User talk:Dank/Archive 28

Milhist review
Cley Marshes has three supports at FAC, so if there are no opposes I would expect it to go through fairly soon. North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest has had two useful reviews, but neither reviewer has felt able to go further with a crossover article. When/if the Cley article finishes at FAC, I'm tempted to thank the reviewers, pull the Cley article from the milhist assessment and take it to FAC. Is there a procedure to do this? Thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, just nominate it at FAC, and ping me. The solution I'd like to see long-term is to attract reviewers who feel comfortable supporting this article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

MilHist's awards and competitions in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's various awards, competitions, and other ways of motivating contributors. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea for your column. I'll keep an eye on the responses you get from your invitation at WT:MIL, and jump in if things are slow. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We could use your two cents over at the interview page. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

 * My pleasure, it's a great article on a great scientist. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
Now at FAC, could you please do whatever needs to be done at A review? Thanks again,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

 * Sure thing ... great work, let's do it again next week! - Dank (push to talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Holkham National Nature Reserve
Thanks for the SSSI ce and review. Meanwhile, back in Norfolk... My usual source for milhist in the SSSI has let me down at Holkham, revealing only the Iron Age fort and some WWII scaffolding (whatever that means &mdash; barbed wire etc?). However, the reserve guide says that "Unexploded bombs and live ammunition" are still occasionally found throughout the Reserve. A quick Google casts no light on this. Any suggestions of sources that may be available to a non-specialist, or do you think I should just say what the guide says without further elaboration?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My call would be not to tag for Milhist and not to mention any of that; generally, people wouldn't consider it significant. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling too, I know the fields were farmed in WWII, so I suspect that there was just basic beach defences (pretty easy here since you have to cross offshore banks or salt marsh to get to the actual beach), and that the shells and bombs came from the bombing practice runs on Scolt Head Island. Just checking that I hadn't overlooked something major  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

PC/2 and a third option
Hey. Honestly, I think the (qualified) yea or nay on PC/2 would have been easier to come by if the general scope of PC had been determined first. You advised me to hold my (dead) horses for a week, then struck that (???), and now we're faced with a situation where if the numbers hold up the first RfC will end in deadlock, with persuasive arguments as well as even numbers on both sides of the divide. The common thread I'm seeing among supporters and opposers is concern that PC/2 has the potential to cause harm if applied in certain cases or without strict safeguards. The stringent criteria I proposed earlier might be a starting point for coming up with those safeguards and hammering out a compromise, although I don't foresee many opposers changing their minds on this point. I haven't decided yet how to !vote—or even if I will—but may I suggest that you go ahead and state any concrete ideas you have about a third option?

Btw, over the past couple weeks I have checked out all of the Wikimania videos and watched several in their entirety. Very interesting in places, including the editor engagement presentation you linked to earlier today, but I'm a little surprised at never hearing the phrase "pending changes" in all the hours of uploads I've watched. Frankly, there's something elephant-in-the-room-ish about the WMF discussing barnstars and tea houses and antiquated GUIs vis-à-vis engaging newbies while something with the potential to drive newbies away en masse waits in the wings. Rivertorch (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do feel free to propose your criteria at the RfC ... or not, it looks like you won't miss anything if you hold off, this question will be around for a while. The WMF is sitting out Pending Changes ... and now I know they were all a lot wiser than I was :) I'm happy with how the RfC is going, because we're learning about the supporters' goals and the opposers' concerns. Hopefully, this RfC is only putting off discussion of the more important questions by a week ... not a high price to pay, considering the quality of the information we're getting. I don't want to say more on a talk page; while the RfC is going on, I'd prefer to keep discussion there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for message on talk page Tom B (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You bet, thanks for voting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Meta discussion
Can I suggest that we not do a comparison with the previous RfC? There are a number of people who complained loudly about the previous format, but frankly, I saw plenty of responses to each others comments (just not in a threaded manner, until near the end of the RfC period) and I can't imagine anyone didn't get a chance to say whatever they wanted to say. As I mentioned previously, it was also a lot easier to follow, with new comments being added to a limited number of places. It doesn't seem useful to stir the pot with a "my RfC is better than yours" discussion, especially since it doesn't really matter while in mid-discussion. (A post-mortem afterwards might be better, but since the scope of participants (at least at the moment) is quite different, I'm not sure clear conclusions can be drawn.) isaacl (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the proper reaction to DGG's comments, do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this comment? If I understand correctly, DGG is concerned that some may already be assuming that pending changes level 2 protection is desired, given the right set of instructions for its use. Again, if we can first understand if the scenarios PC/2 would best address are even worth resolving (do we really have a problem with auto-confirmed editors providing input for fully-protected articles and templates?), if we think we will have a sufficiently large pool of active reviewers to deal with more articles under pending changes protection, or if we feel more experience with one new protection level would be better before introducing another protection level, then I think the question of whether or not pending changes level 2 is desirable at this time can be more easily dealt with.

