User talk:Dank/Archive 20

Airbus A330

Someone's already taken up the copy-editing. However, I can still help you anytime with anything, if you agree to comment of the article during its next FAC. The second FAC failed because not many participated. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to comment in the next FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln FAC

Thanks for your work on the nom. The article did benefit from improvement despite lack of promotion. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it takes two cycles to get promoted. I hope you'll nom next time, and Sandy seems to be suggesting that co-noms who have been active with the article would help. It's "FAC" btw; WP:FAN is something else. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War

The A class review appears to have stalled and it seems unlikely there will be any substantial changes to the article. What do you think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no supports yet, but it may just be that people are reviewing the more urgent articles first, that is, the ones that are closer to the 28-day deadline. You might want to respond to the request to add something about geography and weapons. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a favour

Hello Dank! After the Amorium FAC is concluded, one way or another, I plan to try and re-nominate Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, which I rewrote and have had copyedited again recently. If you have time, could you please check it out and tell me if there are any particular problems? Prose was the main stumbling block last time, so readability is the main concern. I'd really like another experienced editor's opinion before going ahead for FAC. Constantine ✍ 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it didn't get a lot of attention at its A-class review almost two years ago ... sometimes a strong A-class review can help. Prose was the only problem brought up at its FAC. I generally copyedit as soon as I can after it gets to FAC. Before FAC, you might want to ask for a prose review at either WT:MIL or WP:GOCE. I'll watchlist the article, and if someone starts doing more harm than good IMO, I'll jump in :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On the civil war article, it's already been through GOCE twice, but generally the text gets very much distorted in its meaning afterwards and I have to clean up again, so some of the work is lost. I think it's OK now, and that it doesn't require another copyedit. Anyhow, if you can spare the time, look at it. Otherwise I'll see you (hopefully) at the FAC. On Amorium, I think that most issues are done. I've largely toned down the article, although the "hyperbolic" language I'm accused of is largely the language not only of the primary but of the secondary sources too. Kirk's concerns seem rather trivial to me, certainly not enough for an oppose vote. Anyhow, I've again rephrased, and I keep my fingers crossed. Lightmouse raised a few good points, answered. RJHall has yet to respond, I'll prod him a bit more. Constantine ✍ 15:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amorium says "20,000 pounds of gold (about 6,400–6,500 kg)"; wasn't Lightmouse was asking you to say "roman pounds" if it's around 6,500 kg? As for which concerns are "trivial", you only have two choices: you can negotiate and reason with Kirk, or you can try to make a strong case that specific things Kirk is asking for shouldn't be done in this article. The second path is tougher, but it's worth doing if you feel strongly about it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the pound issue, broadly speaking, yes. However the Byzantine gold pound underwent a gradual devaluation so that it is a different unit than the Roman pound, and since there is not dedicated article to the Roman pound either way, I've decided to retain the link to the general article. On your second comment, I agree, but phrasing concerns are not worth a dispute, and his point on Theophilos' death has some weight. Generally, I don't believe that we need to spell everything out to the reader, but in this I am often in a minority in article reviews ;) Constantine ✍ 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, explain these things to Kirk and Lightmouse, otherwise they won't know that you've tried to address their concerns. It's important to get a support from everyone who comments, if possible, otherwise the FAC may fail. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject/Military fiction task force

Hi Dank, I saw that you added the Military history WP template to Talk:The Red Badge of Courage. However, this article is also currently listed under WP:NOVELS military fiction task force. Isn't this a bit repetitive? Is it common practice to have both listed for such articles? Just curious. The article is currently at FAC, so I'm in perfectionist-mode at the moment. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First: if you object, then I'll remove the tag (at least while it's at FAC, there's no rush), and I'll copyedit it anyway if that's all right with you. I understand, I don't like it when people screw up my articles when they're at FAC ... but I don't recall reviewers objecting to what's on the talk page. If the odds are that a project's participation will be a net positive, I rarely object to project tags, myself. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not objecting anything, I'm merely curious. Hence: "Just curious." As I said, the project/task force tagging seems repetitive, and I wasn't sure if this is usual procedure with military-related novels or not. Sorry for asking. :/ María (habla conmigo) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Up to you. My feeling is that the tags aren't repetitive, because the point of a tag is (hopefully) to get more people looking at the page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. María (habla conmigo) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 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) 02:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War ACR

The review was closed as unsuccessful, lacking the three supports needed. However, I feel like there were few objections to respond to. I am encouraged to renominate the article "when I think it is ready", but I'm not sure what course of action to follow. What do you think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We have fewer active reviewers than usual at the moment. I focus on prose issues, which aren't really relevant to the decision about re-nominating. I suggest you post a note at WT:MIL saying that the review was closed for lack of reviewers, and asking for advice on when to re-nominate. I'd recommend A-class before a return to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Shishman

