User talk:Dank/Archive 23

The Right Stuff: October 2011
You were mentioned in the October 2011 issue of The Right Stuff, available here. – Lionel (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for the invitation! - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentor request for Copy Editing
Hello Dank, I am member of copy editors guild wikiproject, I want to learn copy editing skills. I chose you to teach me if you can. I think you'll help me. Yours' hopefully --—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too, the November 2011 has started. --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, I need some help with the copyediting on Project A119 ... nothing fancy, just read it with the WP:Checklist in mind, ask the nominator to fix obvious problems, and ask questions if the text isn't clear; I can finish it up, and I'll check your work as I go. Phil, you may want to do the same for any aviation article currently being reviewed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Phil, I left some notes on the talk page of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Since you're familiar with the article, if you're looking to do more with copyediting, this would be a great place to start. I've done the lead and first subsection; I'm looking for someone to run down the WP:Checklist for the rest of it before I tackle it again. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC review request
Hi, I see that you hang out at FAC. Don't know if you've already seen it, but Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3‎ doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA on its anniversary, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had to cut back on my copyediting time so I can get some reading and writing done (WWII) ... I'm sorry. I may have more time in December. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Op-ed?
Hey Dan, I know you are short of time, so I'm getting this message to you with about two weeks to spare, but would you be interested in writing an op-ed on how to write better? I.e. common mistakes and the like? If you want to go a different direction, do something entirely different, or nothing at all, that's fine; I just thought I'd ask. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I can do something, I'll know within a week ... it might be writing or it might be about the historiography of Normandy. I'm doing a piece for WP:OPNORMANDY. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Checklist
Thanks for the welcome—and I love the checklist! -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy, and very good to have you back. Particularly now ... I don't know what's up at FAC, there are a lot of articles sitting around waiting for (at least) one more support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC prose review
Greetings, Dank! I noticed you give excellent prose reviews to FACs. I currently have one up myself, and I was wondering if you could spare some time to share your thoughts. Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated! Auree   ★  15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I'm not taking copyediting requests at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of "Mark Satin" article
Dear Nikkimania, Dank, Ed, and Ealdgyth:

This is to thank you for providing useful critiques of my Mark Satin article at one point or another over the last four months. It is also to apologize - to the first two of you, anyway - for my being initially so resistant to your critiques. After I became more knowledgeable about what was going on, I changed the article in response to all your critiques, as you'll see if you look at the current article and its "history" page from 18 August to the present.

The article has just completed a peer review. Next week, right after Satin's 65th birthday (November 16), I'll want to put it up for another FA review. I hope you will look at it at that time - I'll remind you - and, if you like what I've done, I hope you will consider supporting it. If you'd like to communicate with me before then, please do so here or on my Babel talk page. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Because you all appear to be incredibly busy with Wikipedia projects, I thought it might be helpful to remind you of the main concerns each of you had with my article:


 * Nikkimania - poor organization, use of contractions, questionable copyright on a photo, repetitious phrasings (all gone now except for my two extended parallelisms), use of journalese, no ISBN links, newspaper references needing page numbers when w/o weblinks (I've found page numbers for all but six now, and I'm working on those);


 * Dank - poor organization (my second warning), failure to rigorously adhere to MOS, and literally dozens of instances of faulty grammar (the only one I'm still dragging my feet on is the en-dash you want me to put in "anti-Vietnam War movement," fourth paragraph down. Doesn't Wikipedia itself use a hyphen in similar passages (e.g., in the title of the article "Anti-war movement")?;


 * Ed - failure to convert curly quotes to straight quotes and, by extension, failure to commit to other "hidden" Wikipedia conventions such as inclusion of non-breaking spaces;


 * Ealdgyth - poor organization (my third warning, finally heeded), citations to facts in the lead that are cited in the body of the text, overlinking, overciting, and too many quotations from sources.


 * Please look at what I've done to the article since you expressed your concerns. I think you will like what you see. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * PP.S. I am happy to report that the bio recently received a "B-class" rating from Wikipedia's Biography project, putting it in the top 3% of all Wiki bios, if I read the statistics there right. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing it at FAC, and absolutely no apologies necessary, you're doing great. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your message left at my Babel talk page about my FAC prospects. In the process of doing my final edits, I discovered something wonderful: all the Toronto Star articles from the 1960s (that I cite pretty often in my draft dodger section) are now available to the public for a small fee on what the Star calls its "Pages of the Past" page.  I wonder if I can indicate this is some way in my Star references.  I thought of doing something like this for every Star reference:


 * Editorial, "Don't Incite U.S. Draft Dodgers", Toronto Star, 30 January 1968, p. 6. Available at Pages of the Past.  Accessed 13 November 2011.


