User talk:Dank/Archive 26

Informal pre-FAC review
Hello :). I know that you are cooped up with reviewing articles at WP:FAC, and that's exactly why I have come to you. I have been working a lot on the film article Ra.One (a GA), and I had previously submitted it for an FAC. It failed due to a number of issues regarding references, and some prose problems. Since then, the article has undergone an overhaul. I would like you to give me your thoughts on the article, in the same way that you would review any FAC. It would be informal, but it would help in removing any other problems present in the article. I'd be much obliged if you could do it today or tomorrow, as I've been delaying the submission for quite some time (I had planned to place it for a second time on April 26, but missed it due to a lot of work on the article). Thanks in advance! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ankitbhatt. I'm sorry, I almost never review popular culture or entertainment articles, and I'm not familiar with community standards for these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well alright then, thanks anyways :). I was just wondering whether the very general aspects (prose, citations, structuring) of the article was alright. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, newbie requiring help.
I rewrote the Second Thirty Years War page, which was a stub class, and asked for a reassessment. However, here WikiProject Military history/Assessment I was told that it needed more refernces (without any citations needed being added) and that the article was bogus.

If someone's calling it bogus, then they're obviously unaware of the current consensus and the historiography, especially the change since the 70s and 80s.

If they'd checked the articles online such as Henig and Dray, they'd see that what I'm saying is true. These are by top historians, quoting lots of other top historians. But I've got about 80 refernces from 30 books, chapters and articles. Someone helped me with the bibliography so now between us we've added every ISBN.

This subject was part of my area of expertise at university and any knowledgeable academic or amateur would agree with what I've written. As I say, I quote almost 30 different historians, and some of the articles are available online.

Sorry to be a pain, but as a newbie, I'm confused. How can someone who must have no knowledge of the issue (or they'd be familiar with the works of the historians I'm citing) claim an article is bogus when they're not even prepared to have a look through the online sources I've mentioned?

Is this standard wiki or wiki MilHist procedure?

When I re-wrote the Listen to Britain page, and moved it to MilHist, someone assessed it, moved it up to a C, and added some citations needed. When I refernced these, they upgraded it to a B.

Second Thirty Years War has a far larger scope, far more refernces and a much bigger bibliography, yet it is dismissed as bogus. What am I meant to do if I'm not told what is being disputed? Can someone familiar with the arguments or the work of the historians cited, or someone prepared to read the online articles please reassess it instead?

I've put my case here: Talk:Second_Thirty_Years_War. But is it normal in the MilHist project for people to dismiss an article with this many refernces and citations as bogus?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for asking, I'll look into it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:Hchc2009 has answered your question on the article talk page - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC Copyeditor
Do you still need copyeditors to review FAC nominations? If so, I'd like to help. You can reply on my talk page or here.  BlueBonnet &#208; 01:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! Feel free to pick anything on WP:FACL and do anything you like; I'll stalk your edits and step in if I think it will help. Feel free to ask me questions, or you can just post questions at the FAC for anyone. Is there any kind of feedback you've seen me give before that you'd like for me to provide? - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the note you put on the GOCE talk page a couple of days ago. I thought there was something specific you needed done with new nominations/ nominators.   BlueBonnet &#208;  03:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one thing that really needs doing, thanks much. Just jump on any new-ish nominations that appeal to you that haven't gotten a substantial review yet and offer a list of simple problems that need fixing. (Not too many problems ... maybe 10 or 15 per FAC for now, and we'll see how it goes.) To save the nominator some work, I typically edit the text myself instead of leaving copyediting notes, but that's usually with articles where the nominator knows me and won't mind me fiddling with their text during FAC. Traditionally at FAC, nominators are asked to make the changes. It's helpful for other reviewers to see how (and if!) the nominator responds to a short, simple review or two. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dank! If you are still in need of copy editors, I would be happy to help out. Just tell me what needs doing, and I will do my best to help out. L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What I described just above would be great. I'll check your contribs once a day while you're getting started at FAC, and give you feedback on the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed S&M (song) and LSC v Velasquez. If you have time and could give me some feedback I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Blue Bonnet 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They looked great when I glanced at them ... I'm sorry, I meant to respond the same day, I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow. Btw, I'll ask User:Nikkimaria to look at the sourcing comments. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Thanks. Blue Bonnet  04:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing comments all look fine, as far as they go. Thanks for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding Speedied article
I noticed that you were one of the administrators who speedied Pricing Partners. If you could take a look at "pricing partners" and determine if it is a re-creation or if the newly named title version is appropriate to un-salt the original title that would be great. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you asked the same question of User:RHaworth, and he was the admin who indefinitely protected the page against re-creation. I'd prefer to let him make the call, if he's willing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter draft is ready
Hi Dank! The mid-drive newsletter draft is ready. If you have time to give it a once-over for errors, that would be great. I will send it out tomorrow or Tuesday. Thanks.

Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of Folding@home
Hi there Dank,

I saw that you've listed your name over at WP:PRV. I've been enthusiastically editing pretty extensively on Folding@home, and achieved GA status early last month. It's an article about a powerful distributed computing project which simulates protein folding for disease research, so I thought you might be interested. I'd like to improve the article as much as I can, and perhaps even reach FA status, so if you have a moment, I'd sure appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have. I've opened a peer review. Thank you for your time, Jesse V. (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping I would be able to spare the time for this, but it's not going to happen; I'd have to learn a lot more biochemistry than I know now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review request: The Kane Chronicles
Hi. Since you've offered to review copyedit jobs, I'd like you to please take a look at The Kane Chronicles. This is my first work with GOCE, and it was a pretty long (now shorter) article, so I'd like to have a second set of eyes look over it for grammar and style. Thanks! Dementia13 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this. Same answer as above: I'm sorry, I almost never review popular culture or entertainment articles, and I'm not familiar with community standards for these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

undelete?

 * Is there an expiration date on undeleting things? I hope not. I was planning to undelete (or ask someone to undelete) my barnstars etc. when I have more time to contribute, but then the thought just hit me... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the name of the page you want restored? - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to bother you. Certainly /bio and /awards, and certainly one or two others, later. [Forex, I didn't save the essay on the actual user page.. it would be nice to undelete/save to text/redelete.. or not redelete but make it a redir, I dunno.. I am sorry to be such a pain...to several people, actually.. ] Is there a deadline?– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There has never been a page at User:Ling.Nut3/bio, User_talk:Ling.Nut3/bio, User:Ling.Nut3/Bio, or User:Ling.Nut3/awards. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try User:Ling.Nut/bio & User:Ling.Nut/awards. No 3. The first me. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks. I won't bother you again. By the way, this was intended to be chummy self-deprecation etc., but after I posted it I saw how easy it woould be to interpret it as snark. Cheers. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about that at all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga
This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 4, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Kaga was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Originally intended to be one of two Tosa-class battleships, Kaga was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty into an aircraft carrier as the replacement for the battlecruiser JAPANESE BATTLECRUISER Amagi, which had been damaged during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. Kaga's aircraft first supported Japanese troops in China during the Shanghai Incident of 1932 and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. With other carriers, she took part in the Pearl Harbor raid in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month her aircraft participated in a combined carrier airstrike on Darwin, Australia, helping secure the conquest of the Dutch East Indies by Japanese forces. During the Battle of Midway in June, Kaga and the other carriers were attacked by American aircraft from Midway Atoll and the carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Hornet (CV-8), and USS Yorktown (CV-5). Dive bombers from Enterprise severely damaged Kaga; when it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. In 1999, debris from Kaga was located on the ocean floor; the main body of the carrier has not yet been found. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 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] 14:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

PC RfC again
"we all know that the Option 1 guys didn't just want to win a battle against one PC proposal, they wanted to win a war against all PC proposals". With all respect, that is one of the most polarizing statements I've read since this RfC began. It isn't borne out by the totality of the comments from Option 1 supporters. It isn't even true of me, and I consider myself an ardent PC opponent. Leaving aside the question of the "battle" and "war" metaphors, I can't help thinking that addition of one short word, "some" (as in "some Option 1 guys"), would change your sweeping generalization into an accurate statement. (I'm responding here because I don't want to add anything potentially contentious to what has been a peaceful talk page thus far. I also wanted to assure you that I've been finding most of your other comments on the page genuinely insightful and valuable, so I was sort of brought up short when I read that one.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I value your insight and I'll change it. I guess I used the wrong words; what's in my head seems pretty banal and obvious, that your goal wasn't just to defeat the particular draft proposal being offered, but generally to push back against PC.  Thanks for the compliment, and btw, I very much look forward (as soon as the closure is done, or before) to participating with you guys in crafting something that solves one or more wiki-problems. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll add a few words there. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)
I expanded the lead section of the USS Mahan (DD-364) article. And I’m hopeful that you can find the time to critique it. I took the liberty of pressing ahead on my own because of a personal interest.

