User talk:Dank/Archive 33

Main Page appearance: Manhattan Project
This is a note to let the main editors of Manhattan Project know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 16, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Manhattan Project was a research and development project that produced the first atomic bombs during World War II. It was led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and Canada. From 1942 to 1946, the project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers. It began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (the equivalent of about $26 billion now). Although it operated under a tight blanket of security, it was penetrated by Soviet atomic spies. The first device ever detonated was an implosion-type nuclear weapon in the Trinity test (pictured), conducted at New Mexico's Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range on 16 July 1945. Project personnel participated in the Alsos Mission in Europe, and in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war the Manhattan Project conducted weapons testing in Operation Crossroads, developed new weapons, established the network of national laboratories, supported medical research into radiology and laid the foundations for a nuclear navy. It was replaced by the Atomic Energy Commssion and the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project in 1947. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

New RfC
Jc and Oliver: I want to get to work on preparing a new RfC designed to deal with the problem that we're losing active admins faster than we're making new ones ... so the new RfC may or may not deal with tool use in general. Wikipedians seem to me to react to PC2 as if it's some kind of tool, so PC2 may or may not be part of the discussion. Are either of you interested in being closers in the new RfC? Would you like for me to put off even discussion about a new RfC until you two are ready to say something about the PC2 RfC? - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm usually happy to help out. And though I've commented about adminship in various ways, I don't think I have concerning admin loss/retention.
 * So anyway, if I'm around, just drop me a note : )
 * Though, as always, if others would rather be closers, I'll happily step aside : ) - jc37 20:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. People have been batting around a "desysopping" RfC ... if that happens, I'll wait till it's finished. In the meantime, since you've been stranded with the PC2 RfC job, I'll be happy to help with tallies or other data collection, just holler if you need help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Things to bear in  mind are that  in  order to  have any  success -  or at least  a decent  quorum - the RfC should be well  publicised. BTW: There haven't  been any more recent  comments on  user:Kudpung/sandbox, so  I  may  be going  ahead with  it soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
Since you are a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!‎, I am informing you that Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

new articles
I have recently started three articles than will be of interest to the military editors: American Civil War prison camps, International relations (1814-1919), Diplomatic history of World War II -- is there a way I can ask the Military Project editors for help & suggestions? Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, Dr. Jensen. Any objections to putting them through peer review after I do a bit of copyediting? - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first one would benefit from peer review, I think, if people are willing to focus on the text and fill in the table as we go. The lead section of the second article needs to make the case that that particular time frame is treated as special, coherent and cohesive by historians in general (and it's my uninformed belief that it is, more or less), and the lead needs to support that contention. I think what you're seeing on the talk page of the third article is the tip of the iceberg ... it's possible that people will react to the article by rehashing and refighting discussions from the linked articles, and if so, it might be a better use of everyone's time to continue to deal with these WPian conflicts in the existing articles, rather than on a new battlefield. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC) One option would be to follow the linked articles more closely, both in content and sourcing. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think peer review for Civil War prisons = good idea. The other two are designed to make sense of a large number of historical events that are now not related to each other in Wikipedia.  The WW2 diplomacy for example covers only a few years but it includes all major countries and shows how they interacted. (How they interacted overall in combat is very well covered in World War II, the military overview--which no one suggests be dropped.)  Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any advice on those. I'll be happy to help with a prose review if they show up in any of the Milhist review processes. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
Dank, Uruguayan War was promoted. This time the nomination was easy and effortless. Yet, as always, you were available and willing to review an entire article. It's good to know that we still ave editors like you around. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, Lecen. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure

 * WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Closure (edit) and pasted to the rfc here. - jc37 00:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I know that's a lot of work. Do you have any preference for what the next RfC covers, or whether closers should be involved at any point? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you are looking for what the rfc should cover, just look to what your fellow Wikipedians said in this rfc. Questions of venue for requesting, of how limited/widespread we should expect the usage, and so on. But obviously, no, I don't have a preference save one. (Which I already noted : ) - admin-granted tools are so lacking in follow-up oversight, which to me is rather ridiculous. ("here you go, go play, and I'll forget I ever gave this to you".) But without some community consensus/action, this attitude won't be changing anytime soon... - jc37 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And btw ... I agree, I thought your close was the only possible close. There wasn't a clear statement in the RfC about what was proposed, so it was impossible to interpret the supports and opposes unless the voters were quite specific. A new RfC is needed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I won't say it wasn't a fair amount of work : )
 * And actually, I thought that many of the commenters/contributors were pretty specific. And it was nice to see (with only a few exceptions), the positive "tone". Discussion can get heated, but still be collegiate/respectful. And I thought that was fairly exemplified here. But nod, the community was fairly clear that they wanted criteria for usage. - jc37 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service FAC
Hi Dank, if you a) have time, and b) aren't sick of articles on antipodean military aircraft, I'd really appreciate it if you could post a review at Featured article candidates/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service/archive1. Please feel free to post that the article isn't up to scratch if that's your assessment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Nick. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit request
I would appreciate it if you could do a thorough copyedit on HMS Warrior (1860) whenever you have the time. I need to expand the restoration and subsequent sections, so you don't need to do them just yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really slammed with work right now, it would probably be best to find someone else. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

 * Thanks much for doing these. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I have revamped the lead section. King Jakob  C2 01:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of interest
Since you participated in the review of Tadeusz Kościuszko for GA and/or A-classes, you may be interested in Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 (at this point there are few substantial comments there, and the article is likely to be failed due to lack of community's interest). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cdtew is now supporting, and he checks prose, so I don't think another prose review is needed. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Still interested in nominating Stanley Marcus for FA?
I'm still interested in at least finding out where the article would fall (i.e., if it didn't make it, where the gaps would be so I could fix them). You had offered some years back to give it a look-see beforehand, which I would appreciate. I still have yet to find a usable image of Mr. Marcus himself -- i.e., one that does not have copyrighted status precluding the terms necessary for WP images -- apart from the book cover that appears in the lower section of the page, which must stay in the context of discussing the book in order to be a fair-use image. A couple of years ago, I did have a brief correspondence with a relative -- a niece of his, as I recall -- who might be able to supply one; the messages petered out, probably on my end rather than hers. Let me know what you think. Lawikitejana (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I've skimmed the article, and I don't have a good feel for what it needs to pass FAC. You might try to generate discussion at a suitable wikiproject first, then go straight to FAC, since it's already gone through Peer Review and GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for a favour
G'day, Dan, I'm thinking about taking 15th Battalion (Australia) to A-class review. Before I do, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look and letting me know how much prose work you think might be necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a namesake!
Thought you'd be amused by this: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/80117/dank-dashes-to-victory-in-beverly-d     Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder where they got the name for her? - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * More here: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/dank-gb/2009?source=BHonline Possibly the name is some sort of amalgam of her sire Dansili (and her dam, Masskana (horse names are often a blend of sire and dam names).  British horse, maybe Tigerboy1966 can tell you!   Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi
Dan, I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at Featured article candidates/Enrico Fermi/archive1. One of the reviewers wants a copyeditor. (Sigh)

Are you related to Stephen Dank?
 * My last name starts with "K". I'm starting my FAC break on Sept 1, but I'll be happy to ask Cryptic if there's anything I can do that will help. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  openness, patience, receptivity

Thank you for following Rilke, asking good questions, for quality reviewing of FAs such as Pedro I of Brazil, for liking "a willingness to do and say unpopular things and the ability to get away with it", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 May 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 226th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Gerda, you are pretty awesome yourself. Is anything other than the one-year anniversary prompting this? - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)