User talk:Dank/Archive 27

RfA observation
Hi Dank, As a somewhat random observation, I was just looking at my RfA from late 2007. While I was fortunate enough to have received almost unanimous support from the editors who commented there, I reckon that in the current climate the nomination probably wouldn't have passed judging from my fairly vague answers to the questions and lack of experience in behind the scenes areas. I'm obviously highly biased, but I think that I've been a safe pair of hands as an admin though... Food for thought. Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Same for me, Nick. I had almost no experience with deletion. And yes, you've been a fine admin. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your answers to questions 4 and 5 alone would likely lead to a failed nomination these days ;) (my answer to question 1 would have disqualified me). You've been a good admin as well, so this is actually quite strong evidence that the current system isn't working as there's no need for new admins to have such high levels of expertise. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try my answer to Q1: "As to other areas [besides DYK], I do not know if I will take up residence in any; only time will tell." (Requests for adminship/The ed17 2). Eek. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we were all bad, bad candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, while you're here ... over at Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the United States/archive1, TRM says "I looked at ref 23 which was supposed to tell me that Alaska had spent 32 months in service. Couldn't easily find that in the ref.  Suggest you show the reader how you came to that conclusion in a footnote." The ref starts with "commissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 17 June 1944" and ends with "Placed in inactive status, "in commission, in reserve" at Bayonne, on 13 August 1946, Alaska was ultimately placed out of commission, in reserve, on 17 February 1947." That's 32 months on the dot, but what do you think of the argument that a reader might reasonably prefer to use one of the other dates instead? - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that readers would expect the period in which the ship was in active commission to be highlighted, and the period she spent tied up and inactive while the Navy figured out whether she was worth keeping wouldn't receive much attention. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll point Sturm here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing if any of you are still here ... doesn't all the white space beside the first navbox look odd? - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno discography
Hi Dank, If you are able, could you take a quick look at the above? We would really appreciate your thoughts, comments and advice re this which is currently in a PR. My co-nom and I have never sat a FLC so are novices when it comes to tables, lists, FLC's etc. We are eager to iron out any potential problems before we list it and could really do with your advice if you could spare the time. Many thanks. -- CassiantoTalk 20:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't help with tables and lists per my standard disclaimer. Also, my copyediting time is booked for at least a month, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries. Thanks for the reply. -- CassiantoTalk 04:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Supporting at FAC
I thought I'd rather not start talking about myself on a(nother person's) nomination page.

I am rather fickle when it comes to my many interests, and I tend to rotate them according to my mood. I lost interest in editing during the spring, but now I've found it again, and I'm actually writing my first proper article. Although the subject is not one that lacks interest, I am mostly doing this out of necessity, to clear space elsewhere; I could cobble together a start-class article and be done with it, but my blasted perfectionism won't let me (though the better article will be helpful in the long term). So I'm moving slowly but so far steadily, and I've made good progress, building on earlier work. I don't want to jinx it (summer is full of distractions), but I'll tell you when it's done, and maybe you can help me pick a good hook for DYK.

Regarding FAC, not supporting before I've passed one of my own is mostly a matter of principle (and one which I've heard other editors express as well), but I do believe that having done so is important in understanding what is required in writing a high-quality article, and where attention must be paid in the review. I've understood this more clearly as I've been moving into non-gnomish areas of editing in the last few years, and although I am feeling more confident having read perhaps dozens of FAs and their FACs, I am now thinking that I ought to pay more attention to failed FACs if I am to form a more complete picture of the process. Besides, I might not be a good reviewer anyway: I am something of a devil's advocate, which means I may find myself defending or attacking something just because others are attacking or defending it respectively. I need to control that tendency if I am to be useful at FAC, as well as that thing about focusing too much on minutiae. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, be happy to help you pick a hook. Very few WPians can write a Featured Article by themselves; I get by With a Little Help from My Friends. Btw, I have no idea if you're interested in Greek history, but we have some excellent articles on, for instance, the Byzantine Empire going through FAC regularly that can use some prose help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you mean "by themselves"... (Wait, isn't it "by 'by themselves' "? Ugh.) I know I can find help with copy-editing, and I'm sure a peer review, formal or not, can result in some good ideas for improvement, and I can always seek someone's opinion on some source or detail, or on the selection or placement of an image. But this doesn't have much in common with a true collaboration, where the planning and construction of an article are undertaken collectively by a group of editors. I've heard great stories about such happy and fruitful projects, and I'd love to take part in one, but I understand they are fairly rare, and most FAs come from the vision and dedication of one or at most two editors.
 * I am interested in history in general, especially Western, though I admit that, in spite of my natural interest for my national heritage, the Byzantine period is not exactly my favourite. Still, such subjects attract me far more than, say, articles on modern naval battles (I seem to prefer the strategic over the tactical side of warfare). So far I've tended to view FACs after the event, but I am trying to change that. We'll see how I do, but for now, baby steps. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What (I think) Dank means is that it is rare for someone to be able to write a FAC with no other people to help. Copyeditors, sourcecheckers, and/or people to find images are necessary. That's different from a full collaboration, which are very fun, just like you think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I get that, but I didn't say I wanted to write a FAC all by myself. What I meant was that I feel I need to bring an article to FA status—which is to say, undertake enough of the burden to acquire a good and direct understanding of what needs to be done—before I can judge other people's efforts. I want to do enough to be named as a nominator or co-nominator in a successful FAC, not for the "glory" of the achievement but for the experience this will signify I have acquired in the process.
 * On an unrelated note, I have just come across the annoyingly titled Fellowship Of Vocation but I am too tired to start looking up the proper procedure for speedily moving it over the redirect with the uncapitalised "of". Can an admin reading this please take care of it? It should take about half a minute. Waltham, The Duke of 01:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the redir page to make way for the move, Your Grace. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And move performed! Thank you very much, good sir. And I may know how to reward you... E-mail is on the way. Waltham, The Duke of 01:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