 * Would this work? Or would it be seen as favoritism (because other sources of mine are available via "closed" databases such as LexisNexis Academic and ProQuest Newspapers)?


 * I won't do anything unless you give me a perfectly confident go-ahead. - Babel41 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually don't keep up on what is and isn't done with references, but if that's where you accessed the information, it's fine to list it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Caused
Roosevelt asked Secretary of the Treasury Shaw, who handled it with Roosevelt looking over his shoulder. Roosevelt did not "ask" the Mint, he had the boss of the Mint (the secretary of the treasury) handle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does "had the Mint engage his friend" work? (link: Indian Head gold pieces). - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That works. Thank you for working on this.  I am still on my way home and am behind, so it may take me a day or two to catch up.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

History Writing Help
I see you are interested in history. I'm an American living in and writing about Lower Normandy( I live in Argentan, I can walk to the Falaise Pocket). I'm interested in writing on landscape history in the region, which includes WW II. I was briefly a professional writer after retiring from directing a history and science museum in San Antonio Texas. I don't need fast help, but I would like some guidance from a long-term editor of Wikipedia. I have been contributing here about six months and would like to be a little more efficient in the contributions; trial and error is slow. Help with editors page has you listed and available. May I ask for your help? Mlane (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, what are you working on? - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My first issue is straight forward but it relates to a bigger issue of how to link or include unpublished sources. I'm sorry for the rambling here but it may produce something you can respond to.
 * I have interviewed a member of the Resistance here, and plan to write his biography. The War years are the only interesting part of his life. I looked over the list of Resistance fighters who have biographies, and they seem pretty high up, which this man is not. This man smuggled pilots (4) and located a V1 launch ramp that was later bombed.
 * I was doing a little research at the RAF museum in London. The research director heard I lived in Normandy, and that I interviewed these sort of survivors. He asked that I gather info for them. I agreed but I think a more useful place would be Wikipedia. Luckily the story is in a local history journal, so I will quote a published source. My question to you is do I write this up and submit it with only the War years? And does this story make him "notable"? I can post a rough draft for you to look over.
 * This story is part of a larger picture that I think could be recorded best on Wikipedia, but published stories are rare. The next story however has published references.
 * I have written a Resistance story you can access from my contributions page. It concerns an assassination of a local mayor, Emile Buffon by the Resistance( probably his nephew. I lived in the buildings and countryside where much of it took place and I interviewed the few witnesses involved. I have published sources for all that I written about in this rough draft, but have not gone through and added the citations as of yet. I would like feedback on how to slant the editing. The narrative style is much more interesting but I understand why this is not "encyclopedic". I would like to make it as interesting as possible but don't know the limits. One editor actually said I must make it boring.
 * My hope is to find a wiki-sister site to link to where local people can contribute their stories and photos. I have found WikiManche which seem to be what I envision, but it is in a nearby region. I'm looking for guidance into how to create something like Wikimanche here the Orne. All this region is scarred with WWII events that local French and expat British are piecing together. I'm trying to find ways where it can all be linked by anyone, without costing me time and money.
 * I work across history but WWII is what you listed, so I've only discussed that here. This weekend I meet a group of Roman archaeologists. I hope to start a project in the same chateau I formerly house-sat and where all my history projects began. You can see it atChateau de la Motte,Joue du Plain. I think this is enough start on. Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. Mlane (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, start off by reading WP:Identifying reliable sources. I applaud what you're doing, but most of it wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia. Start with the article for which you "have not gone through and added the citations as of yet" ... add the citations, then submit it for review at WP:PRH (Wikipedia's peer review page for history-related articles), and we'll go from there. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that even though these are not all RS, they can used in the project somewhere. Wikisource?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Material that isn't suitable for either Wikipedia or Wikisource might find a home on http://www.wikia.com/ - either on an existing wiki there, or one that you create yourself - that site allows you to create your own Wiki, essentially, which seems to be part of what you're trying to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the suggestions and I will pursue when time permits. I'm finished with the archaeologists for the moment I will soon begin on adding sources to the article. I type slow. Mlane (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Sp. Civil War
