, then I'll try again to get a compromise. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His reasons make no sense at all. Only Maria Amélia can not be translated? But every single German, Austrian, French, Spanish and other royals can? We are not talking about the translation of names of Pedro Álvares Cabral, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco and others, but of a GIVEN NAME. Why only she can not have her name translated? You're giving undue weight to his opinion. --Lecen (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't available yesterday. I have no problem with withdrawing at this time. We can come back to it later when we can look at it with fresh eyes. This has gone on for much longer than I had thought and I am dealing with off-Wikipedia matters that demand my attention. The FAC has led to changes which are truly improvements, and others which are less improvements than personal preferences and opinions. I do not consider the level of criticism and difference over interpretation of policy as worthy of denying FA status, but this type of dispute is too frustrating to argue at the present time. Policies are good, but there are gray areas and wiggle room. • Astynax ^talk 08:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've let Sandy know on her talk page that the two nominators would like to withdraw it. I share your frustration, and I like your approach. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reverted

Good point. Didn't think about it that way. Will wait a week :) Worm^TT · (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's funny. If EfD is a test, then it's one I can easily handle. I expect you to come up with something uproariously hilarious. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Joking? Who said I was joking? <_< Worm^TT · (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're too slow, Mr. Talk Page Stalker. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow is good, in some circles. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit History of the United States Navy

I thought I should get a copyedit of History of the United States Navy prior to an A-review; could you please review it when you have time? Thanks! Kirk (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Per this (which I just posted today), I now prefer to copyedit at the end of A-class and at the beginning of FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'd better start the A-review! Kirk (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're nearing the end of the A-review; when you get a chance please take a look, thanks. Kirk (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SMS Konig, yet again

This conversation on this (here, 41) seems to have petered out a while ago; but I think the general opinion was that the translation thing was not a good idea, so I've taken the liberty of changing it.
Also, there wasn't much progress on what to do with the SMS, but the original format seemed the safest option, so I've gone back to that; I trust that’s OK with you.
However I’ve also done the SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand page,and tried a different treatment of the SMS thing there; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks at WT:MILHIST should be able to answer the question, I'll copy it there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!

"pushes the Sun's position very slightly farther through the Milky Way": I don't understand.

I wrote it one way, and a reviewer didn't understand it. I tried another, and you don't understand it. I've tried it again. Please let me know if you understand it and, if not, what I can possibly do to make it make sense! Pleeeeease! Serendi^podous 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it, if it means people will get it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Dank/Archive 19. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• May I say how impressed I am? Lotta work went into this. Also, quite fun to look up my voter profile... I am more active than I thought! I will again consider the task force, if you don't mind a part-time member. Jusdafax 08:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement at ACR

Hey Dan, could you perhaps weigh in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Buckles? We're starting to get a little hot under the collar and input from third parties would be helpful before it turns into an argument or the ACR is closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Dank, I'd like to tell you how much I appreciate all your good will to help me out with the nomination. Although I believe that others should have stepped in to resolve the problem, I never, I repeat, never meant that you did not have the experience, good faith and judgement to do it.On the conrary, I believe you do. However, I still think that the delegates should have done something once the discussion went too far. Sorry if in any moment I made you believe that I was criticizing you. --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. However ... at the same time you were writing this, I was adding in the FAC that I don't understand your position; I believe your cites prove that it would be better not to translate the names, per our policies. If you still disagree, let's talk there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you've already fixed it, and I struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response there. Translating her name is a mere "footnote". You see, John VI of Portugal is not called "João VI". However, both his children have their name in Portuguese: Miguel I of Portugal and Pedro I of Brazil. John VI's father is called Peter III of Portugal, not "Pedro III" (while Pedro I of Brazil is called Pedro IV of Portugal). It's because of this.. "fruit salad" that I added as mere note what would be Maria Amélia's name in English. I was simply trying to place some order into this chaos that it is Wikipedia's naming for Portuguese/Brazilian royals. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, I believe you're making a mistake. Translation of "Dom" and "Dona" was not an issue raised in the FAC nomination. The only moment where I mentioned was to give you an example of another article in which I had to explain that they are honorific titles, not names. Although, if that's something that you want to know, then I can explain. The word "dom" comes from the Latin "Dominus" (see Dom (title)) and it means in English "Lord". "Dona" means "Lady". --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm going to avoid thankspamming over a hundred folks (only half of whom I recognized, much less actually knew), but I'm going to single you out. I really appreciate your nomination (a bit more like a strong nudge, really) and your coaching. In grattitude, please tell me if you ever need any help (aside from pitching in more at reviews, I'm already slowly grinding my way up for that). bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just keep on being your sweet self. (Can I say that without sounding gay? Oh wait ...) - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Flowing Hair dollar

Hi Dank. I just wanted to let you know that Flowing Hair has been promoted and thank you for your work on it. My next nom will be for Trade dollar (United States coin). Your input on the article is always appreciated!-RHM22 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, glad to help. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for help in the John A. Macdonald article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A token of my appreciation

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		This is for Dank, as a small token my esteem and in appreciation of all the help in getting Mike Jackson to FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm talkin' about. The guys above just said "Thanks". Hmmph. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: * -RHM22 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put that one on my "Shinies" page :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

___________________________________________

| * The small barnstar.-RHM22 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)|

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Sniff. You like me, you really like me! - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry to say that the Mike Jackson article linked above isn't very good. There's nothing about the Moonwalk or the Pepsi commercial.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It must be a duplicate, as I know we ran the moonwalker main page. I'll go delete this one, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Some vandal changed the page to say that he is a British general. I can think of at least three things wrong with that.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: DC on May 7?