would you be willing to help?
Hi,

I'm reviewing Heinrich Himmler and though I'm not an expert in German history, I found quite a few problems with the article. See Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2. So far User:Wehwalt and User:Nick-D offered suggestions that have immeasurably improved the article. And my suggestions also have been acted upon. I plan to ping Wehwalt (although he said he'd be travelling for 12 days) and Nick-D.

You're the Military history guy, so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to give it a look. (I have reviewed Reinhard Heydrich with few problems. I want to make sure I haven't lost my perspective in this article.)

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to review it when it gets to Milhist's A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you! - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Awake episodes FLC
I was wondering if you could vote at Featured list candidates/List of Awake episodes/archive2 for List of Awake episodes. Thanks so much. TBrandley 04:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't generally review popular culture articles (including recent TV shows), and my copyediting time is booked. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikimania
Fingers crossed this year all slides will be published, so I should be able to piece together most of the sessions even if they're not recorded. I guess on that basis what would be most useful to me would be notes on anything unexpected plus comments on which talks were best attended and/or received, that kind of thing. Many thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 09:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 09:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

list of contents

 * - Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Dank

hi could you please add whatever it is that would add a table of contents to that page so I can link to individual sections please - You  really  can  13:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can link to sections whether there's a TOC or not. If you want a TOC and none is present, just add  . - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't seem to work ? You  really  can  14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Both work for me, on this page at least. Btw, just replied over there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the UPDATE
Hi Dank. You know it's difficult to keep up with all the changes to our policies, so I was always thankful for WP:UPDATE. I saw this a few months ago, which was sad. Well, today I just saw this, which made me very happy. I've been meaning to thank you for UPDATE for a long time, so since you're updating UPDATE again now is the perfect time. Thanks, Dank, for keeping all of us updated with UPDATE. I'm not sure how many others have thanked you for it, but I find it a valuanle resource and I'm sure many others do as well. Thanks much. 64.40.54.45 (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, 64.40, and I'm glad you like it. I was hoping someone would step in, but it looks like that's not going to happen. - Dank (push to talk) 09:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PC2012
Hi Dank,

I hope Wikimania is going well.

