User talk:Dank/Archive 21

Dannatt
Hey Dan, I know you're a busy man, so take your time, but if you could re-visit WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt when you have five minutes, I'd be grateful. All the best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said this in my disclaimer and at WT:MHC, but I should probably repeat it here. Starting roughly now, I will continue to comment on but no longer support or oppose on prose for articles not written in American English (at A-class, FAC, etc.) I only have time these days to focus on what I know best. Also, Milhist has plenty of competent British and Australian editors.
 * Best of luck, I'm sure the article will do well at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Note for posterity: that didn't last long :) I'm back to at least making an attempt with all flavors of English.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or flavours, for that matter. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, I botched the punchline, I meant to say flavors/flavours. Thanks :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Davidson
Replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

London Necropolis Company tag
Hi Dank, just a note to say that I don't really think that London Necropolis Company comes under the purview of MILHIST. The company itself never ran the military cemetery, the land was gifted to the Government and the cemetery was run by IWGC/CWGC. There is only one paragraph in that whole article that relates to the military cemetery. Brookwood Cemetery is tagged as Milhist but I don't really think the company should be. What do you think? Regards, Woody (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I've untagged it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it was an interesting read either way! Woody (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this copyedit on the strategy page. A rather stupid typo on my part me thinks. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just doin' my job. Copy editors everywhere will mourn if "collegiate" ever gains the meaning of "collegial", but I've been seeing "collegiate" in that sense so often in the press over the last few years that it might happen some day. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knew, copyeditors lurk everywhere ;) Thanks again, Woody (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * I just saw this one a couple of days ago and craved it. How'd you know? - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an awesome barnstar, and well deserved. To read 63 articles, each several thousand words long, in just a few months is, well, awesome. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry ... now I have to back off from reading so I can get better at writing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What will you be writing, then? Of course, if you're nominating anything at ACR/FAC, I'll make time to review it. I owe you for all the reviews you've given my articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, let me know as well, I owe you about 5320875902 reviews. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I owe you a few FA stars. Either of you interested in WWII paratroopers?  I've gotten some information from ASOM (it's 2 hours from me) and a bunch of biographies. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have The Longest Day somewhere in my stacks of books if your paratrooper(s) participated in the Normandy landings. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect, I've just ordered the paperback myself ... you'll be able to say "I have the source, so I know that bastard didn't plagiarize." - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an area I know a lot about, but an interesting one. I'm unlikely to be much use in the writing process, but I'll be more than happy to review the end product. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Scripts
See my talkpage for a potentially helpful note re your recent query. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on Blockhaus d'Éperlecques
Thanks for your comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques; I've actioned the various issues that you raised. Please take another look to see if that satisfies your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented there, and also see my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

USS Constellation v. La Vengeance
Hello Dank, i think ive addressed all of your concerns at the A-class review of this article. Thanks again!XavierGreen (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I'm finishing it up as we speak. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dannatt again
I'm getting a little nervous that the FAC's not attracting much attention. You know FAC much better than I do, should I be worried yet? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So far so good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood FAC
Sandy's moved your comments to the talk page as they were made before I properly transcluded the FAC to the main FAC page. I'd be grateful if you could copy your comments back over to the main page of the FAC with whatever further thoughts that you might have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nixon
Ah, I changed back in part, in the lede, "President of the United States" is a full formal title, often abbreviated as POTUS. Similarly "Vice President of the United States". The rest look fine. Thanks for the interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Juno Beach
I'm out of town until Sunday. When I get back, I'm planning to put Juno Beach up for FAC. Does that work into your schedule/timeline/plans? Let me know what works. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's great. I'll get more done on it this weekend ... if you'd rather I not co-nom, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries on the delays. Ping me on here or a FB message when you're good to go. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cam, replied at Talk:Juno_Beach. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks! Almost done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Some queries for you
Are there any major differences between a MilHist ACR and an FAC other than level of nitpickiness? Is the reviewing process significantly different in any way? I've been looking at the page and to me they look similar, except that ACRs are generally shorter. Can people not part of MilHist nominate and review articles at ACR? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there's basically no differences besides nitpicking, which is why I think a lot of people (me included!) will always go to ACR before a FAC. :-) The only hard rule we have is that the nominated article be in the project's scope; anyone is free to nominate and/or review. The criteria for ACRs are here, if you're interested. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, and I agree with all that ... although we have recently combined our peer review process with WP:PRH, that is, the usual peer review for history-related articles ... which I guess raises the question, if we can peer review these non-Milhist history-related articles, would it be so terrible to review them at A-class? Currently, we simply don't have reviewers knowledgeable about a range of history issues to make it work ... but WP:HISTORY is pretty much dead, surprisingly.  My wild guess is that if history articles did start showing up at our A-class, I would copyedit them, try to make the nominators feel at home, and encourage people to eventually deal with the cognitive dissonance in some way.  Does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. I was thinking about doing some reviewing at ACR, as I have an article currently at GAN that I'd like to nominate at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, looking forward to it. We've had a couple of articles pass ACR recently that had sourcing problems that you would have caught.  - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Since most MilHist ACRs go on to FAC, you shouldn't have to duplicate too much effort... ;-) At MilHist ACR we pride ourselves on strong content review, but we're not generally as tough as FAC on style, nor on spotchecks and image review -- so your input would be very welcome, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors
Hi! Are you available to help with some mentorship in getting started with the Guild of copy editors? Enti342  MEMO  04:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have always been available to mentor budding copy editors who have access to and try to follow Chicago and Garner's. Do you have them?  I may be getting very busy soon, so at the moment, I'm not sure if I can take on new duties. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Babel thanks you
I have just read your note on my talk page. It is not just instructive, it is inspiring! We will all sleep better here tonight. Thanks so much, - Babel41 (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. Btw, you guys may be interested in commenting on another article currently at FAC (also of interest to military historians): Richard Nixon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

