User talk:Dank/Archive 22

This Month in GLAM: August 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

YF-23, thanks
Thanks for your efforts to improve the YF-23 while it's at FAC. If it wasn't for you, I'd have no idea how to address the issues. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just sorry it's been an off-and-on thing ... I should be able to finish up right away. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Help
I am having an edit war with on Revolution (song) with an unconfirmed user who is repeatedly adding unsourced or in one case falsely sourced material to the good article. I don't know what actions I should take next so any help would be great. Thanks --MOLEY (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The note you left on the user's talk page was a good start. Also try a note on the article talk page asking for second opinions. At some point, WP:3RR may be necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel FAC #2 redux
The current Kurt Hummel FAC seems to be stalled. The last comment was on August 26, and there hasn't been any further action on the prose (or anything else, for that matter) since then. I appreciate the offer you made on the 30th; if you could take a look soon, that would be wonderful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the article pass a check on the sourcing before I copyedit ... it's not a big deal, it happens all the time that the little numbers don't match up exactly with the words, but I'd still like to see it pass that hurdle. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, who seemed to be leading the sourcing check, is currently away from Wikipedia until the middle of the month, and hadn't responded to the latest fixes made at his request in the days before he took the break. Do you know of anyone else who might be able to do the check? I'm worried that the FAC will close if there isn't any activity and it will all be to do over again. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a necessary job but not a popular one, so I'd rather not ask, I'd rather leave it to whoever's willing to do it. Best would be to post what you just told me in the FAC.  You might also post on a couple of wikiproject talk pages. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I wanted to let you know that we've done as you suggested, and will see if anything develops. I appreciate your willingness to undertake the copyedit, and hope that the sources are passed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested at List of castles in England

 * Hi, you may remember you contributed to the peer review for this page around 1st August. A problem has now arisen, not with an edit war but with an editor using WP policies and guidelines as a means to attack the page - and me - relentlessly.  In particular, he is now using WP:SIZERULE to demand the page be split.  Because the guidelines can be read as recommending splitting at 100k, my expectation is that he will never give up whilst the page exceeds that size, without an authoritative ruling that a larger size is acceptable.
 * I am working on means to reduce the size from its current 256k - as it was when you edited it - to 180k or less. I'd be very glad to have your view as to what an acceptable size would be.
 * I have put out a request for opinions on the article's talk page. If you feel able to support the work I have done on this page, that would be very welcome.  I did ask Woody for his advice, and he promptly retired, not sure if there was a connection! Paravane (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Woody's tenure as a Milhist coord is up this month, so I don't think it was your fault :). I rarely participate at WP:FLC, so I'm really not the guy for disputes about lists.  If I were in this position, I would ask for help at WT:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, I'll try that. Paravane (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Mentorship Program
Dank, I am currently participating in the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive. I feel I could improve in certain aspects of my copy editing skill. You might notice that we are both members of the Military History project and the Guild of Copy Editors. Considering that we have some mutual interests, I would like to know if you are willing to serve as a mentor under the Guild of Copy Editors Mentorship Program to help improve my copy-editing skills. I look forward to your reply. And as an aside, good luck in your Coordinator election. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm happy to review any copyediting work anyone does in history-related articles that are currently being reviewed ... either point me to your work, or pull up any of the reviews in the "Military history WikiProject articles for review" box at the top of this userpage; I work on most of them, eventually. Also, your question at the election page gave me an idea; more later. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to take a look at some of my articles. I've included links to two article that I think would give you a general idea of the quality of my copy editing skills: Anglo-Spanish War (1625–1630) and History of Christianity in Hungary. I look forward to your feedback. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also what was that idea you said I inspired which you mentioned?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that was WT:MHC. First, I'd like to see how you do with copyediting your entry for the current coordinator elections.  Also please see yesterday's request for copyediting at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you're asking for copyediting mentoring, here's a sample: if I were copyediting your first paragraph on the elections page, it would go something like this. Feel free to use any of this, or none of it:
 * My name is Andrew Ryan Dunbar; on Wikipedia I go by the handle LeonidasSpartan. I have been a contributor on Wikipedia since 2007 and a member of the Military History Project since April 16, 2010. As a contributor to Wikipedia I have made enough edits to reach Journeyman Editor status. My contributions to the Military History Project include clearing backlogs of unassessed articles, writing new articles, copyediting, and participating in talkpage discussions. I believe I can assist with the continued smooth operation of this project and I believe that I can help improve the project as a whole. (I intended to nominate myself as a candidate on September 14th, but a broken engine mount and faulty alternator had other ideas. I hope the delay in adding my candidacy will not negatively influence your vote.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for copyediting work, I'm hoping people will add a request or two to the last section I just added below. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We did it!