I also did some fairly extensive cleanup on the body of the text. The text is essentially that which is contained in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships – USS Mahan II (DD-364). No criticism is intended, although the Navy style does seem somewhat at odds with most style manuals. In any event, I believe the article now reads better, but whether I improved it is left for someone else to decide.

In hindsight, I failed to follow the military style of day, month, and year usage – because, for my part, it seems to interrupt the flow and rhythm of the thought being expressed. But, I stand ready to correct my mistake.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. Pendright (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for working on that. Either day/month or month/day is fine for military articles that are linked strongly to the US. I'm going to make some stylistic changes in the morning. If you have books or other sources that cover the USS Mahan, I'll be happy to help you get this article reviewed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're going to need to work on some of those style points, but finding some solid sources is more important than style. I've asked at WT:SHIP for some help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, the primary source of the body of the Mahan article is the on-line Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Department Of The Navy – Naval Historical center. DANFS touts itself as the foremost reference regarding US naval vessels.  Am I wrong in assuming that the US Navy is not a solid source?


 * United States DESTROYER OPERATIONS in World War II (ISBN 0-87021-726-7), published by the Naval Institute Press – refers to the activity of the Mahan on twenty pages of its copyrighted material. And it supports the DANFS history.  Kamikaze, Japan’s Suicide Samurai (ISBN 0-304-35200-4), written by Raymond Lamont-Brown, deals specifically with the sinking.  As does AT WAR WITH THE WIND (ISBN – 10: 0-8065-2893-1), written by David Sears. Both books are copyrighted.  I should also tell you that I was a member of the crew when the Mahan was sunk. Honest!  Thank you.  Pendright (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That will help a lot, especially the first book (Destroyer Operations). The first job is to add references, so that the article isn't relying on just two named sources. Again, I've asked for help over at our SHIPS talk page (click on the blue link), and I expect someone will be by to help soon! I'm mainly a copyeditor, but it's too soon for copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the above three references and one external link for the USS Mahan Association. Would more references or links be helpful? Pendright (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly a copyeditor, and I stay pretty busy because we don't have enough copyeditors. This isn't at the copyediting stage yet. I see you've got an invitation to participate at the ships project ... that will work, click on "edit" at WT:SHIPS to post your question. I'll keep an eye on that page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! I really did serve aboard old 364. Pendright (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much thanks to you and everyone in your generation. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dank: I took the next step and requested a Peer Review. However, because of my inept handling, it has taken up residency on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ships/Review, not Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/ Review.  Can you bail me out? Pendright (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a lot going on right now, could you ask at either WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST? Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand! Pendright (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

re-creation notification: Yellowstone Bear World
This is a notification from WikiProject Requested articles of the re-creation of Yellowstone Bear World, an article you previously deleted. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pending aircraft article FACs
Greetings Dank, thanks for the suggestions on De Havilland Comet! I'm hoping to co-nominate (if that's possible) the article for review in the near future, provided that further improvements are made, and that the other major contributors are available and on board. Both you and delegate Ian Rose have suggested proceeding to FAC sooner rather than later, despite potential roadbumps ahead. In such a situation, it will be interesting to see just how much margin there is for medium-to-major prose, MoS, and other changes during the review process.

Also, as mentioned in the recent "comparable aircraft" discussion (during which some progress on "See also" was made; partial consensus?), Boeing 757 is moving towards FAC as well. It's currently in A-class review, which I advertised some weeks ago on WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:MILHIST. As a reviewer of its sibling article, Boeing 767, perhaps you might consider contributing to the A-class review page? This article shares many of the same references, sentences, and structure; it will be interesting to see if reviewers have similar responses. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to work on these, and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dank for helping with both of these articles! Given time both will likely get nominated for FA review in the near future. Originally I've thought of doing the Comet first, but some of the other major editors are busy for the time being, so possibly 757 will be next. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings again, for your information the Featured Article candidacy of Boeing 757 is now open at: Featured article candidates/Boeing 757/archive1. Any input is welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror
Will be heading to FAC shortly - if you want to start on your copyediting/etc now it would be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll get to it when I can. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft of wrap-up newsletter
Hi, Dank. Just a note to let you know that I have a newsletter draft prepared—if you have a minute to check it over that would be super. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks so much for doing these. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes pending?
If PC goes forward in any way, shape or form, I hope you'll take a leading role in organizing the discussion of how to implement it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... well, I'll stay involved, certainly. The four closers apparently have comments prepared ... maybe there's a particular path they'd like PC to take. If they don't have a specific recommendation, then I'll issue an invitation on the RFC talk page for people to join one or more working groups where we try to keep track of an outline of the questions and answers so far on the project page, and allow free-form but hopefully relevant discussion on the talk page. I'd be happy to volunteer to do something clerk-y for a working group. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you join me in doing this?
Dianna has decided not to stand for another term as a GOCE coordinator, and I would like to nominate her as a Coordinator Emeritus of the Guild, in the same way as was done for SMasters last year here. It doesn't need signing, but it would be nice to name the two of us as proposing it jointly. May I go ahead and do that? Kind regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added it. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology back at FAC
DNA nanotechnology is up for its second FAC right now. I appreciate your comments and edits from the first time around and found them to be very helpful, and so I'm hoping that you could revisit the article for this second FAC. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Participation in a discussion
You are invited to participate in this discussion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Rochester: Kent or Medway
There is a discussion in which you may be interested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography concerning the move of Wikipedia articles from Rochester, Kent to Rochester, Medway. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A shiny token of appreciation