The WikiProject Barnstar
Dank,

Re: The WikiProject Barnstar

I appreciate the Barnstar. Being a Coordinator at WikiProject Military History has been a highlight of my Wikipedia contribution. Any help you need in the future just ask. Adamdaley (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, Adam. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! quick question
Hi Dank, I saw you're the lead coordinator for the Military History Wikiproject and I had a quick question I hoped you could help me with. I wasn't sure where to ask in the wikiproject but here goes... I noticed that the Jason D. Cunningham and Neil Roberts wikipages were deleted per WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ONEEVENT. I noticed the article on Monica Lin Brown fails those same criteria and more since she only received a Silver Star for one event. Jason even received a more notable award, the Air Force Cross, and had a more developed wikipage but also just for one event. Wouldn't her page also go up for AfD for the exact same reasons? Anywho, thank you for any assistance you can provide. dain  talk   17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that other members of the project participated in the deletion discussion, so let's ask them. I've reposted this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dank! I appreciate the help.  dain   talk   19:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pointer
Village_pump_(idea_lab) sounds like it might interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a big step forward if the community became more comfortable with statistics and pattern matching tools to make us more efficient at some things. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 11:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Archived link is WP:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_9. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Desha
Hey, friend. I noticed that my ACR for Joseph Desha was closed before you finished reviewing it. Please go ahead and finish your review, leaving comments on the article talk page or my talk page. FAC is the next stop for Desha, and I'll take all the feedback I can get before it goes there. I still have to wait for my current FAC, Constitution Square State Historic Site, to get enough reviews anyway, so you have time. Thanks. I always appreciate your reviews. I'll also be listing John Adair at ACR later today. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey AC, I'm still copyediting as we speak, almost to the point 2/3 of the way, where I'll stop. I'll pick it up again at FAC. Well done! - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Will certainly look forward to your comments at FAC then. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now at FAC if you'd like to comment and/or !vote. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries
Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill [talk] 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Karyn has left the Wikimedia Foundation. I will, however, make sure that she sees your note. Just wanted you to know for future reference, and so you weren't waiting for a reply from her. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, Philippe! - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In honour of your service as a Milhist coordinator

 * Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Mysterytrey 19:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oi, I saw that Wikiquete closed, saw the summary, but couldn't edit the user's talk, so

 * OK I'm anal, but please do fix the summary on the Wikiquette closure to replace multiple instances of "it's" with the correct "its", and please do tell the closing person (DeltaQuad) to buy him/herself a grammar book for Christmas. I'm sure you'll ignore this 'cause I'm currently IP and you weren't directly involved (you were the last person to edit that user's talk), but is it really necessary for Wikipedia to look like the hangout of the grammar-challenged? Please do overlook my IP status etc. Tks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.72.227.2 (talk • contribs)
 * The only downside to editing as an IP, at least when you're talking with me, is that I (and some others) would rather not reply on your talk page, since there's no knowing if that IP address is "dynamic". I've asked DQ on his talk page if he minds if I make the edits you're asking for. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Count of Porto Alegre
Dank, I was told that you were reviewing Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. Thanks a lot. I just wanted to clarifying this: you changed "...the inhabitants of Rio Grande do Sul led lives as merchants, farmers or ranchers on one hand, and on the other served as soldiers or militiamen" to "...farmers or ranchers, and also sometimes served as soldiers or militiamen". It was not sometimes, it was always. It was a double life. Take the case of the Count: he ws both a farmer and a military officer. The great landowners were at least high ranking officers of the National Guard, if not of the Army. Their employees were both servants and soldiers. Of course not every single male adult lived like that. Some could live as medics or lawyers in towns, but for most men, the life was like I mentioned earlier. --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think how we say it depends on just how much of the time they were marching and fighting ... was it more than half the time? - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell. In the 19th century there were wars in 1801, 1811-12, 1816-21, 1822-24, 1825-28, 1835-45, 1851-52, and 1864-70. --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You must also remember that these men did not fight only in wars. They were used to protect cattle from bandits as well as henchmen to commit fraud and violence during elections, also to attack the lands of other landlords, etc... That's why they carried a double life. It was not "sometimes". --Lecen (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to "often". Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You´re welcome! --Lecen (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is already a link to brevet in "On 29 March 1829, Marques de Sousa was made brevet (acting) major, and on 28 August 1830...". That's on section "Secessionist threat". You added another wikilink to brevet a section later ("Province pacification"): "He was brevetted lieutenant colonel on 20 August 1838..." Was this a mistake of yours because you weren't aware that there was already a wikilink to it or did you believe that a second wikilink was needed? --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed the first link, you're right. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * May I remove the second link, then? --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'm supporting; best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Help
I just read your comment on PC on GorillaWarfare's page (you posted a month ago). After troubling people with my silly questions, I thought I might get to know something more from you. I held a discussion with Kudpung HERE and then with GorillaWarfare HERE.

