User talk:Dank/Archive 24

GOCE Coordinatorship
Hi, the voting results for this year's GOCE coordinatorship has been announced, and I'm a little bit surprised to see myself chosen ahead of you, even though we both have 18 votes apiece; I thought everybody who put their hand up would get picked this year, given the tightness of the votes. I'd love to serve the WikiProject, but I equally hate it when decisions are made without a clear consensus -- if you like, I'd hand the position over to you, because I think you're a great editor. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for butting in. I had been expecting us all to be elected too, for the same reason, and I hope we can end up with this. I've put this on the Utahraptor's talk page in the hope of arriving at that. --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your support guys, I'll reply over at Utahraptor's page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So sorry Dank, I made a mistake. I didn't notice that you were tied :( I don't see any reason why we can't go with five coordinators and have corrected the pages to reflect that. --Dianna (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem Diannaa, I'm just happy to be on the team. Phil, thanks for the gallant offer! - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just don't ask me to do your taxes. Thanks for taking this in good spirit. --Dianna (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great outcome! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
I thought I would build on the Titchwell Marsh article to write an article on the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, with its wildlife, archaeology, milhist etc. I only started today, so it's months from FAC. I've started here, the text is still mainly from the Titchwell article, but just three things I wanted your advice on before I get too far.
 * Does the headings/subheadings structure make sense?
 * Absolutely. I just realized that WP:Checklist has been part of the problem, advising people to keep things in chronological order; I've just revised that to "within any section or subsection".  The non-chronological order of the sections makes sense here. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The SSSI is a long narrow strip along the north Norfolk coast. I could use a map like that in the infobox, but with a red strip along the coast, which would be neat but vague, or I could have a long, narrow map with more detail, which might need to be split in two. My inclination is to go for the first option and put a link to a more detailed map. What do you think?
 * I only deal with issues relevant to the main text, sorry. - Dank (push to talk)
 * What should I do for geo coordinates for a long narrow area?
 * It's a contentious subject; there was a recent kerfuffle at WT:HWY (maybe still going on) about how to assign coords to a road ... the consensus when I last looked seemed to be, "Don't". - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I saw WT:HWY, I think I'll leave uncoordinated. I'll follow my own advice on the map.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Coords talk page
Hi. Just wanted to point you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators (apologies if you already knew of it). I've made a proposal there about archiving the requests pages. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology
Hi Dank, DNA nanotechnology is finally up for FAC, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, on it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

apologies for being cranky...
But I've run into this again and again and it does get old. I realize there is a lot of specialized vocabulary, etc with military history - but there is just as much in medieval history. I have to go to great lengths to explain the jargon or conform to the MOS on my own articles, so it does indeed get a bit annoying to be met with an unwillingness to explain jargon or make things understandable to the non-military person. You, yourself, are not usually an issue, but it was especially bad timing for you to complain about my efforts when I was answering Sandy's repeated calls for some non-MilHist folks to review MilHist articles. The battlecruiser article is very nice, but there were some inconsitencies that struck me as a non-MilHist person - which I thought was the point of having outsiders review. Did not mean to snap specifically AT you though. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the unpleasantness, and for anyone watching ... FAC owes a huge debt to Ealdgyth's dedication and competence over the years. However, in this case, I disagree with quite a few of the things you said at the review, and some of what you're saying here.  As I said, I'm disengaging on this one, the delegates can figure out how they want to handle it.  What's putting me on edge is that I'm concerned that this is just the beginning of a hard week at FAC, given the comments at WT:FAC, but we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's conversation is feeding into my crankiness. And I want everyone to know that I greatly respect Dank's contributions - both to the project and to FAC. He's a true gem, and just because we disagree about some things doesn't mean he's not worth ten of me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very sweet of you. Here's to better days. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you blokes two are kissing and making up, it saves me having to bang your heads together... ;-) Dank, you've become a fantastic asset to MilHist with your focus on getting articles well-prepared for FAC-level scrutiny. Ealdgyth, we really value people like yourself offering another perspective on MilHist articles. Cheers to both of you, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both wonderful people, but only one's a bloke, so careful of your imagery Ian ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I realise now I did know that, but I always read the "Eal" as "Earl", so that must've clouded my memory... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian and Nikki. On reflection, my tone at the review wasn't justified by the offense; I'm going to take some time off and deal with the RL stuff that's bugging me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the short version: I believe I've tried to be open to suggestions as a copyeditor, but I should have realized that you're right, Ealdgyth ... you've done a lot of source reviews, and on sourcing and other issues, we get a lot of "but we do it this way" for ship articles at FAC. It can be quite frustrating.  Sorry I didn't realize it sooner. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - sorry if you're getting frustrated! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck advice?
Greetings again, hope it's not too much a bother, but I wonder whether you have any advice on completing source spotchecks for the 767 FAC? I've posted a request for spotcheck assistance at FAC's talk page, but have had no takers. One recurring spotcheck reviewer, Fifelfoo, apparently isn't doing them right now due to some kind of mediation dispute; some articles feature Copyscape checks of online sources—not sure if that's sufficient. In anticipation of more stringent FAC standards, I have already prepared scans/images of books used to provide if asked. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't generally deal with spotchecks; I think it's likely you'll get help if you post to WT:MIL. Explain that this article isn't itself tagged by Milhist, but it provides much of the background information for several articles that are. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:WikiThanks.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]] Thank you for your help with the earlier copy-edit, the review process, and everything else; it was much appreciated! SynergyStar (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure ... very glad it worked out! - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rocketry again.
Hi there, thanks very much for letting your project members know about the discussion regarding WPRocketry. Thought you all ought to know that we've had a set of options crystallise, at least one of which involves this project taking over some of the old project's functions, so we'd really appreciate some more input from your members. Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Colt
Just wanted to thank you for the advice and improvements you suggested at Samuel Colt. Hopefully your advice will continue to help me beyond wiki in my professional writing! Cheers!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kind, Mike, glad I could help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter
The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Between the Devil...
I nearly undid your edit on the basis that between should be used for two items, among for three or more, but I'm glad didn't. On reflection and having looked at some style guides, it isn't that simple and your edit is definitely an improvement. Cheers, --John (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm glad you liked this one btw, Ed has put a lot of effort into it. My guides say "between" is better when the relationships are pairwise, and in general for competitions. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