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:PC2012.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WM
I'll be in Tech III and Wikis and the Public Sector I later today if you happen to be in one of those. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tech III for me (very late, I'm leaving the hotel now) and Tech V. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me you're listening to Erik's talk. This is like tailor-made to address some of our problems at Milhist. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski
Please note that I've addressed your comments there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pavle_Đurišić ACR
G'day, Would you mind having a look at WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Pavle_Đurišić? Looks to me like it now has four comprehensive reviews (including yourself) that support it for A Class (plus User:Grandiose re:images)? My first (co-)nomination, and I don't want to be pushy, but it has been on the list for a couple of months now. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I said on the coordinators talk page that I'd be closing this about now unless someone beat me to it, so it'll get done tonight (Sydney time)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That PC2012 thing again
Dank, I know you have stepped down as one of the closers. That opens the door for me to suggest that you step into your true calling on this issue: be the facilitator for the discussion. Let's be honest, that's what you already are! I think you are going in a good direction at this point, and I'll try to participate when time permits (I'm pretty tied up this weekend). Thank you for your work on this topic. And great to meet you again at Wikimania. Best, Risker (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Risker, you too! I remembered you said you'd be pretty busy until roughly August, but we can talk any time you like, on- or off-wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Me, GANs, FACs, etc.
I don't quite understand what you meant, but I've always taken a strict GAN->ACR->FAC route for my milhist things. as far as recent contributions, most of them haven't come under the milhist banner. I've not really got any open milhist projects, I've pretty much closed the Spanish Civil War book. (And most of those that have are images.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in a 6-month internship at Milhist? The idea would be that, if you're willing to work on articles with some relevance to Milhist, I'll help you push them through the review processes. What articles are you working on these days? - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to a collaboration on pretty much anything, but I'm not sure internship as you described it suits particularly: "to teach and learn from people who don't see themselves at Milhisters, but who have articles they could work on that are relevant to Milhist, and who would like some help for a few months pushing these articles through A-class and FAC." I don't have material at the moment to go through the processes or certainly that I particularly want to go through the processes (I've closed the book on the last project, as I say). I'd be happy to help someone with their article though. (Oh and at the moment I have some law articles and some Brasenose College articles I'm working on, but nothing that takes up all my time.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I know you're a member of Milhist, I was thinking that the name could apply to people who have stopped working on Milhist articles for whatever reason, as well as people who haven't started. If you could help people selected as interns ... or want to ask someone to be an intern ... all the better! Any new process needs a certain critical mass to survive. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fayedizard (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
Hi Dank, a user has requested an infobox be added to the above on the Fleming talkpage. What are your thoughts on this seeing as we are midway through your review? I absolutely disagree with one being added and so does the nom. Any idea's? -- CassiantoTalk 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my standard disclaimer, I stay away from infobox issues. WT:BIOG will probably have a quick answer for you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the infobox had been included for a number of years, and it was removed without discussion by Cassianto.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than assuming Rangoon11, check the article history. You will find it was not me who reverted.  I stand by the nominator's decision to remove it -- CassiantoTalk 22:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment at the start of this thread was factually wholly incorrect, an infobox has been in this article for a very long time. It is therefore in no way a case of seeking to add one, it is that you wish for it to be removed. And the removal of a longstanding infobox from a high profile article is clearly something which should be properly discussed, rather than people trying to impose the removal through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Take this to the articles talk page please. It's discussion here is redundant. -- CassiantoTalk 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Internship proposal
G'day, Dan, sorry I haven't been following the proposal very closely. From what I've read, I like the general idea as I think that it could benefit the project to have someone fresh enter the scene. I also think that it would benefit the prospective intern, however, I think that the practicalities need to be examined in more detail (sorry if I missed these).
 * Replying in-line. Okay, to recap: a few projects have become very good at cranking out FAs, but most aren't; that's got to create push-back against the entire process if we don't "share the wealth", and I'm seeing some of that. OTOH, there's a great opportunity here, too: for the projects that can manage it, this is a great time to approach FAC; reviewers are quite helpful and friendly. So I recommend we invite others to work on Milhist-relevant articles for our A-class review. Hopefully, they'll learn things in the process that they, and their wikiprojects, can use. - Dank (push to talk)

For instance, how will the intern be chosen? Will it be by application, or invitation? How will consensus be reached within the project?
 * I think the conflict is more likely to center around what articles the intern wants to bring to our A-class process than around who the intern is. I think it probably makes sense to start off presenting the intern's desired list of articles at WT:MIL so that anyone can comment; if not much interest is shown at WT:MIL, then we might start to handle these article lists at WT:MHC.

Also, regarding the timeframe of six months: what does this mean exactly? Is the member expected to work in Milhist for that long (sort of like a return of service obligation?) and if so, what are they expected to do and what happens if they "pull the pin"? Or is it simply just a loose outline of the timeframe that it would take for the process to run its course?
 * As you know, Milhist is about as rule-friendly as projects get on Wikipedia. Since the interns will come from outside Milhist, I think we have to acknowledge the usual Wikipedian reality: there are no rules. That's a pain, but it also makes questions like this easy to answer. The only way I can see it working is to let prospective interns pick their own time frame and their own goals. When the intern indicates they're finished, it will then be up to whoever nominated them, or whoever they approached, to award or not award a barnstar acknowledging what was accomplished.

From the project perspective, what are we obligated to do? Will we need to provide a dedicated mentor for that length of time, or simply make a commitment that we will provide reviewers of their articles? If the former, will it just be one individual, or will we ask for multiple mentors? If the latter, how will we make sure that we can provide those reviewers?
 * Once the article list has been approved, I would hope the intern would receive the same treatment at A-class that any of the rest of us receive, although of course reviewers are free to review or not review any articles they please, as always. The quality of reviewing at A-class is high enough to count as "mentoring" in my book, if the intern chooses to learn from it, and presumably they will, otherwise why would they be hanging out at our A-class review?

Could this mean that other Milhist articles don't get reviews, because our core reviewers are too busy reviewing the intern's articles?
 * At first, we're likely to be giving more than we're getting back. However, since most non-Milhisters at our A-class review are likely to be primarily interested in FAC, and since people have a hard time getting their FACs reviewed if they don't review other FACs, we're likely to see a "payoff" quickly, in the form of more FAC reviewers.