I actually want to know whats going to happen next with PC? Will some trial begin or will there be an RfC? BTW, I am a great supporter of PC as you would interpret from my discussions with others above. Please make me understand why was PC closed( RfC 2012 ) with 61% position #2 support. Thanks for reading. Harsh (talk)  18:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two levels to Pending Changes. We just closed the RfC on Level 2 (see "News and Notes" in today's Signpost), and I'm going to be concentrating over the coming months on dealing with the problems that Level 2 is designed to handle; the next RfC on Level 2 is six to nine months away. Since you said "so much better than semi-protection", I think you're more interested in Level 1, and you may want to post a message for the people putting together the RfC on Level 1, which will be going live soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just what I was looking for. Harsh (talk)  18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a little curious whats your position regarding PC. Harsh (talk)  18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against Level 2, and I gave some reasons for that in the recent RfC. Concerning Level 1: I think Wikipedia works best when people are allowed to do what they want to do, as long as they're not totally screwing things up. If it turns out that a bunch of people want to help IPs and new accounts get started editing, and they think a new tool and a new hat to wear will help them do that, then I'm all for that ... unless they screw it up completely, in which case I'm against :) We'll just have to see. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What if all the pages that are currently under semi-protection become PC protected? And why not merge the rights of reviewers with rollbackers, since both these classes of users understand vandalism and then they can protect the pages they are concerned with or have knowledge about... Harsh (talk)  18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not discuss details of PC/1 until the upcoming RfC has been closed. I know this logic is a little circular but ... PC/1 should be whatever the community wants it to be, whatever they're going to actually support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help Harsh  (talk)  18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Signpost highlighting robotics project
Hi

In a last ditch effort to invigorate the project I asked that we be reconsidered for Signpost, and I was wondering if you could entertain answering one or two (or more?) questions on the signpost interview for the late September issue? Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2

I realise there is less traffic through the project recently, but with new members at a rate of 4 per year and not much seemingly going on, there has been a lack of opportunity for people to actually do much for the project. I have brought a lot of things up-to-date, including the ??? assessed articles and tidied up some things as well (portal, assessments rules, running every robotics page through AWB etc.) and putting "work needed" on more urgent stuff. I am hoping to get some interest going in an assessment drive for November and would appreciate any help whatsoever in revitalising the project. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a lot with WP:ROBO in my first year on Wikipedia, but not much since then, so I'd rather not represent myself as a project member ... at the moment. I do have plans to write some articles on military robotics, but I'm not sure how soon I can get to that. This year, hopefully. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

