User talk:Dank/Archive 35

Melbourne Castle 2
The A-class review here currently has two supports, including yours, and Hchc2009 has reviewed, though not yet supported or opposed. This suggests that the article is at about the right standard after the suggested improvements. Things at A-class review have gone a bit quiet, and my last nom at FAC has just been promoted, so I could withdraw from A-class, thanks the reviewers and go straight for FAC. However, for all I know this may be an unspeakable breach of etiquette. I'd welcome your advice on how to proceed. Thanks,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. If you've got time to devote to FAC now, nom it and ask on the A-class page for the review to be closed. The only cost is: if for some reason it doesn't pass FAC, then you won't have an A-class article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I see the article is start class, so I wouldn't advise pulling it ... FAC reviewers usually want to see that some kind of review has already happened. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In practice, my FACs often go forward as start class, since GA is too backlogged to use unless I'm working in an unfamiliar area, and no previous articles have been proper milhist. European Storm Petrel, which was promoted this morning, is still marked as "start class" until the bot gets to work. I do a fair amount of reviewing at FAC, so I tend to get enough reviewers (famous last words). I'll sort it out in the morning. Thanks for your advice and the review  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having said that, it's now got four supports and I'm tempted to stick it out. Can you give me any idea of the level of support and timescale for A-class (I assume that, like FAC, there are guidelines rather than hard-and-fast criteria)? Thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will probably be less than 24 hours, Anotherclown has already listed it for closure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you were spot-on.Thanks again for your help in getting Melbourne Castle to A-class. Just to let you know I've entered it at FAC.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Military picture of Jimi Hendrix
Hey, Dank. I've been working on the Jimi Hendrix article for about a year now and I think it's almost ready for FAC. Hendrix served 13 months in the Army, with the 101st Airborne while stationed at Fort Campbell Kentucky (May 1961–June 1962). I know there are several pictures of him in uniform, but I cannot seem to locate one that I can be sure is a PD military image. Can you provide any assistance or advice? Thanks! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any suitable images; maybe a talk page stalker can help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of any Army archives in which I might find a PD image? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Commercial editing discussion
You may be aware of the current discussions regarding conflicts of interest with paid editors. (See Template:Paid Editing Parallel Proposals for a list of the current proposals under discussion.) One of the proposals, WP:Paid editing policy proposal, has been refined a couple of times, but unfortunately in a way that split the conversation across multiple talk pages, which has caused dissension, as can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing. Would you be interested in leading a discussion, similar to how you led the discussion in WP:RFA2013, to build a consensus view on any new guidelines or policies that the community would like to enact on this topic? isaacl (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, I appreciate it. I voted in one of those polls, and gave a rationale, so I can't serve in any kind of "neutral" capacity. What would you like to see happen with those discussions? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I didn't recall your previous participation... I believe someone needs to guide the discussion, devise a format for collecting feedback, line up closers to analyze the feedback and possible options, set up followup discussions on specific options, and line up closers to analyze those discussions. Basically, I think someone needs to take on the same type of role you fulfilled for WP:RFA2013. It will mean patience from all involved, but hopefully it will be realized that this is always required when building a consensus within a large group. Personally, as you have not been highly involved, I think you may still be a good candidate to help move things forward. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes, thanks so much for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know things were getting out of hand. I've removed my one vote ("oppose with the possibility of supporting"). I'm going to invite a discussion over at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just closed one vote, and I'll close another tomorrow unless there are objections. I'll ask where people want to go from here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why you posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, but I appreciate your willingness to be involved in trying to build a consensus view regarding conflicts of interest with paid editors. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are generally clueful and I trust them. - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Copying the post I just made to WP:AN: This is just a heads-up that I closed the fifth of five simultaneous open vote/discussions on paid editing (six if you count the one above!), despite the fact that I entered a vote (now removed) in the first one. My excuse is that I'm actually neutral on the larger question that's been spread out among several pages, and I've said as much. I was only in opposition to having a vote before a discussion had taken place on all the relevant issues. As always, feedback is welcome ... and additional closers would be even more welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank, In order to make progress, I think we need to close some of the proposals. Having 5 articles open is diverting reviewing resources. I suggest that we close the following three proposals. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Sock puppetry/Employees - This one has almost no supporters.
 * WP:Commercial editing - This one is similar to wp:paid editing policy proposal, and has caused a lot of confusion. It has 14 supporters and 35 opponents.
 * WP:No paid advocacy - This one has been open for almost a month, and has 81 supporters, and 164 opponents.
 * In the first two, I have already posted an "intention to close"; if there are no responses in, say, two days, I'll close them. For WP:No paid advocacy, I'd like to see what response I get to my post at WP:AN (quoted above). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisan
Hi Dank! Recently, I've been working on the article Mladen Stojanović. It has turned out to be quite a big one, though mostly based on Serbian-language sources. If you think that it is a material for a quality status, I would appreciate if you copy-edited it (smooth running, summary style, etc). Vladimir (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please submit it for peer review in the "history" subcategory (see WP:PRH). - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Vladimir  (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added a Milhist tag and added it to our announcements page (see above). I'll have a look before it's done at PR. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Vladimir  (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects for paid editing
Regarding this edit, just in case you aren't already aware, note there are two existing WikiProjects based on the stick and carrot approach: WP:WikiProject Integrity and WP:WikiProject Cooperation. I'm not sure if there is a need for more WikiProjects on this topic. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14
Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Marcus flopped FAC nomination
Gave it a shot, but boy, did they shoot back. :) When you get a chance, could you take a look and see what you can suggest as far as fixes for some of the more complex problems? (e.g., lead paragraphs apparently need major reworking) Simpler fixes such as adding requested citations, I think I can do on my own. Particularly bummed that the whole thing came and went without my ever knowing it was going on (and that they took that to indicate loss of interest, when in fact I had been checking my page quite regularly and the SM page fairly often but didn't know they don't put anything there!). Lawikitejana (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be able to help, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Building consensus for COI policy decision
HI Dank. There are a lot of claims and arguments being made in the course of the many many discussions around a COI policy, and very little of it, is based on data. It is hard to come to agreement on policy if we are not looking at the same set of facts. I opened a thread at Jimbo's talk page asking who knows if there is any data about the extent of the paid advocacy on Wikipedia. Seems like there is not much. But the discussion turned up two articles, this one - a survey of PR professionals which is super illuminating; and this one by a Danish business-communications group, valuable mostly for the review of the literature in the intro. Do you think it would be useful and or possible to open a discussion or project trying to understand the extent of paid advocacy (heck maybe including tendentious editing of all kinds) in WIkipedia, and possibly also how the public perceives the "purity"/"corruption" of Wikipedia (what is at stake), and once we have gathered some facts, see if we can build a policy around them? In other words, start from the ground up instead of working top down? Sorry if this is crazy or something. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and your work. Since I've talked about my intention to be a closer for the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit, I shouldn't say anything that might guide that discussion (apart from what I already said). I'll have a few suggestions after that RfC and the two related RfCs are closed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured content
Hey Dank, I know you're busy but I'm a bit on the desperate side. Can you help out with this week's featured content? As you saw on WT:MHCOORD, Ctdew is going to be busy with real life. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look first thing in the morning. I'm not comfortable doing the Featured Pictures. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm sure I or someone else can help out with those. Thanks, Dank. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dank, lovely. Do you have a template for FC? I don't know whether one has been in use, but it would be mighty handy. Tony   (talk)  07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any templates, but I see Cdtew has started on this. I'll ask him which parts he'd like help with. Thanks for the encouragement, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, did two, back later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the other FAs. Good news: since we seem to be short on volunteers, I can keep doing the FAs weekly for a while. Bad news: I'm only comfortable doing the FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! As an fyi, I posted here after getting this message, so I don't think Cdtew will be mad. :-) For a template, you can use User:Hahc21/FCS, which is used [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-13/Featured_content&action=edit like so]. Thanks, Dank! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot
Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Always a pleasure, Simon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Behavioral guideline not a policy...I agree
But then I am a worthless piece of crap on Wikipedia that rapes animals according to some. So...whatever.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha. This inspired me to write this; I'll beef it up and try to get some feedback tomorrow. Personally, I'd rather not go the Arbcom route yet, as you suggested, because it's just as important to me that Nyttend (and others who identify as social conservatives) not feel attacked as that gays not feel attacked. If we go straight to Arbcom, I think we can throw any chance of a negotiated solution right out the window. - Dank (push to talk) 05:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review Requests for comment/Nyttend (note my statement). --Rschen7754 05:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that ... I see he's got bigger things to worry about, so I won't press him to respond on the WP:AN thread. - Dank (push to talk) 05:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is actually bigger since it was closed three years ago. They don't deserve the break. .--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that now, I struck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will wait before going to arb com myself at Dank's suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark, I appreciate it. I've rewritten my essay as a request to close any upcoming RfC on the subject of "sensitivity training" inflammatory speech. I can see how Nyttend, and you, and lots of other people might feel attacked by discussions like these ... and if it's possible to deal with the big problem before we start handing out blame, we're probably going to get better outcomes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion
I confess I'm a bit disappointed with the closing sentences of your recent statement in the conflict of interest discussion, as I had hoped (in accordance with my request) that you'd take a role in leading a structured discussion, as you had for PC2012. All the same, I still appreciate your willingness to be involved and contribute to the discussion! isaacl (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Isaac, I appreciate that, I replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request