In terms of mentors, will they be co-ords, or can anyone volunteer?
 * How could we stop someone from volunteering?

If we get a number of volunteers, will we choose the most "qualified" or how will it work? Sorry to bombard you with questions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that we're going to be overwhelmed with interns, and it would be gratifying if we were :) Milhist volunteers can simply review at A-class ... we can never have too many of those. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, "volunteers" here was in relation to mentors, not interns. Anyway, thanks for the answers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially what this proposal boils down to is to extend ACR invites to editors who are not formally part of the project, but who write articles that are loosely associated with Milhist (e.g. perhaps biographies of people who are notable for something other than military service, but also had some time in the military). There would be no obligation in taking part and limited structural overheads within Milhist. Is this correct? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the proviso that Milhist members agree to the list of articles (or article) in advance, to make sure that no one (intern or reviewers) invests time thinking there's a lot more to come if there isn't more to come. Thanks for your questions, and I hope the answers were helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite helpful. Thanks. I think it could work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above all sounds pretty fair -- tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Future Poland themed A/FA
First, thanks for your help. Second, to write a good Polish FA/GA one almost always needs access to Polish sources, and sadly, I don't think anybody at WP:POLAND is willing to do spotchecks on offline sources. After all, we cannot even run a good B-class review, as I am the only one willing to do them on a regular basis, and I cannot review my own articles. Sigh. If you'd like to help, there is a number of articles I have currently slotted for B-class and GA-class reviews. (B-class are listed here, GA-class, here). A number of those at GA are milhist. Upon a cursory review of current GA, I think only Battle of Bautzen (1945) was using mostly English, online sources. Out of current GA, I am thinking about taking Władysław IV Vasa up to A/FA next. For the most part, I consider my recent articles on the PLC politics and the biographies as on track for A/FA, but they rely heavily on Polish sources. I was able to use some English sources for the politics articles, and to some degree, in Casimir Pulaski. See if there's anything there that you'd like to review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference at FAC between articles where the "big picture" points can be verified in English sources that at least some reviewer can get a hold of and the ones where they can't; it's always fine to have significant non-English sources. I'm not seeing any English sources on Władysław IV Vasa ... it's still doable if WT:POLAND will come through for you, but even then, it probably wouldn't be my first pick. If Battle of Bautzen (1945) is likely to pass the "comprehensive" requirement, I'd probably go with that first. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BoB has failed an A-class before, but it was improved much during it, see WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bautzen (1945). Do you think it would be ok to renominate it for A-class review now, or would you like to post your own review before that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the way to deal with Kirk's objection is to make an attempt to find at least one English source for at least one point that you currently reference to the Polish website. If you make the attempt and can't find any, then tell us where you looked; it may be that one of the reviewers can find information you couldn't. Then put it back up at A-class, and it will probably be fine. Are there any others that have failed our A-class that you think could pass with a little work? It's fine to have two up at once. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, only Battle of Kostiuchnówka comes to mind, that was somewhat of an older project of mine. How do you think it measures up to modern standards? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reviewers were saying that a battle that big probably has more sources covering it; were you able to find more sources? - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, although I'd assume it is discussed in some WWI-themed publications. In Polish, of course. The reviewers are probably right that we should deal with one-source issue for A+ class here. Hmmm, what do you think about Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? I forgot, but it does use mostly English sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One more authoritative source would be good, even if the source just backs up your two main authors on some of the main points. The lead needs to be longer for an article of that length and breadth; two more paragraphs hitting the main points of the article would do it. We can figure out the rest during the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oerip
Hi Dank, I was wondering if you could finish the review of Oerip Soemohardjo if you have the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working my way down the A-class articles as we speak, oldest to newest. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I just popped by the Prinzregent Luitpold article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hawking
Hi Dank - just wanted to drop by and see if you were happy with the changes I made in response to your comments at [] - it's starting to drop lower on the list and I'm getting a little nervous about getting completed reviews... :s Fayedizard (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked your changes and made tweaks. I've got a busy weekend, I'll come back to this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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] 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FAC prose question(s)
Hi Dan. I've got an article at FAC right now, and I was wondering if you could help me out with it. It's about a band, so probably far outside your normal area of activity or interest, but I was hoping you could give me some guidance on FA prose. I've always had some ambivalence on the "brilliant" descriptor. On the one hand, my understanding is that encyclopedic language has to stick to the facts, but on the other, we're not supposed to be dry lists of information. How much leeway is there for sprucing up the language and trying to join facts to form more of a narrative, without slipping into WP:SYNTH? If you have the time, perhaps you could give me a few notes on the type of language I should try rewriting. Thanks for any help. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SLASH (search for the slash) and WP:Checklist (Paris, France). Search for ",[3],". I got down to Success in America (1990–94). It seems well-written and cohesive to me, but there's no point in supporting, because there's a lot about what to do and not to do in popular culture FACs that I just don't know (and the delegates know it!). - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I definitely understand. That's a pretty handy checklist, by the way. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we spent a lot of time on it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