I personally would not promote it based on the source material alone. Most of the information comes from Paul Preston's book, which, despite being one of the better books on the subject in the English language, still reeks of an overconcentration of opinion from a single source. I do not think that Beevor's book is a good one. Beevor is known for the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) expression of opinion in his work; Beevor, I think, comes off as biased against the Republic, because Beevor's is ideologically very anti-Communist. This is not true just of his work on Spain, but also of his books concerning the Soviet Union and the Second World War. Hugh's book is actually never cited, as far as I can tell, even though it is listed in the bibliography. All in all, either the author will have to dig into Spanish source material (of which there is plenty of), or if he cannot (due to a language barrier), he will have to start looking into more obscure English-language sources. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is not an appropriate venue for a general discussion – and I would certainly answer your points if you would like – but I am a little confused that you do not think Hugh Thomas' work is cited. I wonder if you have overlooked something, because the article references about thirty times by my reckoning. Am I missing something? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess Catalan was hitting ctrl+F and looking for "Hugh" instead of "Thomas". I've definitely done that before. Grandiose, I'm running into the same problem with South American dreadnought race, as there are a somewhat decent amount of sources out there, but many are in Portuguese (Brazil) or Spanish (Argentina, Chile). My only solution so far is another interested editor has volunteered to add material from the seminal Portuguese-language book on the topic. :/ (though I am hoping to take a Portuguese language class next semester...!) Good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank (and I) were having more of a problem about identifying what the article ought to say, how it should be "framed" and what that would look like. Perhaps there is a source problem, but I don't think so. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know the history, and I try to focus on prose. Jon, muchas for dropping by.  Do any of you have a suggestion for where to go next? WT:SPAIN seems to be active ... but I see you left a message there about this article on 7 May 2011, Grandiose, that never got a reply.  Mainly, I don't want Grandiose to have to do everything himself ... surely we have other editors interested in the Spanish Civil War. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Roger Davies into that topic at some point? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Roger has written at least 3 Spanish Civil War articles. Grandiose, whenever the timing is best for you,  Jon and Roger are knowledgeable about the Spanish Civil War and very experienced at Milhist and at FAC, and if they're willing to work on or review your article, we could probably get it through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how to contact you because this is very strange but in regards to RedRevolution12.
I posted an article named "RedRevolution12" indication suggests that you were the individual who deleted my page based on the fact that it was an organization but i failed to indicate the importance or significance. When it was more than clear that the importance/significance was to organize and combine the individuals participating in various Occupy Movements world wide. So, please could you repost my page or i will have to notify an administrator of your false claims, and acts. Thanks RedRev12.
 * Please see User talk:RedRevolution12 for the relevant Wikipedia policies. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mark Satin" bio up for second FA review
This is to let you know that my thoroughly revised Mark Satin biography has just gone up for a second FA review, Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive2. It would not be the article it is today without your help. I hope you will take another look at it. - Babel41 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I review all the Milhist FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hey Dank, do you think this would be a good candidate for A-class once it's moved to mainspace? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find any prose issues in the first half of it. I don't really have a recommendation; it's suitable for review at any level. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My query was more in terms of scope than quality: the subject served in the military with distinction, but is better known for his civilian career. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "mature" articles are eligible for Milhist's A-class if and only if they're tagged for Milhist (I think), and I'd put a Milhist tag on this one when it hits article space, for the OBE alone. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding
hello,