would you please ping me? thanks

 * Hello Dank. Would you be a gentleman and a scholar and ping my talk page after the RfC on FAC is done, so I can !vote for the Director etc.? Thanks –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make an announcement both here in this thread and at WT:MIL, and I expect the vote will be announced at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid logging in to Wikipedia, and my talk page is set to ping my email. But thanks anyhow... –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the voting page just went up, although I don't know when the vote is coming: WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Dank, the Duke of Caxias' article has been promoted and it's now a FA. I'd like to thank you for having reviewed the article and having granted your support. This is yet another moment where you chose to find some spare time to review an article I wrote. I really appreciate it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, Lecen, and I'm sorry that some interpreted what I said earlier to mean you had "alienated" me; you didn't. I just had to ration my time. I see you've retired; best of luck, and stay in touch. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You maybe interested in
 Whenaxis  talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For your edits to the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article. You have definitely helped improve the prose. Remember (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm close to supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No one has had an issue in the past with linked reviews
In fact we've been recommended to do it. (I can show past examples.) If this becomes some Wiki rule thing, I will pass as I don't want the aggrevation. But seriously, I've done it this way in the past.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've responded over at the FAC's talk page, I'll respond there. - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GameSystem

 * Hello, I shaw that you deleted article called GameSystem, well two years go. Could you provide me with some information. Was this a video game concole ever released or ever developed? I need to be sure as I'm attmetting to fix the listing of Video game consoles over at List of video game consoles page. I'm cannot removed that console form the list unless I know for 100% sure that it never existed in first place, but I will also remove it if it is a clone, clone is an unlinced ripoff of pre-existing console.DoctorHver (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:VG may be able to help you with that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre
Hi Dank, just to let you know I have addressed the grammar issues brought up by Brianboulton, and he has said that he's ready to support if you give the all clear and an image review is done. I'm hoping that is enough support for you, per your comment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, I've replied at the nomination page and addressed the issues you brought up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, I know you said you'd used up all your time but I was wondering (hoping, I guess) if you could give one last look and cross out any objections that have been addressed to your satisfaction. There is one that I'm not sure what you think is missing, and another that I've commented on near the bottom. Any feedback, here or at the nomination page, would be greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything I can do that will get this one promoted during this round; I know that may sound strange since you hadn't encountered a lot of opposition before mine, but the delegates prefer not to promote when the article undergoes substantial changes at FAC ... I was just getting started on the first section, and I'm already past the two hours I normally allow for a FAC. If the article doesn't pass, as I suspect, I recommend Milhist's A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest I'd probably not renominate it, simply because it has eaten enough of my time as well, and with another article at PR that I really want to see promoted, I'd definitely be putting all my eggs in that basket. Luck of the draw, I guess... Personally, I liked the version that was promoted to GA. Simpler and more to the point. Oh well, thanks anyway. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