 * You're doing a great job with the aircraft articles, I'm happy to assist. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barn
Happy to help I'm not sure what it was I did that convinced you to send me some encouragement, but I definitely appreciate it. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The attention your work has generated in the press has cast yourself, and Wikipedia, in a very favorable light. Also, I've been a fan of your work for a long time and never said anything. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review-USS Mahan (DD-364)
Much obliged for your help with Mahan article and the peer review. I see myself as an able writer and editor, but my skill in navigating the waters of Wikipedia is still evolving. Case in point: your edit of Mahan removed Inc.,  (following United Dry Docks) from the text. For consistency, I decided to remove it from Career (US). When I did, it unlinked. I reversed my post, still no link??? Pendright (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have an article on United Dry Docks, with or without the "Inc". - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True! The former link was not direct, but it led the way to United Dry Dock history through Morse Dry Dock and Repair Company. Pendright (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LINK has lots of great advice on linking, including how to input them properly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pendright (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Turtles All the Way Down
I have address you concerns on the "Turtles All the Way Down" article. Thanks. TBrandley  &bull;&#32;talk   &bull;&#32;contributions 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive the intrusion

 * Please forgive the intrusion, O Adminly One, but if you have a moment could you please undelete (if I recall correctly) User:Ling.Nut/Siege & User:Ling.Nut/Faux-intellectual. I do appreciate your time & trouble. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Dank also happens to be on my watchlist. Done. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are so totally stalking me. And i don't even look good in spandex. Well, to each his own. :-) – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I... wait, lemme put these binoculars away... am totally not stalking you. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, either way, I appreciate your help. Cheers! – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

FAC of Microsoft Security Essentials
Hi.

You had previously voted oppose in Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1. However, the article has improved a lot ever since and your main concerns (comments by GermanJoe) seems to have been addressed. Perhaps you may consider revising? Please let us know what you think.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FLC for List of American BCs
I've started the ball rolling on this. Perhaps a trifle too confrontational, but might as well deal with them head on. List of battlecruisers of the United States--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

due to -> owing to (since a verb rather than a noun is modified)

 * I've never seen that explanation before (?). I'll try to google it... offhand, I think "owing to" is BritEng usage, and is not restricted to any particular environment.. but I am often wrong, so... – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, "owing to" isn't in the active vocabulary of many Americans, but it's in the passive vocabulary of most, so it's okay. Other words are fine, and rewriting without "owing to" is often preferable. Chicago, Garner's and many BritEng style guides (I'm told) advise against using "due to" except to modify a noun or noun phrase: "My lateness was due to the dog who ate my homework", but not "I didn't turn in the assignment, due to the dog who ate my homework", where it's the whole clause that's due to something. This is one of many annoying rules where the language is right on the cusp of changing ... "due to" sounds as good as "owing to" to most ... but the style guides are united against it, making a lot of work for copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. Similar to "convince" versus "persuade", etc. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Eisfbnore talked me into following the strict usage of "due to". I've been using "owing to" in my articles but I don't usually bring it up if I'm reviewing, at least in American articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But then why not just use "because of"? Its use is acceptable in all world Englishes (that I know of), and it is not excessively informal... – Ling.Nut (talk)

rfb revert
you were too fast for me. I hit save, and thought it went through, but my watchlist tells the tale : )

My edit summary was "undo - please wait to transclude until the candidate has had time to confirm and respond."