La Coupole FAC
I've posted an update regarding the sourcing issue you raised - please take a look at La Coupole and let me know on Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 if this resolves your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll have a look (and I always watchlist FACs where I've commented). - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke
Firstly; thanks again for all your advice & copy editing. I've learned lots of tips and tricks for the next articles :D Also.. In this edit you changed LESSONS to Lessons. That's actually a quote from something Clarke wrote, and the caps is his emphasis. WP:ALLCAPS has no advice for such a situation. I was wondering if we a) need to note it has been changed or b) make the emphasis in some other way (italics). --Errant (chat!) 09:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Six of the seven bullet points in ALLCAPS apply to quotes (but not to acronyms and initialisms, such as ALLCAPS!). It's standard advice in style and usage guides to reduce full-caps silently, although I can't put my finger on a cite for you at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I met H J Mitchell on some Wikimedia UK business the other day and he prompted me to nominate Clarke for an A-Class review. Graham wouldn't let me put it straight back up to FAC (fair enough) due to the volume of outstanding reviews. Just thought you might be interested! --Errant (chat!) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Military history assessment
Can this article be assessed under the project?  TheSpecialUser TSU 17:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can do events that reflect causes or effects of organized armed conflict, but not murders, riots, etc. My guess is we can't tag that article unless there's a strong tie to some conflict, but I'll ask around and report back here. Btw, thanks so much for your vote, it feels good to have my work appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusion
Dan, please see my reply to you on my Talk Page. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great news, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Biography in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Biography for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
In recognition of your election as co-lead co-ordinator of the Military history project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Thank you for standing again and I hope it will be another fruitful year for the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gratz to you too. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, Dan -- and great to catch up in DC the other day! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was fun, Ian ... how's Hawaii? - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hot and sunny -- like DC actually, only more so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hi, Dank. Hope you're having a nice weekend. I think PC2012/RfC_2 is about ready to get underway. I'm suddenly finding myself a bit confused over protocol—never done a project-space RfC before—and am wondering if I need to put a notice at Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines; I can't tell if you did that for the last one, since everything there seems to be generated by a form. Also, I know you have other fish to fry at present, but I'm sort of hoping that even if you're too busy to keep a close eye you'd be available with your mop in the unlikely event that anything unexpected happens and we need move protection or something weird like that. I'm not sure any admins other than Blade are watching the page at all. Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC bot will create that notice automatically, and will copy from the beginning of the page to the first timestamp. Sure, I'll look in from time to time, and ping me if admin help is needed ... I'll either do it myself or post a notice at WP:AN, depending on whether it feels like something I'm "involved" in or not. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't know why this is giving me the heebie-jeebies. . . . Rivertorch (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're doing great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just broke the Internet. (Thought I was in a sandbox . . . grrr.) Trying to get a notice up at WP:CD seems to be defeating me at the moment. I guess it can wait a few hours. I need a mini-Wikibreak. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I put up the notice at WP:CENT. I'll add a notice at NaN in the Signpost, too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did notify The Signpost. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/H-58 (Michigan county highway)/archive1‎
Hi Dank, would you be able to comment on the use of the word 'home' as applied to the location of a bar and a lumbermill in this nomination? I think that it sounds odd to use this in the context of things which don't move, but the nominator states (with a reference) that it's OK American English. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good news
Well, Dank, I have some good news to share. Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre is now a FA. As always, you helped us a lot by taking your free time to review an article of ours. You're quite used to know that I'm really grateful for that. Thank you! --Lecen (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get tired of hearing it ... thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks for getting the awards out, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Thanks for all the reviewing you've been doing! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)
G'day, Dan, are you okay if I list this ACR for closing? It has three supports and has been open since 18 August, so its probably due. Please let me know what you want to do. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We Can Do It! now FA
Thanks for your review of the prose at Featured article candidates/We Can Do It!/archive1. The article earned FA status today. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We Did It! - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Request:
Hey Dan. I read a post from NYB that got me thinking ... (here), and when I thought about a short list of people I'd trust in a role at Arbcom - your name came to mind. I like it if you would consider it. You're an honest person, a good person .. and I think your voice would be very much valued. Think about it? —  Ched ZILLA  02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very kind, Ched, but my position is that Wikipedia ... and most of us ... would be better off with less attention paid to behavioral issues. I'm happy some people, like Kirill, are so dedicated to it and competent at it, but it wouldn't be a good fit for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar question
So, in Upper Peninsula miners strike of 1865, should it actually be "miner strike" or "miner's strike"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per this gsearch, Wikipedia seems to consistently go with "miners' strike". - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dank. Tony   (talk)  06:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. Fair use GIF files
Hey Dank, I was wondering if your knowledge of copyright policies would be sufficient to help me out here.

OK, so basically I want to upload a short segment from a film as a GIF file. The reason I'm doing this is because the clip I'm planning to use demonstrates a techical effect that the specific film pioneered. Obviously it would fall under fair use, but I do think the rationale would be sufficient. Perhaps I am mistaken? On another note, as of the article's present state, it would be one of only two fair use images used, the other being the movie's official artwork in the intro section.

Conversely, would there be any issues if I uploaded an actual video file demonstrating that effect instead? Would it have to be muted? Are there any limitations on the use of such multimedia?

Thanks in advance. =)

-Master&Expert, now known as Kurtis (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kurtis, I don't know much about video and Fair Use. Maybe try your question at WT:NFC? - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the limitations are that it has to be short, relatively small (in pixels), and for a very specific purpose&mdash;so, like you're proposing, a technical effect would be applicable. To bolster your NFC argument, I would say that in the image caption with a citation. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks Ed. =) Kurtis (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/RfC_3
Your input is requested regarding pending changes RfCs. It seems I may have jumped the gun and we are sorting out where to go from here. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD
Hi Dank! How are you? I need your input on my article for João Dorminsky that was flagged for deletion soon afterwards. Could you help me here? Since I'm new, I'm a bit stressed out so I apologize. Thanks in advance! :) Upir3 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I work mainly with usernames, and there's nothing wrong with your username. I've asked a Brazilian editor I work with a lot to come comment ... even if this particular page fails WP:MUSICBIO, I hope you'll stick around and work on other articles. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your page has been included at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Portugal; that's probably the best way to alert Portuguese editors interested in deletion issues. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)