 * Thanks Buggie. (This was actually January 14, not October 1). - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Years
Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

DOF problem
Hi

I would appreciate some help on a technical matter, discussed here Talk:Forward_kinematics

I honestly do not know if it is possible to infer how many DOF the arm is, as it could be 6 or more, or indeed whether or not the original text was correct in saying that it was a 7 DOF arm (including surge).I would appreciate a third person as per consensus, I cannot yet agree that there are only 6 DOF and would appreciate an unbiased view.

I have had discussions with the editor on that talk page, as well as on theirs, pertaining to their writing style - which I thought was too technical and abstracted for the general reader - which may be about to get rather heated though I want to remain neutral. I understand that the editor is apparently a professor, but often it seems their editing has taken the articles into a much more abstract definition and removed those sentence parts/sentences which were tying mathematical modelling into their real-life applications.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use an image to determine the degrees of freedom of an actuator. On the writing style, I've focused so much on narrative prose the last few years that I don't trust my instincts on other types of prose these days ... fictional, descriptive, whatever. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Two questions about FAC etiquette from Babel41
Hi Dank. I am thrilled to see that you and two other very experienced FA editors (Brian and Jim) have now all given your support to my Mark Satin article on its FAC page, and there is also now praise from Noleander. However, I am concerned that no one has responded to SandyGeorgia's call, more than a week ago, for spotchecks on sources. Is there anything I can do, or you can do, to make sure that the article does not fail its FAC review for lack of spot-checkers?

Another concern I have: Brian asked three good questions about reference formatting on the article's FAC page, and on January 13 I addressed each of them. On January 17 he changed his conditional support to full support, but without responding directly to the way I addressed his formatting questions. May I assume that Wikipedia editors will assume I addressed his questions to his satisfaction? If not, what should I do?

Thanks again for being there!!! - Babel41 (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. If Brian's supporting, he's happy.  There's nothing you can do about spotchecks but wait. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

New to GOCE
Dank:

I'm new to Copyediting on Wiki and would like to enlist your help as a mentor. Please ping my talk page if you have time to lend a hand.

Just getting my feet wet, but, a bit of background. I've been a freelance writer for several years now. I noticed a tag on one of the Wiki pages that said the page needed copy edit and started doing some research on GOCE.

Any help you can offer as to how to get things going would be greatly appreciated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HermesAuthor (talk • contribs)
 * Since you've worked professionally, I'd recommend that you pick any article currently at WP:FACL and have a go at it ... let me know which one it is, and I'll be happy to look over your shoulder. Don't worry about making mistakes or not knowing all of Wikipedia's sometimes squirrely rules, I'll be watching. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
I started this in a sandbox before Christmas, and completely forgot about it until now. I've moved it to article space, so there's something there, but there's no flora, fauna, archaeology or mil hist up yet. It's still my intention to take this to FA eventually, but it's on the back-burner for the time being since I've started the more straightforward Common Tern during my amnesia. I also have Blakeney Chapel virtually complete, but I'm waiting for a magazine to be reprinted (8 weeks so far).

When I get back to this SSSI article, I can obviously manage the flora and fauna, my daughter can help with the archaeology and is good on the actual finds. I wonder if there are any other sources for info on the military history of this coast that I should be aware of? I don't have university access to journals, so need to be free to read? No rush, for the reasons above, thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:MIL is a good place for questions on sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia movement funds dissemination
Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dank, see also my note at SPhilbrick on setting up an en:wiki discussion on this. On another note, I'll bet I could look it up, perhaps on Wikipedia, but who are the "big six" publishers? I'm thinking of lightly spamming them with an alternate approach of how we run the servers with used chewing-gum and cigarette butts we pick up off the street. I just tried Pearson (I used to subscribe to The Economist). Franamax (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Big Six-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Normandy Project
Hi, I saw the list of books listed for the Military History project dealing with the Normandy landing & I thought I would let you know about a book that I puchased in 2002 regarding the Battle for Brest. My Dad's unit (740th FAB) participated in this Battle.