Hi Dan, could I trouble you to delete this out-of-process FAC nom page? Congrats on your team Chevrons with Oak Leaves by the way...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure Ian, done. That's my first Oak Leaves I think :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- well I'm glad Tom encouraged us to IAR when it came to awarding a few sitting coords, since Oak Leaves for you are long overdue... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of perennial coordinators, I guess. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow testing
Hey Dank :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside; I'm looking forward to being back in NC in September or so. We should grab lunch or something!)
 * Lunch sounds good. I should be able to give some feedback on Flow soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful; looking forward to both :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability vs. COI
One point that occasionally has been raised, not by me, is that one way of dealing with the COI/paid editing issue for corporate articles is to strengthen/tighten the notability standards for companies and organizations. That hasn't been raised in the most recent discussion. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, as you structure your questionnaire or formulate the discussion going forward. Arguably Wikipedia has become something of a directory of small companies of marginal notability. Tightening the standards can attack that situation for both paid and unpaid articles alike, and do so in an evenhanded fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, tightening notability standards is one way to go, and that will be in the questionnaire. Increased templating is another way to go (from for instance WP:Template_messages/Cleanup, WP:Template_messages/Cleanup, and WP:Template_messages/Cleanup.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Alt text not required?
Re: "alt text not required for FAC"—is this spelled out somewhere? All I see at WP:WIAFA is #2 "It follows the style guidelines", and the guideline for images says: "Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information." "Should" isn't "must", but I would like to see that the editor was at least aware of the guideline and chose consciously to disregard it, as the editors of Nigersaurus did when they insisted on violating WP:IMAGELOCATION. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC) As it's not my reviewing style to oppose until every endash is wrinkle-free (I only withhold my support) I think I'll continue to ask for a high level of MOS compliance, leaving it to the nominators to justify their departures from it. I mean, if I have to re-read the MOS for every "should" each time I review an article, I'll probably just go back to not reviewing (I can't say I enjoy it in the least, any more than I can imagine anyone enjoying nitpicking my comics articles). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't my area, I only focus on text issues, but I can tell you the most recent mention at WT:FAC can be found in WT:Featured_article_candidates/archive59, and I believe the most recent vote on alt text at WT:FAC was in March 2012. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, as a reviewer, one is supposed to familiarize oneself not only with WP:WIAFA and the MOS, but also the whole of the MOS talk archives in order to know which bits of the MOS to skip (or qualify)? I wonder how much that contributes to the reviewer drought?  I have trouble enough guilting myself into reviewing in the first place.  I think I'll just stick to giving my feedback and let the nominators disagree where they see fit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this from the FAC coordinators? - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys... Curly, I agree that it's preferable to not have to familiarise oneself with archived discussions to review, but OTOH we keep them for a reason. In this case I think you got to the heart of the matter when you noted, talking about MOS, that "should" isn't "must". Personally I always employ alt text when I remember to and am happy to have it pointed out to me if I forget, but there's no obligation to use it. I might add that this is true, in my experience, of the situation at GAN and A-Class Review -- it's not just FAC that doesn't require it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian: If alt text is not a requirement, then it's not a requirement—that's not the issue per se. "Should" isn't "must", but it is "should" and not "would be nice".  I think any editor who has disregarded that "should" should at the very least acknowledge that they have.  In other words, I think the onus should be on the editor to justify it.
 * Just my two cents, but I don't think the issue here is over "should", I think the issue is that WPians don't agree on everything, and some differences of opinion have been more long-lasting than others. There are solid reasons to encourage and solid reasons to discourage giving nominators the impression that they'll fail FAC without suitable ALT text. Opinion so far in FAC discussions has leaned against. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold for A Class review
Hello, Dank,

Because of your prior interest in a similar article, you are being invited to review Rudolf Berthold.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the lead, I'll have another look when it's ready for promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck question
Thanks for the mention at Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-04/Featured content, much appreciated!

I had a question about your choice of headline:

Why did you choose the censored term, "F*&!" -- instead of the name of the documentary itself, which was simply "Fuck" ?

Just curious,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A variety of reasons, but mainly, I followed their lead. The name of the film was "F*ck" in distribution, and the promotional image at the top of the page says "F*ck" as well. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Ah, I see. In that case, why did you choose "F*&!" -- instead of simply "F*ck" ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Artistic license. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problems. Thank you for being so responsive! And thanks again for the kind mention of the article about freedom of speech and censorship in The Signpost, most appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FC
Thank you for helping out again this week, Dank. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

 * Thanks V, same to you, enjoy the season. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Happy holidays, Schro. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

 * Never seen LED lights on a Christmas tree, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm always happy to see you around, Ruhrfisch, take care. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)