PC: the summer lull
Hey there. The process seems to have ground nearly to a halt. I've had off-wiki commitments and wasn't feeling well last week, so I'm sure I'm part of the problem. I've also been reluctant ever since you "unmuzzled" yourself to put too much time into it until at least one additional closer is on board. Concerning a potential closer, please see these two threads: 1 and 2. The latter in particular seems promising. It occurred to me also that expression of an opinion during past RfCs might not be a disqualifier as long as another closer had expressed the opposite opinion. I don't know if there's any precedent for such a thing, but uninvolved parties among the active admin corps seem to be few and far between. My other main concern right now is that there are too few people involved in what we're trying to do. We don't want vast hordes of contributors to descend, as they will at RfC time, but I wish there were a few more of us discussing it. Rivertorch (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, there's a lot of politics involved; in "political" RfCs, it never works to invite specific people to close, you just have to throw the doors open and let anyone in ... which The Blade and I have done 3 times at WP:AN now, with no takers. Agreed that there are too few people to make meaningful progress. I've been having a lot of conversations and making extensive notes; after I finish up my copyediting duties, I'll read through everything and make a proposal, then take feedback on board and start an RfC. I believe I can craft some RfC wording that will attract a few more helpful people to the discussion while keeping the "vast hordes" you're referring to at bay - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A possible way forward and timeline (involving "mini-RfCs" on specific points) occurred to me this morning. I probably should lay it out in detail at WT:PC2012 but would like to give it a little more thought first. As for closers, I'm painfully aware that there have been no takers. That was why I was looking for uninvolved parties who might be willing to "take". Not sure how you're defining "never works" and "invite". If you think I'm poisoning the well by asking them, I won't pursue it any further, but I don't see a great likelihood of eleventh-hour volunteers for the duty. As you've seen, I found one potential person (highly reluctant but theoretically willing). Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let me put it another way, and I'll say all this on my PC2012 subpage soon. I don't see any way to avoid some epic fights coming over various issues that involve Pending Changes to some degree. My advice: duck! (And if you don't want to duck, best of luck.) I'm working on trying to find areas of broad consensus before Pending Changes goes live again (when things will probably get worse, and effective negotiation and discussion will probably stop). - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cley Marshes
I'm planning to submit this as an FAC soon, just waiting for a book to arrive. I don't know if there is enough MilHist to interest your project (unless the awaited book adds more than I expect) but I'd be grateful if you could have a quick look at what there is to make sure I haven't done anything stupid. I'm aware, in particular, that with archaeology and history items I don't always link to the most appropriate articles. Thanks <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim, your articles are the kind of articles I had in mind for Milhist's new, above. Interested? (Understood that your abilities are far above the level of a typical "intern"; the term is in the Wikipedian tradition of keeping things lightweight and easy-going, and treating everyone the same, old and new.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That actually sounds quite interesting. I don't know how relevant it is with regard to this particular article, given the limited amount of data available, and the need to avoid too much detail in an article about a bird reserve. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have articles not tagged by Milhist going through our A-class review (on the theory that they represent part of what academic military historians actually wind up working on), then we need to make sure that the Milhist-y content in the article represents the balance desired by your project(s) and not by Milhist. I don't know how many of these nature (p)reserves you want to cover, but I think Milhisters will go along with an internship intended to cover WWI and WWII wreckage in (p)reserves along the British coast ... even if a few of those articles have very little to say about it. Of course, it's completely up to you how much or how little to do and how long to take ... we could say your internship is just one article, although I hope interns will realize that, in general, it takes an investment of time for a reviewer to get up to speed on the subject matter and preferences of another project, so reviewers are usually going to want to approve a list containing more than one article. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I haven't really looked much further than the current article, but I've half-heartedly working on North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest on and off for months. There is obviously a good deal of milhist in this extensive area, and I need some motivation to make me get on with it, perhaps that would be worthwhile? <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a barnstar after every successful internship; what more could you want? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've exhausted my sources now, so once I've checked with the other significant editor (this will probably be a co-nom) and polished the prose I'm likely to sent it to FAC. If you want to appoint a mentor, check for major milhist infelicities, or just decide that there isn't enough milhist to bother with, that's fine <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good, maybe we should intern with you :) Do you know a name or other identifier for the abandoned base mentioned in Cley_Marshes? Put it up at FAC whenever you're ready. I don't think Milhist people would be in favor of tagging this article, but we could certainly put it in a category of, say, British coastal bases in the Second World War, particularly if this article is the most complete or interesting description of that base in Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ce, that looks great. I did have a bit of a dilemma about separating out the milhist (unlike Titchwell Marsh, which became a reserve after WWII), but the thematic approach definitely reads better. There is no name given to the camp in anything I have read, although you would expect it to be named for the village. The guns were, predictably, manned by the Royal Artillery, so I've just added that. I also know that the destruction of the buildings was by the 250th Field Squadron RE (TA), but I thought that was too trivial to mention, what do you think? added just as Royal Engineers<b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC Request
Hey Dank. I was wondering if you could leave comments at Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1. You don't have to. Thanks, TBrandley 18:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil
Hi, Dank. Good to talk to you again. You changed from "...though not correctly speak" to "...but not speak". That doesn't mean the same anymore and your change does not reflect what the sources said. Because he couldn't speak English as good as he spoke Latin and French does not mean he did not speak English at all. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to see your work at FAC again, I'll respond there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