But since Wikipedia named you the lucky winner, I'll let you leave the polite message on their talk page : ) - jc37 20:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No need, they decided to come visit me :) I had reverted with a nice edit summary ... then they decided to keep making edits, and WP is having a bad day so I kept ec'ing ... simpler to hit rollback. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod, I've seen the wikimedia message a couple times now. I wonder what happened... - jc37 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

nomination
why did you remove the nomination that I made? Ob tund Talk 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did DGG say he wants to run for bureaucrat? - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um I nominated him, your not suppose to be asked to be nominated. Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See the instructions on that page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal
I would like to say that I apologize if my proposal might subvert your idea of a board. I had a well developed proposal, and in light of the current events, I had to at least let my proposal be seen so I could see what views were on that. It appears like your proposal is more in the realm of finding qualified candidates and if that is the case could be used in conjunction with either of the ideas presented in my proposal. In addition, that would mean it isn't calling for an overhaul of the concept of RfA. It could be listed as a proposal for a solution to the problem of finding qualified candidates. I'll continue further discussion on the talk page of the proposal though. Ryan Vesey Review me!  00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Link is RfA reform 2012.) Been there; "there is a tide in the affairs of men", and the best way to get things done on Wikipedia is just wait until people are interested and ready before launching your boat. I see you like my proposal, at least for some purposes; thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Hi Dan. I've drafted a drive invitation at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/June 2012. Please would you check it over? Also, it seems we're better at using newsletters to announce December elections than June ones. Should we belatedly do so, or add a note to this one, or not worry? --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. We did mention the election in the drive wrap-up (above); I was thinking that was enough, but there's no harm in mentioning it again. Let me be the first to offer congratulations, btw, barring natural disasters. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So we did. I think that's probably enough. Thanks, and congratulations on reaching your 50,000 edits, which (if my sums are right) you clocked up last Friday :) --Stfg (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ready for my fabulous prize. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I saw you blocked my old account over 2 years ago, It was hijacked and I've left an unblock request, as it's no longer in use. Please check it out when you have time. user:jmcmatrixs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurbar (talk • contribs)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending input

 * - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

Just a note to say I am liking your input at the Pending talkpage - the discussion will need such input from a couple of experienced administrators to help keep it on track - thanks ot you for offering to assist and for your involvement so far - Regards - You  really  can  17:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate that, particularly since I have been focused, and will continue to focus, on the concerns of the opposition, since they're the ones most likely to feel left out at this point. Please keep adding your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this
Please delete Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Risker. I do not want my username associated with a special little page related to this decision, particularly as I do not have time to babysit the page. You could name it after yourself if you want, but I think it's awfully presumptuous to create a page with someone else's username. Risker (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it; Dank can move the text to where he wants when he's online next. I'll just note that at the top, Dank had "Standard disclaimer: I'm copying some material from the parent page in an attempt to encourage discussion. My intention is for you to own this process of shaping your proposal and attracting support, not for me to own it. Let me know if I cross a line." I'm not sure your harsh response to a good motive was really necessary, but YMMV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, people are pretty hot under the collar about PC in general, and I imagine, especially right after such a contentious close. No offense is taken at all. Risker, if what I'm hearing is that I seemed to be treating you in a way that indicated disrespect, I'm terribly sorry. What I would like to do, if people will let me, is to help fix the process ... it seems clear to me that most people feel that they're being ignored, not taken seriously, on all sides of this issue (and RFA Reform, and many other issues).  I don't see any reason we can't fix at least that problem if we try. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, for the record, I'm very, very picky about what I attach my name to; that's my personal editorial reputation, and I do not want it associated with something that I'm not in a position to actively participate in. Indeed, I did not vote in the PC vote because I was not willing to associate my username with any of the three positions we were allowed to vote for. I'm not sure, Dank, why you think it was a contentious close; it was obvious how it was going to be closed when the page was created, because it was specifically designed to go only one way, and I've not contended that the closers erred in their assessment. I will be happy to look in from time to time on any discussion; but the result is the result. Essentially PC will be applied if desired to anything that currently meets protection policy guidelines. The people who should be disappointed are those who believe it should be applied to every page or at least every BLP; unfortunately, I have a feeling they'll be less disappointed than those who want to follow policy. Risker (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "contentious" is that people are bound to have strong feelings about it, for a variety of reasons. If I'm accepted as one of the closers for the next round, I'm going to invest the time needed to try to get us to the least worst outcome, that is, an outcome that respects the results of this RFC while also taking every single one of the objections seriously, and restricting and modifying PC accordingly. Yes, please do peek in from time to time, there are things you're willing to say that no one else is, things that are important. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June Bugle
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] 18:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny
Hi Dank. Seeing the above, I wonder what happened for the Milhist Newsletter to come out under that title. --Stfg (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed's on it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer
I don't think we should rename the related pages to anything but what the name of the tool is: Reviewer. - jc37 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll leave it alone for now, and I'm going to suggest that we deal with reviewership rights first over at WP:PC/RFC2012, for many reasons ... as soon as the community has settled the issues, we'll know what the page names should be. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Email
You've got some. Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Help please
I might sound desperate, stressed out and completely confused. I do not know how this site works and trying to understand and conform to meet all rules is not working for me at all. I need help, I have asked for help and got some which I followed and still my page gets removed. I am not sure if it is because I am an adult star or that I am Transgendered? I keep getting told I am not relevant as a person. I do not understand how this can be. I was one of the first adult website owners in Canada. One of the first Transsexual webcam stars from Canada. I was the first Transsexual adult star from Canada. I opened the first Shemale webcam network with 2 of the biggest adult transsexual stars in the world. I have been blogging before blogs were even called a blog. I have 1000’s of images, over 100 online videos and 4 mainstream adult films. I am now running the first ever weekly T-girl interactive radio show. I also was a huge part of the Transgender movement in Canada to where it is today. How am I not relevant? I am not looking to advertise myself or use this site as a marketing tool. But I am now writing 2 books and starting to do interviews about my life, my radio show and such. Also when people look for my information I want a reliable website that I respect for them to reference. I am not looking to hire a PR company to do this for me. I have always been on my own. But clearly I need help from someone to get my page set up so it does not get removed over and over again. Please help me. Please.