I saw you on FAC very often, you mainly reviewed the prose. Could you help to improve the prose in Otis Redding, so that it meets at least the point one of the good article criteria? I want to bring it to FA status this month, but I don't think I can't manage it; but at least GA would be a nice achivement. Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See the blue banner just below; I'm sorry, I'm not taking copyediting requests for now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry to ignore the banner...-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A favor
Hi, Dank. If it's not asking too much, could you close for me this? There is a clear lack of interest in the subject and I hardly believe someone will try to review it. In fact, I made a mistake, what I wanted was to have the article peer reviewed but I asked for an A assessment instead. I'm going to nominate it to FAC although I don't think anyone will try to take a look at it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't close any A-class reviews. Anyone want to get this? - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't say that you closed it. I'm asking you to close it for me since I will go for FA nomination instead. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted a notice at WT:MHC. I haven't had time lately to cover A-class; I'll be happy to look at it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I believe this is 476th time you help me. Thank God you're not charging me! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could just as easily charge WP:Milhist for all your fine articles. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Dank. You removed "...units—the latter having allied with Brazil against Paraguay". Reader will think how odd it is that Brazil had invaded Uruguay and then, out of nowhere, Uruguayan troops were fighting on Brazilian soil against Paraguayan troops... not Brazilian troops. --Lecen (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but "combined" implies that the Uruguayan forces were allied with the Brazilians. Another option: "by units from Brazil, Argentina and also Uruguay, recently allied with Brazil against Paraguay." - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be that too. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Token of Appreciation

 * I really enjoy the articles on the Middle Ages, and that was great work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I support your effort to engage graduate departments
It's probably a case of GMTA or just me coming up with common ideas that people like you are already working on, but I had a proposal to do exactly what you want. It is on page 90 of the presentation.

Just a couple sentences written down so far, but would be glad to chat with you about how to actually go after it. I really don't have anything extra in reserve, but I have a little bit of experience with academia and would be glad to just be another thought partner in developing more of a real plan. And I think you can get funding for it. (It's not controversial...is right in line with the WMF  strategy.)  TCO (reviews needed)  23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me here, but since the thread is over at WT:FAC, let's keep it there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is probably better, get more eyes.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

War of the Ragamuffins: "I'm assuming the period/full stop is in the original"
Yes, it was. See here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nyon Conference
Dank and/or stalkers – is this worth an FAC do you think? What issues are likely to come up? Just a prelim check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I copyedited the first half, and the comments at the A-class review were favorable. I don't see any stoppers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans
Job well done (while the rest of us were off spinning our wheels); the genius is in the brevity. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you! - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 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 remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note about lack of "Mark Satin" FAC reviewers
Hi Dank. I am concerned that my Mark Satin article has gotten no Supports, Opposes, or even Comments, since your own Support from 10 days ago (21 November). I genuinely think it's a unique and informative and well-crafted article (especialy now that you, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, and Ed have each had cracks at improving it) and it would be a shame if it fails its FAC review for lack of reviewers. (Very ironic, too, since in real life the subject of the article never lacked for supporters or detractors.) After reading SandyGeorgia's comments on the decline in standards at Wikipedia, I feel she would appreciatre what I (with help) have done here.

I am wondering what I can do to stir up interest. I am afraid I do not have the time to properly review other FA candidates' work. I have thought about putting a brief "open letter" on the FAC site, but I suppose that would be seen as special pleading not to mention somewhat weird. I have thought of asking colleagues of mine to post comments, but that feels unethical. Any advice you have would be appreciated. - Babel41 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a conversation at WT:FAC now about how so many articles are going without reviews ... nothing we can do at the moment, but after another 11 days or so, we can get it added to the "urgents" list. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to know about the "urgents" fallback list. Sounds good!  Thanks much. - Babel41 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I said there's a decline in standards at Wikipedia? Context is everything, I don't think there's been a decline at FAC, so I'm unsure what Babel means?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked to be notified of the next RM.
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt#Move_page_to_yogurt
 * Thanks. Vote early and often! - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A question for you.
Somehow I stumbled on a RM for WikiProject Conservatism and voted, since it seemed reasonable. Then I noticed you were a member, so let me ask you, is there any reasonable basis for a move? Would you say the project represents an international worldview of conservative principles? (Does such a thing even exist? Heh.) Regardless, I would be interested in your viewpoint. -Kai445 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not a member; I did an interview for their newsletter. I generally think projects should get a little leeway in what they call themselves, as long as no one else is fighting for the same name, since it doesn't show up in article space.  No opinion on this particular RM. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, heh, sorry to brand you as a member, then. I saw your name on the interview and just made the assumption. In any case, thank you. -Kai445 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2011
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WW II article guidance
Thanks again for being willing to guide me. I've added the references as you requested. The narrative style I know is inappropriate here but I need help converting it without losing all life; perhaps that is impossible. I've gutted a lot already. Thank you in advance for whatever guidance you have.Mlane (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Mlane78212/Enter your neRésistance Joué-du-Plain and the Assassination of Emile Buffonw article name here