GetSimple CMS
GetSimple_CMS was deleted in 2010. I'd like to write a new article to be included - can you move the deleted version to my userspace or add it to my draft? New article will be focused on having notability and a NPOV. See info collection & checklist in my userspace: User:Jesus_Presley/GetSimple_CMS (partly german, sorry). Greets Jesus Presley (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx. Jesus Presley (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Disappointing ... perhaps reviewers will tell you what kind of material they want added for next time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791
At Piotrus request I'll be doing a major reworking of the references for this article (similar to what I did on the Stanisław Koniecpolski article), if you would copy any edits you make to the article over the next day or three to my sandbox it would make my life just the tiniest bit easier - thanks. --<font style="background:#c08000;color:#4840a0">The <font style="background:#4840a0;color:#c08000">frood <font style="background:#fff;color:#c08000"> talk 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to edit it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The nom has been archived. I intend to address all of your comments; you are welcome to continue your review - I will try to fix all I can. But I don't know where to find a copy editor other than the places I have already mentioned. I CAN try to fix specific issues when they are pointed out, like you did recently, however. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting the nom to be archived. I accept that copyediting isn't your job. I don't determine FAC standards, of course, all I can say is that the problem for me is, there has to be someone I can talk with who has some of the skills and a lot of the desire to get the prose up to FAC standards, someone who's making an effort and making progress over time; I can't take on the responsibility of pointing out every problem myself, not when there are stretches where every sentence has something that needs pointing out. If you can find someone who's willing to talk with me and work on the problems, I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked again. But what if nobody replies? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy FA?
I would like to start working to get this article to FA. I think its pretty close and it should be relatively easy to get it there. Can you offer any suggestions of what it might be lacking?Kumioko (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked about the citation text at WT:MIL. I'm actually not the best person to ask; I generally let my eyes glaze over if I'm not dealing with a copyediting issue, and I can fix any of those after it arrives at FAC. The A-class review looks solid to me. Let's see how it does at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ill drop a note there too. I started a Pre FA discussion on the article talk page with a few notes. It will surely expand but this gives me a starting point. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Kumioko (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've copyedited the lead. I've changed my mind; I think it's a little sparse for FAC ... it might pass, but I wouldn't try it. I assume since he died so young that you don't have a lot to add ... do you? - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the CE, not huge amount but I do have some more info. Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll either add a summary to the talk page or add it all wikified and pretty to the article, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All right thanks, I'll start working on it in the next couple days. Thanks again for the help. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil
Hi, Dank. Pedro I of Brazil is now a Featured Article. Everytime you reviewed an article nominated by me you did a fantastic job. I can only wonder how hard it is to review so many articles and take so much time to help the FAC section. You are always there helping many people. I really wish there were other editors like you. Thank you very, very much, --Lecen (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably you mean "more editors", rather than "other editors"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's true, there are quite a few helpful editors at FAC. Lecen, thanks, but I think your articles are passing because they're very readable and informative. Keep up the good work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1
You deleted WP:Featured article candidates/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1 which is fine, but I am wondering if I can get a copy of it. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 17:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, it's now at User:Obtund/Samsung. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You bet. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