 * Sure thing. Demiurge1000 and HJ Mitchell have been helping with aviation articles, and I noticed over at WP:GOCE/FA that SynergyStar did a great job with Boeing 767, so it looks like we've got a critical mass of aviation writers! Let's go nuclear. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 01:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

unit conversions in linked articles
Dank, where in WP:MOSNUM does it say not to convert units if the article is linked, like for guns? I looked through it and couldn't find anything that specific.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "When inserting a conversion would make a common or linked expression awkward (The four-minute mile)." It's a little vague, but that's the best wording I was able to get inserted, about a year ago.  Since then, I haven't gotten reverted to my knowledge when I removed a conversion from any link (on the theory that if the reader wants a conversion, all they have to do is click). - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

XF-85 gremlins
Don't apologize, it's totally unnecessary. Mistakes are known to happen. :) (And I've been known to make more than my share. 8o )  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 16:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just hated to make a language mistake while complaining about language :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 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. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft articles
Judging by your contributions during the last few days, I think you should join me at improving some aircraft articles. I think WP:AIR needs someone who is willing to revamp and expand articles, for which I'm happy to do. But, for my work to succeed, I'd dearly love a group of users around me who would clean up after myself and offer comments and reviews about my work. There are a few people who'd got their hands dirty, such as Kyteto (Avro Vulcan), SynergyStar (Boeing 767), Bzuk, BilCat, Demiurge1000, Fnlayson, and yourself. I think if everyone works together as a team, we can achieve a lot and "go nuclear". I'd appreciate it if you, because of your connections with others, get them to come along. If you wanna chat to me, please go to, if you haven't already. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see you there. To expand a little bit on what I said at WT:AVIATION, I've been running into two problems over the last year (with most of the aviation articles at the military history A-class review, not just yours): I've having a hard time with the copyediting (there's a lot to do and I'm not sure how to do it), and it's not even possible yet for me to rewrite for clarity ... because that involves judgment calls about your writing style, and I'm not sure yet what your writing style is. My suggestion would be more collaboration before an article shows up at A-class.  I'll try to look at every article that shows up at A-class with fresh eyes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And on your specific request ... I'm trying to recruit new copyeditors, and I think the best time for me to encourage more people to visit A-class would be when (and if) I succeed with that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "writing style"? Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It means, I don't have a sense yet of what words I expect to see in your articles; when a writer gets comfortable with their writing, I usually start to get a sense of familiarity with their articles ... which is important for a copyeditor, because it doesn't do you any good if I help you to sound like me, I want to help you sound like you (or rather, how you'd sound as a successful "scholarly" writer.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A-class review
Dear Dank, thank you for your comments on the recent copy-edit of Boeing 767. I have since been encouraged to take the article to FAC review. At present though, the article is in need of comments for its A-class review; I've already advertised at WP:AVIATION for days now, but had few takers. As someone who's frequented A-class reviews before, and commented on its copy-edit, if you have the chance to drop a comment, suggestions, etc. of any kind, positive, negative, or neutral, that would be appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'm going to start looking at everything that shows up at WP:AV's A-class review. I'll be there as soon as I finish with the current FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Dank, thanks for the detailed copy-editing suggestions at the A-class review; the article (and us editors) really benefit from your expertise in matters of sentence structure, prose improvement, punctuation, terminology, and other areas. The article is now in better shape for a future FAC review.  At present though, the A-class review will need closing, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions regarding that.  Our longtime WP:AVIATION project coordinator, User:Trevor MacInnis, has semi-retired, and colleague Fnlayson put a request up for help a few days back, but there have been no replies.  SynergyStar (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... expertise or not, I'm happy to help. I'll ask over at the review if anyone would mind if I ask at WT:MHC for an uninvolved Milhist coordinator with experience in aviation articles to jump in ... we have several. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Butter gives me a stuffy nose ... do you have something non-dairy? - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, next time I'll give you whale fat :P Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh
Do you think I'm being excessively demanding of Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil at FAC? Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing Dank, I'd think it's because he's now committed to copyediting another article (or something similar). I'm sure it was nothing against you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually ... thanks Malleus, that "ugh" was a bad idea (since it's uncharacteristic and people won't know what I meant), I've struck it. I don't know if you were being tough, but I plan on being tougher. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a tiny article really, and no excuse for it not being top notch. Glad to see that you're sorting it out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm done, feel free to fiddle with it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I perhaps find it more difficult to compromise than you do. For instance, I very much do not like the repeated "Pedro II" in this article, and the stonewalling I've experienced during the review makes me disinclined to work on it further. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * That's more like it! - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Titan's cross nomination
Hello,. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I supported. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Prince Afonso
Dank, as usual, you've been doing a great job. You've always very helpful and volunteered to aid even when you were not asked to and that's something which I regard as a very nice trait of yours (I mean it). Unfortunately, I have less and less motives to stay on Wikipedia. FAC seems like a war to me, and not a place where Wikipedians can help each other. For some reason which I'm not aware, Malleus Fatuorum has grown hostile toward me even though I was not rude to him. Astynax has the right to argue that he believes some changes are not needed. That's not supposed to be an offense. It is true that Astynax did not make a few (I repeat: a few) of the changes Malleus asked for. However, I fixed all remaining issues raised by Malleus which had not been corrected by Astynax nonetheless. Every single edit he made into the article I supported (I even said that I supported the changes in his talk page). Not a single moment I turned to Malleus and said that I would not cooperate. But some of his words were harsh (to say the least) and unnecessary It's sad that for some reason he has shown animosity toward me. I have none to him. John's behavior can be described as inappropriate at least. He has been vague from the beginning even though I asked him repeatedly to point out what was wrong. He made several changes to the article. By doing that, he removed entire senteces without a a reason and added another one which had no source (into a FAC!). I opposed only the last move he made. All this is frustrating. Very, very frustrating. Sorry to bother you about this, but I had to talk to someone. Astynax has clearly stepped back seeing how hostile some of the reviewers have become and I'm pretty much by my own (as usual) now. Thnaks for everything, anyway. --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. For the future, if you're interested in working on articles involving any heads of state during a time of conflict, we can handle those at Milhist's A-class review, which will go more smoothly.  I know that there's interest in Brazilian articles among Milhist regulars.  For the current FAC ... it's too early to run up a surrender flag, let's see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All you had to do Lecen was to fix the article. But I see it's now promoted, which it now deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting give and take; Milhist coordinator elections
Several people have asked to work with me on copyediting, including some running in the current Milhist coordinator elections, and some have asked for copyediting help. Rather than assigning work, I'm pointing several people to this notice so that people can ask for help and offer help if they want to. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar
I've taken your advice and posted an A-class review request at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vukovar. If there's anything you can do to get it off the ground it would be much appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be happy to help ... there are a few articles ahead of yours, but I'll get to it soon. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Our military family
Is in morning. I don't know how well, but I presume you knew User:Bahamut0013. Condolences are compiling if you have a thought to share. Damn!--My76Strat (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I find that rather insulting. Your mileage may of course vary. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like a compliment to me, I'm going to add it to my list of shinies. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we clearly differ on Lecen's "politeness, helpfulness and reasonabless". He's just one of the usual dickheads. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox
Hi Dank, I'm working on the Tu-142 right now at my sandbox. I invite you to participate in the development of the article, so less work would be done down the track and that you and Ian Rose will both feel central to its development. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, I don't take requests, I just deal with articles in the order they show up at A-class and FAC ... but you're clearly making a strong effort and could use some help, so I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank, although after having Su-33 tagged multiple times raise doubts about my writing ability. Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't usually tag articles at A-class review, especially not with words like "awkward", because it might create just the reaction you're having ... I'll email the relevant person and ask him to take note of this thread. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank generally just goes ahead and makes the change as part of his copyediting, but I prefer for the author to make the changes. God knows, I've had plenty of people that I respect tell me to correct my writing on Wiki, and that's helped me to learn to write better. I use one of two approaches, depending on how much time I have available. I can tag individual sentences very quickly, but it's public and doesn't specifically identify what's wrong with the sentence in my eyes. Or I can copy the problem child into my response on the review page and maybe add a comment about the exact problem. But this takes a lot longer to do. Forex To adapt the original Su-27 for naval operations, Sukhoi incorporated substantial changes to the basic airframe. this reads badly because how can you incorporate changes? By making them. The sentence reads fine if you substitute "made" for "incorporated" (although I'm still not sure about the tense). "Incorporated" just reads to me like passive voice and wrong in this specific instance. And that's the kind of infelicitous wording that sets off my spider sense. I'm not picking on you, I did much the same to Buggie111 in his latest peer review. And I'm not trying to create doubts about your writing, but I am trying to point out things that strike me as wrong. I don't know why the other reviewers didn't pick up on these things; perhaps they're more minor than I believe, but I'm not inclined to think so.
 * I'm sorry if I caused a crisis of faith, that's the last thing that I'd want to do to anyone else. Dank knows that I've had several of my own after multiple rejections of my articles at FAC. I much prefer writing articles than editing them, but I believe that I have an obligation to review as many articles as I've had reviewed by others, so maybe I tend to be a bit on the terse side with my comments as it's not something that I really enjoy. If something gets rejected, don't be too discouraged, provided you know why it was rejected. Fix it up to the best of your ability and maybe put it out there for a peer review before resubmitting it (just make sure that people know what level to review for). And you can consider asking people you respect to take a look at the peer review, but you have to be aware that people's time is limited and they may not have any time right then. Buggie111 asked for my opinion on his articles, even knowing that I'm likely to be harsh in my review, because I have very firm ideas of what I want to see in a warship article and am very dissatisfied when I don't get it. And I respect that he's willing to ask for my help even though he knows I'm not liable to sugarcoat anything.
 * So try to develop a better sense of how your own writing reads (reading out loud can help, believe it or not), and pay attention to the issues identified by reviewers so you don't make the same mistake twice. If you work in an enviroment where good writing is semi-discouraged like the gov't or some industries, that can be a real problem, but you need to persevere if you want to pass FAC. It may not be worth it to you. I took six months off from FAC earlier this year as I just didn't want to face the carping, but I'm OK with it for now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very considerate, Sturm, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd written a post here this morning and then lost it somehow, so will try again now... ;-) First off Phil, I'll respond to the original post you left for Dank and me re. the new article (top of this thread) separately, as I think we're on to something more general now. Second, tks Storm for your response here to the above concerns. I left a comment at the Su-33 ACR in reply to your post there re. tense in one section, but haven't gone through the tags you left in the article itself. Obviously I think the prose is in pretty decent shape given I copyedited, and the additional points I raised were actioned. However this is why we have multiple reviewers, because ACR is considered too important to be satisfied by only one person's impressions. Phil, I'd suggest you review the tags and treat each on their merits. It's fair to say so if you think the expression already conveys the meaning intended, or to ask for more info of the reviewer if the problem is not clear to you -- there's generally a bit of room for manouever in these things. On a related point, which I was going to make on your talk page but hope you won't mind here, is that perhaps it's worth slowing things a bit with the review noms, to allow you to a) prepare them more and b) concentrate on responding to issues as the arise (some will always come up, no matter what). I realise WikiCup generates pressure to speed things up, but very few have the ability to produce great quality and great quantity simultaneously -- don't feel bad if you haven't mastered the balance just yet, with the results you've had so far, and the still greater potential we can all see in you, I'm sure it will come... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've broken off from the Cup this year already; I don't intend to rewrite an article anymore. From now until the end of the year, everything will be unrelated to the Cup. <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 08:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead Coordinator
I noticed you open a discussion on the need for the position. I wanted to let you know I replied, and posted some relevant information relating to the position and my questions concerning it in my reply. I'm just about set to head to the University, but I will be back on here later this evening, so if you reply I will get to it either later tonight or early tomorrow (Like between 00:00 and 05:00). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom, that's helpful. And I want to be clear that it's not that I think that you've done something wrong, it's that I dont' want people to focus on that aspect of the election ... but I think they probably will at this point, and there's not a lot I can do about that, I think, other than what I suggested there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar redux
I was getting increasingly worried at the lack of comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vukovar but I see that someone has now finally posted something. However, it's still pretty small stuff and it's noticeable that more recently posted requests have received far more detailed reviews. Do you think you would be able to do a review any time soon? Prioryman (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be today or tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations!
I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

As always, if you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work, Kirill. As promised, I'll immediately invite people to comment (at WT:MHC ... and anyone is welcome to broadcast this) if we still want a lead coord, and if so, if there's anything special people are expecting. I'll do my best. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Dank, I hope and believe you'll lead the Project well. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx Phil, and good timing, I was just going over to WT:AV to ask a language question about your current FAC ... see you there! Gratz on your election to coordship. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll be grand, you'll be great. o/~ - Dank (push to talk) 10:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Mr Lead Coordinator, sir! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry ... yeah that's what I'm assuming, and if I'm wrong, I have no doubt that I'll be informed! - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MilHist IRC
Hi Dank, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at. Please join the IRC and tell others to come along because it's almost deserted. I'd like to talk directly to you about guidance and my plans in general. Thanks Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll start hanging there, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Spanish Civil War FAC
I'm in no particular hurry now, but I wonder whether you think it would be a good idea to relist now, based on the fact that for today, tomorrow and Sunday I'll be active, before a week of limited activity. I wonder also whether you think that "I own Beevor and did some spotchecks on citations to his book. They're fine and don't misrepresent the material, nor are they straight quotes" (SnowFire) is likely to count as a source review: I took some scans of books I'll return probably tomorrow just in case. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 days on, 5 days off, and on after that works fine at FAC. Great idea to get some scans.  I don't recognize the username SnowFire; in general, the delegates are looking for spotchecks from people who have performed reliably at FAC (but of course, new people are always welcome). - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, listed (Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive2). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked at this article specifically yet, but in my experience delegates are more willing to accept spotchecks from "strangers" where the sources are offline and not easily accessed - as would be the case for example in Sp33dy's FAC. FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nate, for your phenomenal work during your tenure as lead coord; I'll try to do you proud. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

 * Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin
I was only peripherally interested in this article at first, now I am invested in it after this exchange. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, sorry about that, I've really put my foot in it, haven't I? I replied in the thread at WT:AV. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC).