Greetings! Do you have other remarks on that peer review? The review started more than a month ago and is still not closed... Of course, if you are busy, you can continue later but I just wanted to make a reminder. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do most of my copyediting at A-class and WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for copy editing - Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Hello there. It has been recommended by user:HJ Mitchell that I seek your abilities out for checking over the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article. It is currently deep into its A-class review, and many issues have been resolved, but it has been put forward that the article could use the services of an experienced copy editor, and you specifically by name! So I am here, placing my request. Thank you for listening/reading. Kyteto (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I review the A-class articles every few days, and when it looks like they're close to promotion, I jump in. I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just throught I should alert you that the review is almost certainly ending in the next 24 hours. This is when the axe drops, as they say. A knife-edge situation has emerged. Kyteto (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I'm working my way through with a pretty thorough copy edit and MoS check, but I'm only half way through. It'll be a day or two before I'm finished and then it'll need someone to proof read and fix niggling things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic Harry, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've been through and massaged prose, fixed who knows how many comma splices, rewritten a few bits and generally tried to make the prose do justice for the content (which is easily A-class standard). Fancy taking another read through? Rupert's agreed to leave the ACR open for another couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Already on it. I've recently decided I can't keep up the copyediting pace, so I'm covering the first half of articles at A-class. (I can still cover articles at FAC from start to finish.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you, you do an incredible amount of copy-editing and reviewing. I struggle sometimes and I only do biographies (the Harrier is an exception). It would be great to take the Harrier to FAC, though, so if you have the time to read the whole thing, it would be hugely appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, for you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Harry, it's still going very slowly and I've got a lot of articles to cover, so I stopped a little more than halfway. Hopefully someone will have time to finish up, then I'll be happy to look it over and see if I can support. The edit summaries may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I might see if Malleus has time to look at the rest of it (I've read the article too many times now). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Draped Bust dollar

Hi Dank. Thanks for the edits and suggestions for the article! I've addressed your concerns at the FAC for Draped Bust dollar. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave another note thanking you for the excellent copyedit of Draped Bust. I noticed some slightly awkward wording, but I wasn't sure what to do to fix them. I consider prose to be my strongest point, but I'm not nearly as proficient as I'd like to be. Your great work here is a real motivator for me to try and improve my prose skill, so that your copyedits might be less and less for each successive FAC! Thanks again,-RHM22 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Colony Framework

Hello Dank. Back in 2009 our initial Colony Framework description page was deleted for blatant advertising. Our open-source project has evolved considerably since then, and I felt it was time to create a new page containing objective and encyclopedic information (to the extend possible). We would be very happy to get your feedback on this issue, and hope you don't have to delete it ever again. --Lmartinho (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend WP:Requests for feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 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: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

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) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hi, I mentioned you. Tony (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm tied up with family stuff now ... I'll reply tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgents

Hey, Dank, thanks for updating the urgents-- I appreciate the help-- but the idea is to hold it to Urgents so folks will actually look at them. Moving the marker is a separate item-- just helps the delegates know which should be maturing-- moving the marker doesn't mean those should automatically be added to urgents, which should only be those that don't have enough review for any kind of consensus. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll reply on your page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hood ACR

Dank, Kirk and I have a disagreement over the bullet list in the modern theories section. Could you take a look and see what you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Musings about FAC

Hi Dan, since you've been putting a lot of effort into getting more folks to review at FAC, I thought I'd post this here. It may be that I'm just being daft, or it may be that there's a genuine perception issue to be addressed.

I only venture over to FAC quite rarely. I've helped out with FACs for a few with articles I've been involved in or written (like Brad Pitt or Mike Jackson) and I review the odd article that really piques my interest, but I've always had a perception of FAC reviewing as the preserve of the elite. I'm a reasonably seasoned reviewer and copy-editor, but FAC still, to me at least, has an aura of being "off-limits" to all but the very best reviewers. Which is why I only tend to comment there when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

I know it's daft, and I'm trying to get more into reviewing at FAC as real life allows, but I still can't shake the feeling that I'm not "qualified" to comment at FAC (a bit like how I felt when I commented in discussions alongside respected admins before I got my ow bit). Anyway, the reason I'm making this comment is because if I get this feeling (however daft it is), maybe I'm not the only one, and maybe that's why FAC seems to struggle for reviews more than other processes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're definitely not the only one with that feeling. I'm really struggling to figure out how to best allocate my time to try to help solve this. Btw, you've got mail. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same way. With the exception of areas where I have some command of the subject matter, I don't feel comfortable reviewing FACs. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is new: we've got unanimous support at WT:MHC#Closing the review department for using WP:PR#History for our peer reviews, and I expect and hope that that means we'll be working together with other history-related projects at FAC, too. (And of course, you're history-related if you say you are ... economics, for instance, is history, eventually.) So, now that we're going to be working together: we actually have almost enough reviewers at FAC doing the hard stuff, what we need is about 3 times as many people as we have now doing the easy (er) stuff ... just reading and commenting, spot-checks of references to make sure the writers aren't abusing the sources, images (which are easy for some people, not for me) ... even checking for typos and missing words would be a huge help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, because I find reviews from both HJ and Proton helpful -- every little bit helps, and you don't need to be an "elite" "expert" to lend a hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and yes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at AustralianRupert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood ROV video streaming