 * Okay, I've changed the name to User:Mlane78212/Résistance Joué-du-Plain and the Assassination of Emile Buffon. I'll ask at WT:MIL for help with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dank. Look forward to whatever I get.Mlane (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the link, I don't see any response there yet, but Milhist people are usually good about helping new editors. If people happen to be busy and you don't get a response, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ThanksMlane (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything on the Resistance article but I've edited it some more and maybe it will pass muster. I'll submit it today. My more troublesome articles are currently not on wikipedia in any form but I'll put something up after the holidays. Thanks.Mlane (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! You'll get useful feedback at WP:PRH, though you might have to wait a couple of weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Maria Amélia
Thank you again. I own you another. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Half dollar
Could you doublecheck your edit? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias
Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:


 * In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. He took classes in the Royal Military Academy that ranged from arithmetic ...

Now it looks like this:


 * The the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves was only needed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic ...

Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to shorten it; let me know if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some issues with the changes. If you read it again, you'll think that artillerymen and engineers study in a different course, not on the same as the infantrymen. You also removed "...subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from..." which will lead anyone to believe that he only studied "math, geometry, tactics, strategy, camping, campaign fortifications and terrain reconnaissance". There was a lot more on the curriculum than that. Now take a look at the next section ('Independence of Brazil'). It mentions that he was about to begin the fourth year in the academy but dropped it. Without the reference to the other years, this will look weird. You must also remember that "1st year", "2nd year", etc... do not mean "his first year in the academy" or "his second year in the academy", etc... The name for each academic year was "1st year", "2nd year", etc... this is why he did the "1st year" and then the "5th year". --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll copy all this to the FAC page so that someone else can work on it, I've got a long list of articles to work on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I sent a message to Cryptic C62 to take a look, since he is the present reviewer. Thank you very much, anyway. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Cryptic's a good reviewer and he (or someone) will sort it out. I've supported, and the issue isn't serious enough to affect my support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona photo
Hi,

I have recently noticed a discrepancy, which I hope you may be able to shine some light on, as a major contributor to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39). The photo in the info box is supposedly from 1930, but our article says that the ship was in Norfolk Navy yard from 1929 to 1931 for modernisation. The date of 1930 comes from the national archives, which is obviously reputable... but they could have made a mistake. I have started a conversation on the photos talk page on commons, if you want to add you thoughts.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've asked Sturmvogel_66 the same question; I don't know the answer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey doke. Thanks.  I've just pasted on The ed17's talk page too.  Hopefully someone will know how to find out the answer!  Yaris678 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ACR of the AV-8B
Hi, since you participated in the failed FAC of the AV-8B, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Thank you --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyediting only makes sense as one of the last steps, Phil, and you've got one oppose, one unsatisfied reviewer, and one who hasn't responded.  My current plan of attack is to recruit student copyeditors ... hopefully then the copyeditors can cover A-class, and more ... but I believe that will only work if we make some changes along the lines I mentioned today at WT:MHC, if you want to weigh in there with support or opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw my proposal, a follow up to my message on the Military History Project talk page. The project has to do with the future of WikiProject History. I have left similar notices on the talk pages of a few editors who might be interested in this, and I notified related WikiProjects that would be involved if the proposal is ever seriously considered. You can go to the proposal by clicking here.  DCI  talk 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable version
[Copied from Falconus's talk page:] Correct me if I'm wrong, Falconus, it looks like you started adding a big "stable version" template to some article talk pages yesterday. We used to identify "stable versions" for WP:1.0, an offline version of WP ... perhaps you're involved with that work, but we typically either didn't mention that information on Wikipedia, or added the version to one of the banners that already existed; your banner is huge, and displaces whatever banner was at the top of the page. The very top of the talk page is important "real estate", generally reflecting whatever Wikipedians consider most important, and any one person's preference for any particular version of the page probably isn't the most important thing we can say about an article. Has there been discussion on this yet? - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been a small discussion at the Village Pump, and we decided to let it "grow organically". I figure that the best way to do that is put it in enough places that people see it - as it would be doomed to failure if nobody knows about it.  I apologize if it's getting in your way; is there another place on the talk page which you would prefer?  On the template documentation, as well as the Village Pump discussion, the reasons for the template are discussed - essentially it is to combat what has been identified as a problem with article rot, without being so intrusive as to lock pages, etc. Falconus p  t   c 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page and at Template talk:Stable version. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, got it; thanks! Falconus p t   c 00:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-mortem (for now) from Babel
Dank, - As you may have seen by now, I took my Mark Satin biography off the FAC page earlier today. This is just a big "Thank-you!" for believing in me. You tried to tell me what the FAC review would be like, but I persisted in feeling I could retain more of the individuality of my writing style and temperament than is, obviously, desired.