I am sorry this might be a long email and maybe you do not even care but I had to at least try to reach out one last time for help.

Tasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstashajones (talk • contribs)


 * I didn't block, or intend to block, you ... I blocked the name of your radio channel, and invited you to do just want you've done, to create a username for yourself. I'm sorry, I don't follow notability issues closely; the folks at WT:LGBT (it's got "T" right in the link!) may be able to help you there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We could use your help
Hello, Dank - I got to your page through WP:BIOG. There's an MOS-related discussion going on here, and your opinion would be valuable. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to Question
No, i have not made any major edits, but find it to have very thorough and useful information, and do not know who the major contributors of the article are. I will try to locate and notify them. It appears that my nomination will not be pushed through, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haon 2.0 (talk • contribs)
 * Link is Featured article candidates/Cerebral palsy/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Response
After reading your response to my first response, I have decided that it is a lost cause. I got ahead of myself and didn't read the rules as I should have. I will wait for the page to have more cited and more thorough edits, and will then proceed to nominate it for Good Article Status, and see if it passes, before nominating it to FAC, before which I will consult the primary editors. Thank you for your input, and sorry for any inconvenience. - User:Haon 2.0 (talk)
 * No problem at all. Anyone on Wikipedia who isn't making mistakes, isn't doing it right :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FLC
Dank, you are aware that the WP:FLC you just commented on is just that, a featured list candidate, and as such has nothing to do with Raul? You should also be aware that I am not a delegate of that process, I am one of the directors. You should also know that since it's my responsibility to assess candidates for promotion or otherwise, I will be doubtless be looking at WP:FLC in general, and see the candidate in question, and will be happy to advise the other two FLC directors of my feelings. They are both capable of asking me my opinion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Perhaps you should refactor your comment at the FLC so it makes more sense... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just said I'd take it off my watch list so I don't have to put up vague personal attacks (i.e. calling my comments "daft" which is pointless and hurtful since I take so much time out to make them). Also, you still refer to FAC delegates, who have no interest in this process.  Would probably serve you better to remove the entire comment and write it again from scratch.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was just emailing you ... is that okay? You know, we've both worked very, very hard to gain reputation on Wikipedia, and that's usually a good thing ... until conflicts like this erupt, and then you can just see people pulling up their chairs and getting out the popcorn.  I am always, always in favor of whatever solution frees up the most time for hard-working Wikipedians like yourself ... even if I means I lose on some prose point, even if I look daft in the process, and even if it pisses off some of my colleagues. Time, yours and mine, is the great thief. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all good for email, of course. And I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the situation.  Look forward to hearing from you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification for the stalkers ... I used the word "daft" humorously in that review ... TRM's complaint about hurtful words was about someone else, if I understand right. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)