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That RfA Reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff.

We also need volunteers for the Clerking idea soon. I've been either gutsy or foolhardy, and said I'd be happy to do this as wing-man with someone more qualified and experienced; are you happy to give Clerking a go? The think will not work unless we can find suitable volunteers, lol! Come over to this bit here and add yourself. Please! I'm getting lonely over there ……. lol! Pesky (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of people going in a lot of different directions. A month ago, everyone seemed to agree that it was a bad idea to start grilling someone while they were taking the test and demonstrating what they know; you wouldn't put up with that while you're getting a driver's license, for instance, so people should help candidates make their case before the RFA begins. There was also support (not as clear, but it was there, I thought) for giving Arbcom the message that they should de-mop any admins promoted after a target date who don't seem to be following the community on certain deletion and blocking matters. I think both of those reforms would have made a big difference in the current RFA, as I said there. When people start doing the things we've already agreed to ought to be done, I'll get interested again. Just about all my time is devoted to A-class reviews, FAC and Milhist these days. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles A-Class Review

You participated in the Frank Buckles A-Class review. If you have any further comments on the article or are satisfied with the article as it is, please post on the A-Class review page. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just a courtesy note. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we are now at the !voting phase of the A-Class review (only need one left), you can go ahead and make your changes to the page if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A special project

Hi Dan, I've got a side project I'm going to be working on over the next month or so. My goal is to get the High Seas Fleet article to FA by 31 May, which will be the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland. There won't be time for an ACR, but can I call on your copyediting skills when I've got the article finished? I've got a couple of weeks before the SMS Bayern FAC will be closed, so I should be able to finish up the article to leave you plenty of time before it's even eligible to be put up at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know when. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. I've got the article just about finished, but I've posted a note at WT:OMT asking for some of the regulars to look the article over for any major fixes that might need to be made (sort of an informal ACR). Hopefully some of them will have the time over the next week or so to review it. I'll let you know once that's all done. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, I'm always more comfortable copyediting after the regulars have looked at it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt

Thank you. There's a few in the pipeline so I'll be sure to try that soon. Harrison49 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it. Good work! - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On the "secret to a long life" sentence, AYW has tinkered with it, as did I. Please let him or I know if further tinkering on that sentence is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If Nikki is fine with it, I'll be fine. It won't alter my support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I just wanted to let ya know. :) Thanks for the review. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dank, while I love your long comment about commas, I'm thinking maybe the FAC review page isn't the best place for it? It's somewhat related, but quite long - you could probably make an essay of it if you wanted, or just move it to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't "Good news, everyone!" the line on Futurama whenever the Professor had an insanely dangerous mission, such as Fry delivering a package through a black hole or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a while ago that I last saw Futurama, but that sounds like the Professor to me! - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the English in the study still needs work. I was approached a while back and I couldn't make heads or tails of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace, Perfect Peace

I got rid of one of the uses of "model". Would you mind looking at it again?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, supported. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

York Castle...

...missed your comments the other day, sorry! I've replied on the discussion page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Iowa class battleship

I intend to have an open nominations list for the FAC; the way I see it, we all hold this particular article dear, so we should be allowed the honor and privilege of being counted among those to have work to get the class page back up into the sun. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great, and gratz on your admission to graduate school. - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln FAN

I'm happy to follow your suggestion and let the nom do some work here. I obviously enjoy witnessing the article's improvement, so let me know if my input is needed. I've started working on my next pres.-FDR. Cheers Carmarg4 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're doing great work, and feel free to jump in whenever you like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about WP:NOICONS

At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernst_Lindemann/archive1 you asked :Question: I see a couple of these in the text: 48°10′N 16°12′W. Anyone have a problem with these, per WP:NOICONS? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply is thus MOSICON only applies to the Wikipedia encyclopaedic project content, those icons are Wikipedia functionality content much like the add to watchlist icon Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SMS Radetzky

Hey there. I was looking back through the failed A-Class Review for SMS Radetzky and came across a comment about footnote 1. After reading Nick's comment about it, my reply, and your subsequent comment, I decided to come to you for some help/advice ;) The article states in the text following the lead that the BB was indeed a Pre-Dreadnought BB. However, to avoid confusion for any potential readers, I added in footnote 1 stating that although she was launched after HMS Dreadnought, she had the design of a Pre-Dreadnought. Sources in the article state when she was launched, as well as her design, but none go so far as to make the connection between the two and HMS Dreadnought. In short, my question to you is, how can I reword/cite footnote 1 so that any cite issues will be adequately addressed? Sorry if I went of on a tangent there. If you need any help clarifying what I said, just ask. I've got this page watchlisted ;)

All the best,--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Per my standard disclaimer, I don't generally deal with citation issues. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah well...it was worth a try. Mind if I divert Sturm's attention to this thread for a minute to see if he can help? BTW, just for the record, I did managed to address almost all of the outstanding issues that caused the article's ACR to fail. The citation issue, as well as one more issue that I can't think of at the moment are all that's left.--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 14:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)