The experience was deflating. But I can understand why Wikipedia's editors want their biographies to have a uniform approach and tone of voice. I expect it will be a good and interesting exercise for me to try to adjust my writing to what you called Wikipedia house style, and I will do so in the weeks ahead, taking my cues from your suggestions and the other editors' suggestions. Most of my adjustments will be subtle. The article will still be recognizable.

If all goes well, I will be back on the FAC board in early January. All the help you've given me WILL NOT have been in vain! Best, - Babel41 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a shame that it's this much work. I was really hoping that you'd attract collaborators, and surprised that you haven't, so far. I'll be happy to look at the article again when you're ready. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And btw, if you look at Milhist's recently promoted FACs, you'll see I've had to be "fussier" than I used to be to get them through ... it's not just you, or your article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My comments at FAC
Please don't take my comments about RAF Uxbridge and now Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias‎ as any kind of criticism of your copyediting abilities or the quality of MilHist's reviews. I'm just a fresh pair of eyes, with no dog in the race. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, your criticism is welcome any time. I've got a lot to learn. But I'll take the compliment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me. I'm maybe being too critical, and that's a matter for the FAC delegates to decide, but I'd bet a pound to a penny that I could find multiple issues with pretty much any FA, never mind FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to read what was written above. Now I know what's going on. Perhaps we should change the "marriage" section's title since we talk about his marriage in only one single paragraph. Or perhaps we should find any other excuse to oppose my nomination. --Lecen (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The better option would be for you to calm down and listen to reason, but there seems little chance of that. Malleus Fatuorum 08:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really thought Malleus Fatuorum would leave me alone, but I was surprised to see that it didn't happen. There are countless articles being nominated and he decided to pick mine, which he shouldn't had to. I never had any problem on listening to criticism, comments or suggestions. Dank, you made several edits to the article and I opposed none, with the sole exception of the last one. Now you made me look like a spoiled child, which is really unfair. I was never rude to anyone here and I try my best to be cooperative. There are some here who enjoy being humilliated or insulted by Malleus Fatuorum. If they prefer to stick to him, fine. It's their right. I don't have to, but it's also unfair that I am seen as the troublemaker. He knew from the very beginning what was the only possible outcome of having him "review" my nomination. He seems to have acchieved his goal. --Lecen (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry the FAC isn't working out, I'll reply at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw your reply at the FAC. Now I'll look even worse. I'm really sorry for having bothered you. I won't do it again. This is a promise. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz FAC
Hey Dan, long time no talk :) Kirk raised a question at the Tirpitz FAC that neither one of us can answer definitively. He suggested you might have an opinion on it. No need to rush over there and look at it now, I just wanted to give you a poke so you wouldn't miss it if you look the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help ... and btw, if any of your fancy new friends are interested enough in Wikipedia to care which way we do it, please invite them to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767 now at FAC
Dear Dank, as someone who participated in the earlier A-class review of Boeing 767 (your past help with copy-editing and closing that review is much appreciated), you might be interested in contributing to its current FA nomination. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Be happy to, since I've copyedited this before. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks in advance for your help. It's been over a week now and only Nikkimaria has contributed with the standard reference formatting suggestions.  Hopefully the holiday season, or editor apathy, doesn't prevent interested editors from leaving a comment or two.  Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been getting a project started on the Guild's FAC requests page. I should be able to get it done tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dank for your help thus far; the guidance and suggestions are deeply appreciated. With regards to the "See also" section, it appears that just as with the earlier WP:AIRCRAFT discussion, there is a local consensus in favor of its retention. The WP:ALSO clause "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment" has been cited as justification. That statement is rather ambiguous in my opinion, being open to interpretation.