The Book is "The Americans in Brittany - 1944, The Battle for Brest" by Jonathan Gawne. Published by Historie Collections, Paris, France, 2002. The ISBN number is 2-913903-21-5. Despite the French Publisher, the book is in English - It is an oversize book, 160 pages, and does have an abundance of photos - but Mr. Gawne states in his acknowledgments that the main sources for material were the National Archives, Veterans, and their families so there may be some information that could be useful to your project. Kind Regards, Patton puppy (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll pass this information on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, it's a pleasure working with you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ten-minutes-to-midnight query about "Mark Satin" FAC
Hi Dank. My Mark Satin article is awaiting Final Judgment deep in the "Older nominations" section at FAC review. It seems ready for promotion to me, with three hard-won "Supports" from three of the most experienced editors at Wikipedia (you, Brian, and Jim), no Opposes, image comments by Nikki and Kitfoxxe (the latter offsite but referenced by me), and seven sourcechecks by Nikki followed by 70 by me. But because I am new to this, I am still concerned that something might be missing. Would you be so kind as to let me know if there's anything more I can say or do on the FAC page to strengthen the article's chances? Thanks so much. - Babel41 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will keep my fingers crossed. Now have Noleander's support as well. - Babel41 (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In passing...
Just thought I'd drop by and say "Hello" :) I hope all's going well with your sabbatical (if that's the appropriate term) - your Usage essay looks excellent. EyeSerene talk 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it, I'll expand it as I continue copyediting. I'm spending most of my time off learning more about copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that only bodes well for the future... EyeSerene talk 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fantastic work on the Milhist Academy. - Dank (push to talk) 05:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Dank,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hey, Dank. I'm looking for an experienced American English copy-editor to look over a relatively short FAC nomination of mine for AmE style and clarity. I know you're a busy man, so any help at all you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and cheers,  Auree  ★★  04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I left this alone in part because I've got my hands full with Milhist and in part because it looked close to promotion, and it was. As I've mentioned, I'm particularly interested in peacetime activities of military units, and I'm hoping that some day your wikiproject will include subsections discussing disaster relief in more detail ... I could get interested in that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!
Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed updating mail-out list
Hi, Dank. I have recently done some work consolidating our mailing list into a central location to facilitate using EdwardsBot for the mail-out of our newsletters. I was wondering if you have time to help update the list by removing any inactive editors? What I was thinking is that anyone who has not edited in a year or longer should be removed from the mailing list. Could you help out by checking the editors from User:Lexo through User:Richwales and removing any inactive editors from the list? Any duplicates can also be removed. If you don't have time please let me know and I will reassign that block. Thanks in advance. --Dianna (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive launch instructions
Hi, Dank. I have prepared some instructions for coordinators to use to launch the copy edit drives and placed it at the bottom of the drive main page. Please read it over when you have time and let me know if there are any questions or if any of the instructions are not clear. This action was prompted by the absence of The Utahraptor, who has not edited since the beginning of February. I am going to try to contact him by email as I am starting to get concerned. --Dianna (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope Utahraptor is okay. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Utahraptor has resigned
Hi Dank,

I have been notified by The Utahraptor that he has resigned as Lead coordinator of the Guild due to pressing real-life concerns. I have opened a discussion thread at Coordinators talk page to decide what to do next. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work on the "Mark Satin" bio!
Actually, Dank, I can't even begin to express my debt to you. At least the Barnstar is a pretty picture. - Babel41 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, that works for me, always happy to get a barnstar I haven't seen before. Your dedication is inspiring. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete redirect
Per WP:RNPOV, the article title and opening sentence should be changed. But instead, I'm stuck with: Please remove the redirect.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "(rv - article's title is still "Genesis creation narrative", so the bolded intro text should remain as that)"
 * "(declining speedy deletion of this redirect; the target article begins: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth ...", so this appears to be a useful redirect)"
 * As long as the target article begins "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth ...", I can't imagine what other article a reader could be looking for if they typed in "Genesis creation myth". Redirects don't define the one term acceptable to everyone; they cover all the terms people might reasonably type in if they're looking for that page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes... and I changed the lead, but someone changed it back because the article title is different. This is circular reasoning.
 * Per policy, the correct title is Genesis creation myth. Specifically, WP:RNPOV states that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Please don't be an obstructionist.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to move the article, try WP:RM. If you'd like to change the lead, try WP:RFC. Given the potential for controversy here, speedy deletion is not your best option for either. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Proceeding with the Requested Move option. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (There is already an RFC for changing the lead, however the opposed arguments ignore the policy.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)