SG3 at peer review
Hi Dank, I've listed Samsung Galaxy S III for peer review at Peer review/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1 as per your suggestion (or was it Nick-D's); feel free to comment on the article. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Basic policy list
Template:Basic policy list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented there. This was a template I created a long time ago that we wound up not using. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PC2012/RfC 1
You might notice that I created a new page. I'd like to get things moving again, and was thinking that perhaps this might be a way of doing it: ask a bunch of simple yes-no questions with further information available if people want to expand it. It's obviously in a roughest-of-drafts state right now, but could improve fairly quickly I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. As you know, I've started a thread over at WT:WikiProject Editor Retention, and one of the things I'm hoping for is to connect up with academics or WMF people who have already done some research in editor retention ... it may be that they already have a good idea what effect certain aspects of Pending Changes have had in the past, perhaps in other contexts. I'd like to nail this down before I personally participate in another RfC, but of course you're welcome to pursue any RfC at any time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll be watching that thread. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Umbricht
I know your the most active copy-editor in FAC, and I want to check if you want to make a stab copyediting this article, which I'm planning to take to FAC in possibly a month. Let me know. Thanks Secret account 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't do a lot of sports articles, so normally I'd say no ... but it's good to see you, and WT:USA has been discussing starting up an A-class process; possibly they'd be interested in this article. After it passes GAN, the next step would be to run it by someone who has a good eye for sports articles; possibly WT:USA can help us with that. If they say it's a go, I'll copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FAR vs TFA
Regarding the ArbCom case, to which you just posted: it's called "Featured article process" but that seems confusing, as some of the comments support already. The FAR process - reviewing of articles proposed for FA - works fine with many reviewers. The conflict happened because of the selection of TFA (Today's Featured Article) from the pool of already reviewed articles. Requests may be made at Today's featured article/requests, the question is what happens then. Br'er Rabbit gave a detailed account, I recommend to study it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, I will. Gruß. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please de-Reviewer me for a day?
Dank, I'd like to do a little experimenting at the pending changes test page, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to remove my "Reviewer" right for a day or so. More details on what I'm investigating here. Basically I want to see if I can accept/reject pending changes with just a simple old "autoconfirmed" status. As a side note, do you know where I could find a screenshot of what it looks like for an admin when they're protecting an article? How do you configure what kind of protection goes on the article? Are there check boxes or something? Thanks, ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Pending changes doesn't show up in the protection options (it's a scrollbox). - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've learned what I wanted to learn and I'm ready to get "Reviewered" again. As a side note, if PC doesn't show up as an option, how is it that admins are still able to protect and unprotect articles with PC? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What Dank met is that it's in a separate scrollbox headlined by "Pending changes (?) (do not use on articles per RFC result)". Also you now have your right back. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also given you rollback, as you're a trusted user. Don't break anything. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. I'll try not to break anything, and I'll probably disable the rollback from showing up on my watchlist since I often check it from an ipod, and I don't want to risk accidentally hitting rollback on that little screen. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

United States A-Class process
Greetings Dank, I wanted to let you know that I have been giving your suggestion about an A-Class review process for WPUS a lot of thought and although I agree its a good idea and it could work, I'm just not the right person for the job. I think in order for this to work (which also applies to most other leadership/oversight type roles) it needs someone with the admin tools, that has the respect and support of the community and the drive to see it through. Unfortunately I don't have any of the above at the moment.

I am continuing to edit for the WPUS project as a normal editor and will continue doing that to some degree for the foreseeable future. I no longer consider myself the coordinator for the project(s), I long ago stopped the project newsletter and the collaboration of the month.

After my RFA failure I came to realize that I just don't have the right qualities (for lack of a better word) to continue to do these tasks. Frankly, after seeing the comments in the RFA, I think that my involvement in such a thing would likely torpedo the endeavor from the start. Every effort I have put forth has largely been a failure and has frequently been taken out of context as a hostile takeover of WikiProject's or some other silliness. I really hope it works out though. Good luck. Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and if you guys need help with a project, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After 10 days only a couple folks have commented so it doesn't look like there is enough support for it right now but I still think its a great idea. A few months ago I would have done it without hesitation. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
Our discussion above seems to have fallen into something of a hiatus, but it at least inspired me to get on with this. There's lots of milhist in the SSS1, including an iron age fort, a Roman naval base, and 20th century defences. With WWII, I've concentrated on the main sites, since the whole coast is littered with barbed wire, scaffolding, fence posts and other debris of war, and the value of the SSSI is primarily its wildlife, not its history. I also wanted to avoid the WWII section becoming listy, overlength or more than usually boring.

There's a long way to go yet, I need to write a proper lead, and I've not even started on tidying the prose and refs, but I was just wondering if I could impose on your goodwill again. It would be helpful if you or one of your colleagues could keep a watching brief for the usual stuff &mdash; misdirect links, errors of fact, or just overlooking a major site. On the latter point, the SSSI is basically the northern coastal marshes excluding the towns and villages. I know there were bases on the cliffs at Hunstanton and Weybourne, inland from the A149, and further round the coast, but they are outside my remit.