I have since retitled the sections to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion: "Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era". I completely agree with your reasoning that the previous titles are ambiguous. There are also matching prose statements in the article which correspond with the retitled list; e.g. "X, Y, and Z are military derivatives' (lead); "X is a competitor" (subsections). The list has also been shortened by one link.

At this point, I hope the nomination isn't torpedoed over a few links. It seems like there may be a larger policy conflict between the project and FAR/Layout entities; this article may be turning into a test case. I'm left wondering how hard-line views on both sides (keep section, remove) can be bridged. Overall, I'm wondering what more can I as a single editor do; thanks for any suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your changes to the See also section are great. I'd like to wait a little while and see if they get reverted, and I'd like to hear from more reviewers and project members before I resume. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and comments. I just had another idea about possibly splitting the "see also" section into two, or some other prose creation...trying to bend over backwards to bridge different opinions. Anyhow I too will be waiting a bit for others to respond.  Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS question
Hi Dank, Should the first sentence of an article about someone who was a military officer include their rank? I removed "Captain" as the first word of the first sentence of the Robert Falcon Scott article, diff, based on Naming conventions (people) which says in part (under Titles and styles) Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien).

The article passed at FAC without Captain as the first word too.

However, the MOS does not explicitly mention military rank that I can find, and I figured you might know of something in the MOS I had missed. If it is not in the MOS, then I think it should be. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly by the time an article gets to FAC, I'd expect that the article wouldn't begin with a rank. However, I don't always understand British sensibilities in these things; there are times when omitting a rank and/or an honorific feels like a deliberate slap to some of them, so with your permission, I'd like to copy this to WT:MIL and see if anyone objects. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hi Ruhrfisch! I'm working on a secret plan to generate more copyeditors ... I'm hoping I'll be back in the saddle at WP:PR before too long. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dank, who is British brought it to FAC, but I am fine with copying it wherever. I do think that the MOS should mention rank either way (do not include it, or do). More copyeditors would be great! Thanks, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I take that back, my thinking now is that MOS:HONORIFIC covers this ... it lists only three exceptions to "name only", and rank is not included in the exceptions. Has your editor been pointed to MOS:HONORIFIC (at WP:MOSBIO)? - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...though I suppose it won't hurt to ask, and I did, at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask
Hi. My name is Jivesh. I would like to know whether you do copy-edits if someone requests you on your talk-page itself? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank is not taking copyediting requests at the moment, sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for replying. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 10:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

WWI Royal Navy ships' logs
Hello -

I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kathy, I recommend you post this over on the WT:SHIPS page (which is the talk page for the Wikipedia project devoted to ships), so that everyone can see it! Thanks much for comparing what you've got with our articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What he said ... vote early and often! - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry
Hi there, just thought MILHIST ought to know that there's a discussion ongoing at WT:ROCKETRY concerning the abolition of the project, part of which is a suggestion that MILHIST take over part of the project's remit - we'd appreciate any thoughts you had on the matter! Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll copy this over to our main talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Checklist comments

 * Title & scope: WP:Checklist is a rather sweeping title for the document, and it rather launches into the subject matter without explaining why. Is some group, like MilHist, actively discussing it to adopt as a guideline or something? Or is it intended as a personal essay? Would you like it to be linked from the GOCE pages as part of our collection of useful advice?
 * All four of your points are great ... nice to get some good feedback. One thing we could do is turn WP:Checklist into a redirect to a page in either Milhist space or GOCE space (I don't have a preference) so that it doesn't need an essay tag. I don't see it as a guideline, since it's targeted at FAC (and, to a lesser extent, Milhist's A-class process). - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing is for the page title to tell what it's a checklist of. I don't think it matters which namespace the page itself lives in, as it could be linked from various places. One such place is WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to, which already has links to all of: Mainspace, WP space, GOCE subpages, Milhist subpage, and Tony1's userspace. The choice could affect who is tempted to edit it and who feels inhibited, is all. Up to you, really. --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. All we really know about this checklist is that it works for Milhist, so I'll move it back to Milhist space and link it from WP:Checklist and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to.
 * Presentation: People with Red-green color blindness will find it hard to see isolated red words in green sentences. Maybe strikeout would be an alternative?
 * Actually ... thanks! I participated in the original discussions about  and  [|here], and I had forgotten Greg's suggestion about not mixing red and green on the same line!  The serif fonts are sufficient to let even totally colorblind readers know that the text is different (i.e. example text), and I'm careful to use words and not just color to indicate what's right and wrong.  Btw, WP:ACCESS recommends against strikeout. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, changed my mind ... I'll rewrite the material so that the instructions are clear for the colorblind, but leave in the red and green because it seems like an additional useful clue for most readers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because: In spite of appearances I may have given, I actually think you are right in this one, at least insofar as you say "Give some thought to ...". My only slightly negative comment is that in the example we have so far worked together on, I wondered if you weren't trying too hard to remove all words about causation, even "so" used as a coordinating conjunction, which is much weaker that the others. For example, I agree with you that (example adjusted to avoid dangling something):
 * The allies retreated because the enemy broke through their lines.
 * is poor. But
 * The enemy broke through their lines, so the allies retreated.
 * seems just fine to me.