Battle of Vukovar again
Thanks very much for all your help in the Battle of Vukovar A-class review. I've renominated it for FAC at Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Please feel free to comment there. Prioryman (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just saw it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies
Hey Dank, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

XF-85 FAC
Hello, I couldn't find your findings on the spotchecks. I think the delegates are waiting for you or something. Have I missed something? Cheers Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never made a finding on spotchecks; that's up to the delegates. My status report just says "see below". - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rochester Castle
In your edit of 15:19 today you changed "In the first quarter of the century the gardens acquired a bandstand, a German field gun and tank from the First World War, though these were removed by 1961." to "... bandstand and a German field gun and tank...". This reads as three items rather than the intended single and pair, reinforced by the multiple "and"s. Would you accept: "... acquired a bandstand and German trophies from World War I: a field gun and a tank. The latter two were removed by 1961 and the former is now only a concrete base."? I've raised this on your talk page privately in deference to your seniority, as a newbie I'm adverse to engaging in public spats! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to reply here as well as at the FAC page. Have the tank and gun been described in the books as "trophies"? - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tank and field gun were treated as a pair because they were both from the First World War. By about 1950 they had been removed, but the bandstand lasted until 1961, so that date refers to all three. Allen Brown doesn't discuss the 20th century. The relevant sources ifs the The Paul Drury Partnership report, but it doesn't use the term trophies for the First World War paraphernalia, although if push comes to shove that's how I'd interpret them. I've had a go at rewording the sentence which hopefully might make things clearer. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge A-Class review
Thank you for your earlier review. Would you be able to take another look at the article to see how it is progressing? I'm conscious that it hasn't reached a consensus yet and it won't be long before the review closes. Harrison49 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My "half-supports" have generally been counted as 1 of the (minimum) 3 supports you need to pass A-class, and it will be a while before it's closed ... it will probably pick up another support and pass. I'd prefer to finish copyediting after it gets to FAC. Let me know if something holds it up. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Satin update
Congratulations on your election!! It is extraordinary that with all your responsibilities you have done such careful editing work on my humongous article. I applaud all 10 of your recent edits (some I am embarrassed for not having caught myself); the only one that hurts is losing my capital-P Prison - it's so evocative - but I understand about house style, and reading Gmcbjames's comments on my article just now sure underscores that for me.

I also followed your advice and rewrote the first two sentences of the "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section; basically, communism is out, prosperity is in. The lead is much more neutral now, thus a much less distracting way of setting the context (I hope).

Tonight I'll take more of your advice and put it up for peer review. I can't wait to see what happens there, though I fear the article (like its subject) will always be unsettling to its readers. Here's to getting it FAC-ready by the end of the month. - Babel41 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was a little surprised it didn't attract additional reviews at A-class ... I think we'll get some good comments at the peer review. I'm glad my editing was helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Jovan Vladimir
The tag is quite OK with me :) I'd appreciate if you reviewed the article at FAC. Vladimir  (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Be happy to ... so far, I've been able to copyedit every military history article that hits FAC, although that number seems to be going up, and it's getting harder. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to you reviewing and/or copy-editing the article (if you find time). There's some military activities in the "Cult" section too ;) Vladimir  (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment
I already replied there, but I must say at more length here how pleased I was to read this. Thank you; you're somebody I really respect so getting a compliment from you is a big deal. Cheers, --John (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks John! I did learn a lot, I'm always wondering how I can challenge the writers to do better, and you did a great job. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting at FAC
I won't have time to copyedit articles at A-class for the next two months or so. I'll be happy to copyedit any FAC articles that have passed A-class and that look like they have a shot at passing FAC, if you'll check the items on the Checklist first. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So does this mean you are not currently willing to be a mentor?  I'm not a history buff, specifically, but I have done a lot of genealogical work, which involves learning about history in the context of family. I'm a reasonably good writer but I found my first major edit experience frustrating, mostly because I have a lot to learn about Wiki mark-up. I have already printed out the tutorial and style manual for reference.:-)  I would like to gain sufficient skills to become a useful member of the copy-editing guild. I think it would be helpful to have a guide. Carmaskid (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point me to some article you've copyedited, and I'll pull up the before-and-after and see how you did. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting started doing Wikipedia edits. I recently did a section of the article on Osama bin Laden called "Activities and wherebouts after Sept. 11."  I mostly just reorganized the info that had been there, putting it into chronological order and found a source for one piece of info.  Afterwards, I read an article about proseline and wonder if I shouldn't have done what I did, but I honestly think it is more readable the way I have it.  Let me know what you think.  I will appreciate any help you can offer.Carmaskid (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that looks good. There are some problems, such as duplicating this sentence, side by side: "Al-Qaeda continued to release time-sensitive and professionally-verified videos demonstrating bin Laden's continued survival as recently as August 2007."  The GOCE will probably be a good place to find collaboration; best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen of England...