Thanks again for your patience, and any help you feel able to give. Incidentally, Military history of the Norfolk coast would make a great FA &mdash; but one step too far for me. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great Jim. We could tackle "misdirect links, errors of fact, or just overlooking a major site" at your choice of peer review or A-class; I'll copyedit the history section now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ce and notes, I'll probably number centuries, since the four in a row for the Blakeney Chapel habitation will be very clumsy in words. Having no milhist background, I'm not sure what the problem with "bases" is, I'd be interested in feedback on that. I'll work on your suggestions and try to get the lead and prose up to scratch, and then I'll do as you say and go for PR or A. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I was wondering whether to change the section order &mdash; the SSSI designation is for the wildlife, not the military stuff, so perhaps the fauna and flora should precede the history? On the Titchwell and Cley articles it didn't matter because is was a short section that could be seen as building up to the development of the reserve, here it's a major section which precedes the animals and plants that make it an SSSI. What do you think? <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference on the order. Let's ask about "bases" during the review ... I see Milhisters object to the word sometimes. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please sign posts
Please sign your posts at Arbitration/Requests/Case -- the lack of date time stamps makes the chronology difficult to follow. Nobody Ent 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go fill in the times. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal
A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Please join in.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Videos
Hi Dank - I've unwatchlisted anything related to pending changes, now that I've discovered administrators are already applying it to articles. I've always known this would turn out to be a fait accompli, and that it would be the Wild West, but I still appreciate the time you've taken in trying to facilitate the discussions. However, since I've unwatchlisted those pages, I won't see your comments about the Wikimania videos. When you've posted your thoughts, would you be kind enough to drop a link on my talk page? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. Risker (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be happy to ... when the conversation gets going over at WT:MIL, I'll point you there, but I can already say that the main thing I got from the videos was that we haven't done a good job understanding what the most productive new people want or need. I'm concerned that Pending Changes may exacerbate that (although, if we give out the userright more freely and don't take it away, it's always possible that newcomers would see that as a sign of trust ... hm). I really hope someone will measure the impact on newbie retention. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect you are right. Have you read this research on newbies?  Risker (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that, I'll read it tomorrow morning and reply here, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main thing I got from that was the "calcification" of policies and procedures roughly in 2007. It seemed like thorough research, with useful links. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

TFAR
Hey Dank .. I don't know if you remember me .. but I saw your post to TFAR. I'm more than willing to share my thoughts .. but I'm hesitant to be blunt on wiki. I'd be happy to speak my mind personally, but it's up to you if you'd like to listen to an email. — Ched : ?  08:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh of course Ched, you know what you're talking about, lay it on me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have company this weekend, but I'll get something out to you tomorrow night. (East coast USA) — Ched :  ?  21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Norman Frederick Hastings
Dank, thanks for your offer of reviewing Norman Frederick Hastings. I'm not sure if it is up to A-Class as it may need more information, but this is all I have been able to find over the last few years of research, and so hope it will be accepted. I'm also working on other articles, but am interested to see how this goes in an ACR. Any feedback and assitance you can provide is greatly appreciated. PunkyNZ talk
 * G'day, Dan, my comments on this article's ACR have been addressed. When you get a chance, would you mind running your copy editor's eye over it? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, doing it now. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * I think that's actually the first time anyone has responded to things from various places in my userspace ... thanks for taking the tour, and for the beautiful barnstar. Herzlichen Dank. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

MILHIST co-ord election
Yes, thank you Dank, I shall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dank. It's a kind thought, but I suspect I am going to be very busy for the forseeable future - I haven't managed to write an article for months! When I was nominally a coord last year, I managed to get very little actual work done despite a much less involved job at the time, so I don't think I'd be able to contribute much. Best of luck finding volunteers, though!
 * Relatedly, though, if there's anything I can do to help the project from the BL side of things, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, I hope we'll get a collaboration going with the British Library soon. Thanks for your help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hurrah :-) The WWI event we hosted here got a really good response from the academics, and it'd be good to follow that up at some point (here or elsewhere). We're also working on a large collection of material (books and images) for the Europeana 1914-1918 program, and I'll be trying to get that disseminated out to WP as soon as it's available, though that may not be for a few months. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Luftwaffe
I posted this here as you are the Lead coordinator at this time for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There is a discussion going on at the talk page linked above with a proposal that History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) be merged into Luftwaffe. Then having the post-1956 air force split from the Luftwaffe into its own article, German Air Force. I would ask that you consider reviewing the discussion. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw the notification at WT:MIL. I do a lot of copyediting; my skills aren't particularly relevant to that question. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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] 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oerip Soemohardjo
Hi Dank, Malleus made a pretty interesting comment at the article's FAC. I was wondering if you could give the article another quick once-over to see if we missed anything else that was as blatant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Rupert has done that. Also, Malleus apparently won't oppose. Best of luck. I've been enjoying our weekly collaboration, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Weekly collaboration? Signpost? If so, I agree. Its good to have more editors looking over it before publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)