 * Excellent point, I'll remove "so". - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also a question of the abilities of the target readership in all this. Readers of military history articles will almost invariably have above average ability to read between the lines, and over-explaining may irritate them. With popular culture, for example, it may be wise to spell things out a little more (but never beyond what the sources justify, as you pointed out). --Stfg (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good point. Keep this in Milhist space, then? Or put it in GOCE space with an explanation along these lines? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs any more modification, whatever space it goes in. "Give some thought to ..." is flexible enough to cover the whole range (and GAN too, for that matter). It's not so much the principles as the application that varies from one readership to another, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks kindly. I don't tell you often enough how much I appreciate your work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

 * Thanks Kudpung, best of the season to you too! - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is, and thanks for all your work at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis that season again

 * My New Year's resolution will be to ask for help when I need it, and this helps :) Must feel good to be one year away from graduation! - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good :-) It's a goodish feeling. I don't want to think about leaving my friends and actually starting RL, bahaha. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, RL is overrated ... stay in school! And check your mail. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Good to hear from you Bill! Season's greetings, and let me know if you've got any FACs on the way. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Startling by Each Step
Dear Dank I sees that you are a member of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and a GOCE mentor. The reason I'm writing is because I need help of cleaning up the article of the Chinese TV serial Startling by Each Step. I've been doing proofreading and clean-up from contributions made by other users, but I am not confidant of my ability and hope you can help. PLEASE?! Thank you and have a Happy New Year. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Neo, please add your request at WP:GOCE/REQ. It may take us a few weeks to get to it, but we'll get there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, already did it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre
I think I've dealt with them... Brianboulton only had a couple issues that required going back to the sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, as soon as he supports and there are no outstanding issues, I'll jump in with some copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Thanks a lot. (Hope you found the article an interesting read... I had an interesting time researching it). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Film
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Film to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published.  December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Peppage <span style="font-family:consolas, monospace;color:#669900 ">ಠ_ಠ 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peppage, I've had a chance to look around the project pages and I'm impressed with what you guys have done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * That's a nice collection of end-of-year barnstars ... the Arkansas National Guard work was news to me. Great program, Rupert, and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Colt
Hey, thanks for the tip. That lede has bugged me for a long time, but every time I tried to tackle it, I ended up by thinking the rest of the article had to be fixed first. I'm not a fan of long ledes, but I think it leaves out points, like the fantastically promotional "pitchman" aspects to his character. And the fact that he was largely self-taught.

"Later, after learning about nitrous oxide (laughing gas) from the factory chemist, Colt took a portable lab on the road and earned a living performing laughing gas demonstrations across the United States and Canada billing himself as 'the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta'. According to Colt historian Robert Lawrence Wilson, the 'lectures launched Colt's celebrated career as a pioneer Madison Avenue-style pitchman'."

I'll study the changes you made so I can learn to write better. His brother's story John C. Colt is also unusual, to say the least. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the lead was that it raised questions that it didn't answer ... When and why did his career take off? What makes the church a "legacy"? How long did his business survive? Missing information slows down a copyeditor more than anything else, which was why I didn't get very far with this one.  If it doesn't pass this time around, hopefully we'll get it the next time it goes up at FAC. I have no objection if you want to add anything to the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)