...has been promoted. Very many thanks indeed for all the work that went into the copyediting on this one over the last year! Hope all's well, Hchc2009 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. All's very well, things are busy at work, and I'm looking to delegate some of my copyediting work at peer review and A-class ... not sure how to make that happen, but I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Chaplain–Medic massacre/archive1
Made all the fixes you requested at this FAC. Because of its age I hoped you could get back to it as soon as possible. — Ed! (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll get right on it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take out
Some stuff on the Elbasan Script, which is not related to Vladimir.Futbollisti (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Welcome to Wikipedia ... and I want to be clear that Albanian place names are fine in many articles ... I recently worked on an article at WP:FAC about an Albanian hero.  The problem is that the article on Vladimir is currently at FAC, so we have to be careful not to change too much without talking it over, or it may fail the review process.  See my note at WP:Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive2, please. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it. This is my full edit. Please retract your comment on FAC, or say that you agree with it: I want to be part of this promotion. If you need translations from Albanian, let me know.Futbollisti (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you want to be involved with this or other articles on the Middle Ages ... that's one of Wikipedia's projects I support with my copyediting, and we have plenty of articles that need help from time to time with Albanian translations. I'll discuss about Vladimir over at the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! See this and keep up the good work too! I will support this article promotion, once that we have taken the effort to bring it forth. It is actually one of the most venerated saints in the Balkans, who brings people together. Great positive article.Futbollisti (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, what Albanian hero has been proposed to FAC?Futbollisti (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I remembered wrong, it was at A-class, maybe we can get it through FAC with a little help ... WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Skanderbeg's Italian expedition. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
An issue with which you've been involved is under discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ring ring?
If you're up for a chat, I just got a microphone for my computer, so it should be free! I just added someone on Skype whom I suspect is you. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Voice would be fine, Harry ... I should be able to call your computer directly, or I can call a phone for two cents a minute from here to the UK, I can handle that. The sound quality on Skype wasn't as good the last time I tried it ... maybe it's better now.  What time? - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never used Google Voice; Skype seems to be serving me well so far. Ring me (or let me know what details you need—NB, I don't have a landline) whenever you like. It'll be good to talk to someone who's not involved in British office politics! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ... I see I uninstalled Skype, and now I remember why ... it spawned some process that had a noticeable effect on my laptop's performance, and I couldn't identify what it was; the only way to fix the problem was to uninstall Skype. I'll go ask over at the REFDESK if anyone has had a similar problem and knows a fix, or if that's been fixed already in the current version of Skype. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been checking around, and I don't want to re-install Skype. I have a really limited tolerance for aggressive programs that sometimes leave logs and changes in your registry around after they're uninstalled, and I'm seeing all kinds of forum messages along the lines of "Help, skype changed something around even when skype isn't running, how do I fix it?"  I'll be happy to call your computer or any phone with Google Voice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting back the older page
Dank, I'm trying to add a page for Pragmatic Works. But searching for the article, I bumped into this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Works (note: w in Works is in upper case)and it says the page has been deleted. It seems someone else has tried creating the page and it got deleted due to copyright infringement and unambiguous advertising. As part of the corporate page on wiki, I was forced to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_works (w in works is in lower case) instead of the other valid one. Can you help me use the older page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Works for putting the page contents from the current page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_works. Appreciate your time. GeekyPuppy (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try WP:Requests for feedback. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality log
Do you know why the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality log hasn't been updated in a week?--MOLEY (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't, no. Check with the bot operator first, then try WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

testing link checker tool - looking for volunteers
Hello Dank, while you requested a script function to check and correct duplicate links on FA talk, i was writing a little REXX script to analyze a complete Wiki-article and generate some result lists with possible link problems (i certainly lack the skills to code the "automatic correction" part of that function :), but the script provides a useful checklist). I am pretty content with the actual status of it, but would be glad to have another pair of eyes to look over it and offer some fresh input for improvements.