In response to your comment at the HMS Hood A-class review: "; a world first": what was it that never happened before? Underwater video streamed to a website, or video from a certain depth, or underwater video streamed to a national broadcaster's website, or .... ? The actual line from the source is We also had an ambitious plan to stream live ROV video footage directly onto the Channel 4 expedition website — something that had never been tried before. Please advise. -- saberwyn 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell from that what it is that hadn't been tried before, and I'd omit it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment at WT:MILHIST

Hi Dank, I don't think that Sandy's comments, or the comments of the other editors in that discussion, were in any way directed at you. Lots of editors review articles, and it's a shared responsibility. Your contributions are highly regarded - I know I always appreciate your through reviews of 'my' articles. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I appreciate that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they were either, but I left a message about it... trust me, I appreciate your copyedits and reviews more than you can imagine. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The tone of those comments wasn't especially constructive, IMO. I've been impressed in my short time here by your attention to detail, Dank, as well as your professional comments and conduct in reviews.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

moderately hypocritical, but

• It's moderately hypocritical of me to opine that I hope you don't quit FAC, since not only am I not doing anything at all on Wikipedia, but if I were doing anything I wouldn't be doing Content Review (too burned out on the conflict of it). But hey, hypocrisy is a universal constant in human existence. Call a philosopher for further discussion. Back here on earth, I suggest that you examine peoples' criticisms to see if they have a grain of truth, and if they do, take that on board – but don't, you know, walk away. Or whatever. Good luck in all you do.  – Ling.Nut 05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War FAC

At the new FAC (#2), concerns over copyediting issues have been raised. Ordinarily, I would have invited you to look over it, but I'm aware reading the posts here that you're assessing your contributions. On that note, I can say the times you've been over my ACRs, FACs, and replied to my queries have been helpful indeed. In fact, they've had a pleasant air to them, which must be difficult to pull off in conditions like these. Anyway, I figured it would be rude not to note the new FAC, whether you're here or not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it, but I've got less time these days and I won't be able to help with that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

follow up

• Hi Dank. Notice you didn't reply to my last comment, which was meant to be an encouragement. Also noticed that others said that the remarks which you felt were about you actually were not specifically directed at you. Anyhow, whatever. Good luck in all you do.  – Ling.Nut 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ling, I appreciate it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Airways

I'd like to call to your attention for deleting Cyclone Airways article. Cyclone Airways is a legitimate airline operating exclusively in the north of Luzon in the Philippines. The airline has subsidiary flying school and MRO facility for small private jets.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

While you were out

Hi Dan, welcome back, good to see you again so soon, hopefully for the duration... FWIW, I got round to three FAC copyedits and prose reviews (A-330, SMS Friedrich der Grosse, and Quisling) so of course no reason you shouldn't give them the once-over too but there may be others you'd want to attack first to spread the love... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading over your reviews, very nice. Lots to do, and I've got less time than before, I'll see what I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm happy to keep on with a bit more prose reviewing than I normally do, as long as I have the time (same as you). BTW, if you scanned SMS Friedrich der Grosse's FAC, I hope you got as much pleasure as I did out of Parsec and me being at complete cross-purposes over the word "order"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a chance the verb "order" might be misinterpreted in many MILHIST articles if it doesn't mean command or instruction. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a second

Glad to see you're back, Dan. Would you mind looking at Dapi's nomination for the Oak Leaves? There's something of a shortage of active coords lately and I thought since you're back you might be able to add your thoughts. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we've got a lot of folks gone at the same time. Okay, I supported. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel

Hey there. I just put some work into fixing your comments on Kurt Hummel. Can you possibly check them out? I had a question on one or two of them though. HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respond there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Deleted page

Hey there. I just wanted to know why WorkforceTrack's page was deleted? What was the reason?

17:24, 9 January 2010 Dank (talk | contribs) deleted "Workforcetrack" ‎ (G11: Please see WP:WHYNOT. (CSDH))

I recommend you click on the link (WP:WHYNOT) and ask for feedback at WP:Requests for feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 11:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copy Edit

Hey Dank, I have nominated Family Guy (season 1) for FLC (again) and it needs a quick copy edit (It needs to rephrase repetitive words and some gramatical errors, if you have time could you please perform one. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't take requests. At the moment, all I can handle are articles under review for WP:Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

James B. McCreary

Thanks for your comments during the recent WP:MILHIST A-class review of James B. McCreary. If you are interested, I've now listed the article at WP:FAC. Your comments and suggestions for further improvement would again be welcome. Thanks again. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. No need to notify me, I keep an eye on Milhist articles at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just dropped a note to everyone who commented on the A-class review, but I'll try to remember that in the future. For some reason, I seem to have trouble getting anyone to review my articles at FAC. Thanks again for your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)