archive image
Sure, go ahead :) Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I love it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :-(
I'm really hating myself for nagging you here so shamelessly, but I'm a bit afraid that Thurisind could fail for lack of input, so I was hoping if you could rob you of some time so you could go through the other half of Featured article candidates/Thurisind/archive1. Pretty please? :-) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got 3 supports that cover prose; I don't think prose will be a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I guess I'm just a bit too hypocondriac. And thanks again for all your input in both the ACR and the FAC! Ciao, Aldux (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blessing in disguise?
Yes, we were taken off the FAC list three hours after I posted what I hoped were thoughtful (but were surely sometimes inappropriately elaborate) responses to your and Ed's comments. Ah well, this may be a blessing in disguise. I shall collect myself and create an A-Class review within a week (I definitely feel our article meets all five A-Class criteria).

I do feel the peer review is unnecessary; I've had endless counsel on the article from good and knowledgeable people I know, inluding an editor. I will, however, spend quality time this week doing to the article many of the things suggested by the FAC reviewers, and even when I'm not sold on a suggestion I'll try to meet it halfway (like by paraphrasing at least some of the quoted passages). I'll let you know when we're back on the board. Take care. - Babel41 (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * High-quality work does get acknowledged ... eventually :) Btw, I can't speak from experience, but some Wikipedians like the screen readers available, see WP:Screen reader. - Dank (push to talk) 10:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hill 262
Hi, you don’t happen to have any sources (or know any) that deal with the composition of Polish forces during Operation Tractable and in particular their effort around Hill 262? If so would you pop by the talk page and chime in, were at a bit of a lost end.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

 * Nice barnstar, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC survey
Sorry for missing out on taking part in the FAC survey. I would say though that I found the process efficient and fair and would take articles there in the future. In the case of RAF Northolt, I had not taken it through the A class review, so it is most likely that many concerns raised at FAC would have been sorted there first. As I have not taken an article through A class review yet, I can't comment on that process. Harrison49 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating. (For readers, the link is WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 104.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Babel is back on board
I have just put the "Mark Satin" article up for A-Class review, and I wanted you to be the first (well, second) to know. Although I defended my original article to death during the FAC review, I spent the last week entering nearly 100 edits suggested or inspired by my FAC reviewers. I think you'll like the article better now. I know I do. - Babel41 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to reading it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ordinals
Hi Dank, I noticed you mentioned here that WP:ORDINAL would prefer "19" over "nineteen" (but that you don't have a preference yourself). Are you sure this is the case? It says "...are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words" (my emphasis). This seems to be saying that either are acceptable, and neither is preferred, even though the numerals option is mentioned first. Or am I misinterpreting it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is how reviewers interpret WP:ORDINAL, but I didn't want to say that. On reflection, it would have been better just to change it rather than mention it in the review.  There's no blanket support for "19" in the style guides I cite, but it's not wrong, either, and MOSNUM pays less attention to style guides than some of the other style pages.  The two clauses at ORDINAL that are most responsible are: "quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures ..." and "Adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes ...".  Since numbers-as-words show up in the names of things in history articles generally and military history articles in particular, the numbers in front of those numbers-as-words get converted to numerals.  Even though the instances of "19" that are quasi-continuous or sitting in front of numbers-as-words don't IMO justify converting every "nineteen" to a "19", it seems to happen a lot, and ORDINAL gets cited as the reason.  Bottom line: on average, I seem to have to explain myself less and edit less if I convert most numbers ten and higher to numerals. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I might have to take the same approach then, but it's rather annoying. This widespread misinterpretation of the guideline also sometimes causes things like "12 1000lb bombs" to be written, which not only looks horrible, but also actually goes against the letter of the guideline. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, brother. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel FAC #2
I'm helping HorrorFan121 with his second FAC submission of the Kurt Hummel article, which was submitted a couple of weeks ago, and I just noticed that you'd been one of the reviewers during the first FAC. Since you wrote "I'd like to see the article pass" even though you felt it wasn't ready at the time, I thought you might be interested in taking a second look. There have been a great many edits to improve it in the past couple of months. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like another reviewer is close to supporting on prose. If not, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

YF-23 FAC
Hi Dank, I think there's a little confusion about the article YF-23. Can you explain to me what you mean by "series"? I think you are confused with the lead sentence "The Northrop YF-23 or Northrop–McDonnell Douglas YF-23 was a single-seat, twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for the United States Air Force (USAF)"; the phrase "a single-seat, twin-engine fighter aircraft" gives an impression that we're talking about a single aircraft but in fact it's describing a an aircraft type. The YF-23 is a type of aircraft with two examples built "Two YF-23 prototypes were built..." Comments? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, got that. - Dank (push to talk) 10:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)