Installation and handling is relatively easy, i would provide you with some additional information of course. If you have the time, would you be interested in beta-testing such a script? Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Joe, hook me up. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I also try it? --John (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Dank and John. That would be great, thanks for your help. Could you two mail me your mail addresses, where i can send you 2 text files as attachment (the script and a small documentation)? Using plain mail text maybe also possible, but will be a bit more work. GermanJoe (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge at FAC
I think there may be a problem with RAF Uxbridge's FAC, as the nominator already has Ickenham at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hopefully it will be promoted when it next goes through. Harrison49 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hobey Baker FAC
Thanks for working on the article, a shame that its been taken down from FAC for now. I've started fixing it up some more, but that will take me a couple days as I've got university work to deal with this week. I should have the article all finished by the weekend though. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush, see you at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AV-8B
Hi Dank, I'm not sure about your oppose to the FAC because you're not being really clear whether the article fails any of the FA criteria. "There's too much to do here and I'm not going to have much time to spare until December." Are you saying that there are too many mistakes for the article to be viable, or have you just given in to Sandy's comments? If you think the article is salvageable and that the problems are minor, I'd love to have your oppose taken back and replaced with "neutral" (which is not common in FACs) or "comments". I really think you're opposing because you don't have much time going over the article. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to that FAC and give details as soon as I can, Phil ... I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it, but OTOH, there are a lot of Milhist articles at FAC that need my help and are salvageable. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the FAC is a failure. Sp33dyphil © • © 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting aviation articles through FAC is going to take some help and a serious time commitment on my part. I don't have that kind of time right now, but it won't be long. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 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. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Count less
What you said is mostly true, except in limited cases like the current state of affairs with AV articles (and that's also partly because of the overlap between AV and MH that occurs there - it was once similar with Ships). I think though that I'm in a slightly different position because AFAICT the delegates don't consider me a "Milhist reviewer" so much as a "reviewer" - I was active at FAC long before I became active at Milhist, and I work with a wide variety of topics there. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think that makes a difference. Also agreed that it's probably going to take a few months of work at A-class before WT:AV can expect to have the same kind of success at FAC that Milhist does ... if they want it, and that's for them to decide, I think everyone agrees FAC is optional. I felt I had to step in and rebut one of Hawkeye's points, because that can lead to "I'm not going to review at FAC because they don't like Milhist there", which there's no justification for, given the respect we're all treated with and the constant stream of promotions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI...
...a while ago you asked about copyediting articles for the tropical cyclone WikiProject. So here's one for you — Hurricane Igor (failed at FAC due to a lack of copyediting)  HurricaneFan 25  17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TROPICAL is high on the list of projects that I'd like to help if I'm successful recruiting copyeditors. I'll reply there if I'm successful. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview request
Hello Dank and congratulations on becoming Lead of MILHIST! I was hoping you would have some time for an interview for the our newsletter, The Right Stuff. Just a few questions about what makes a wikiproject successful. If you're available I'll give you a wikilink. Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great! We're a newer wikiproject and we wanna be like MILHIST when we grow up! I've put together a few questions. Feel free to be brief. If I need any elaboration perhaps we could schedule a Part 2. Thanks again and just click the button below to start the interview:
 * Permalink to the interview. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks wonderful. Thank you!!! – Lionel (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I see it just passed FAC, in time for the anniversary ... which wouldn't have happened without your and Joy's hard work. Gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft discussion - clarification requested
Dank, you may want to clarify what you meant by "But there are minefields at FAC, and if articles seem to blow up at FAC, then I totally agree that it's best to stay away." Is that aimed at individual editors, articles or the project in general?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll reply there. (The link is WT:Air.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to go find a caramel apple! - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude