User talk:Dank/Archive 41

Would you mind...
I think you and I have edited all the items on your list. I understand you want to take a break from it, so in the meantime would you mind striking the oppose? If history serves, the next reviewer won't come around for weeks, and if an admin comes along in that period it will be closed again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Replying there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Please see my apology. In the interest of fairness, I overlooked some rather obvious thing, and in the process, stomped all over your feet. I'm genuinely sorry. Dennis - 2&cent; 16:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I've replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale ACR
Hello Dank, thank you for your contributions to Dassault Rafale's first ACR. I'm sorry for not addressing the issues at the time. If you are still interested and have the time, you are welcomed to comment on the article over at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dassault Rafale/archive2. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it passes A-class, I'll be happy to have a look at FAC, at some point. Good to see you back. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

TFA coordinator
Dear Dank, it's excellent news that you've agreed to let yourself be proposed here for this position. You, Crisco and Brianboulton will make a fantastic team. As I hope you will find out before too long, it really is great fun, and with three of you to split the workload it should be even better. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 12:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks like fun, and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks also for offering to help us get started. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, per your comment over there, I'm not opposed to you having the job, I think you'll be fine. I'm just concerned about the tone of everyone who seems to have forgotten that it took about a year do get rid of Raul when he quit caring but wouldn't let go of the job. I'm not going to hold my breath until I turn blue about the issue, I just felt it needed to be raised.  Having had three of "my" articles as TFA's this year (plus a couple others I worked on, but in a minor capacity), I have nothing personally to complain about, I just fret when I see potential structural problems.    Montanabw (talk)  20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those seem like completely reasonable concerns to me. I suspect that I'm not going to have anything close to autonomy, but I'll do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I like you serving the TFA process as coordinator! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, and I appreciate all you've done for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Greed
Its a comparison of course, but if you look into it I am sure that you would find a lot of consensus that the missing footage is the most desirable missing footage around (The lost footage from The Magnificent Andersons would also be a contender, however unlike Greed there exists documents and evidence that that lost footage was intentionally destroyed). I mean, is it the holy grail in the sense that film historians view it as some sort of mystical artifact that will bring them world domination and occult powers.....no. Is it like the holy grail, which I believe is the most sought after artifact by archeologists, historians and Harrison Ford, in that any good archivist wants to find it and a few probably still hold out some hope that it will one day be recovered, yes. This phrasing is sourced in the body of the article and this is the first objection I have heard after one successful GA nomination, two failed FA nominations and one successful FA nomination.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That answers most of my concerns ... the only one left is the ambiguous quote marks. The reader won't know if you're quoting someone, or if that's a nickname for the object, or if they're scare quotes. It's fine to attribute the quote to "an archivist" or "some archivists", given your refs; don't worry about WP:WEASEL here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with losing the quotes. On the one hand the quotes are technically a direct quote from the source that they are derived from in the body of the article, on the other hand I've always seen them as being an implied indication of the reference to the holy grail as being a metaphor. I doubt that any reader would be confused by this, but I see your point that since the existence of the metaphor is not directly explained or stated its not 100% encyclopedic. If you think that the quotes in the blurb or even the lead should go, be my guest.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed the quote in the blurb, substituted "still sought after by film archivists and historians", feel free to tweak that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, thank you for your pursuit of the perfect blurb; this is my favourite featured article :) Since the blurb is now slightly short(?), I wonder if we can include "this hurt von Stroheim both personally and professionally" after the clause about it being edited against his wishes to 8.5 hours. This does not quite get across the full sense of the significance of the drawn-out personal struggles and upset involved, but it does hint at it a little more - a mention of the personal as well as just technical and factual aspects, can sometimes help to draw a reader of a blurb into being a reader of the main article itself.


 * If there are other key aspects that would be better added using the small amount of spare space, please suggest.


 * (The factoid about only 12 people having seen the original full-full-length version may be an alternative, it gives depth to the sense of uniqueness.)


 * Alternatively if the blurb is already as long as it can be, that's fine too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. "hurt both professionally and personally" is slightly ambiguous, but that's the language in the lead, and I give a lot of weight to language that nominators and reviewers agreed on. Deoliveirafan? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes RfC 2014
I'm confused. As far as I can tell, this RfC has not been officially closed. Am I missing something? And after all your hard work and the mud you had to wade through. —Neonorange (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the link bar at the top of this screen, click on "RFCs", it's the second link on that page. Thanks for participating in that RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very quick reply. I guess I was looking for a colored closure box. I assure you I've read and re-read all your contributions to the RfC. I will think about some consensus leaning ideas over next month. To my mind maybe the fault may lie not in PC2, but in our stars, er, reviewer policybias acknowledged. ——Neonorange (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know people have read it :) The closure statement is at the top of Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, with a pointer to Jc's and my more detailed comments on the closure page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it! Thanks B^) —Neonorange (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Brief copyedit favor
If you have the time, I'd like for you to look at the first paragraph of the last voyage section of HMS Otranto. (Everything else is OK, so just this section.) The reviewer at Talk:HMS Otranto/GA1 has a bit of a problem with how I introduced the ship's captain, who was also the convoy commodore, on that voyage. I'm not sure how to handle things better and would like some advice from an outsider.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article very briefly, it doesn't appear to be headed for FAC, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, the limited sources don't permit it to go any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The text is currently "Captain Ernest Davidson, commodore of the convoy, ordered". I believe "Captain Ernest Davidson, who was also commodore of the convoy, ordered" is less ambiguous, since captain is both a command role and a naval rank. Normally, that's not an issue ... people generally read Captain X as the captain of the ship ... but when you follow it immediately with a different role, it may raise a question for some readers whether you're listing simultaneus roles or a rank and a role. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An analogy: in some small towns, people perform two roles, but you don't generally see the two roles joined with just a comma ... that is, "Mayor X, chief of police, said ..." is less common than "X, the mayor and chief of police, said" or "Mayor X, who was also chief of police, said". (And in those cases, it's less likely people will misinterpret what "Mayor X" means.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Curious
You indicated in the DangerousPanda case filing you'd have something to contribute if a case was opened Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Wondering if you still plan to do (deadline is 3 Dec)? NE Ent 03:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just involved in another unpleasant Arbcom case, and that dimmed my enthusiasm for participating. It wasn't a big deal, anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 18, 2014
I've suggested an image for the blurb, at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 18, 2014.

Would like to hear your thoughts, at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 18, 2014.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Per Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/December_15,_2014, Bencherlite would prefer we not use blurb talk pages for ... anything, really. User:Crisco 1492 will be handling blurb images when Bencherlite steps down. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the image at Today's featured article/December 18, 2014, how's it look to you? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your above suggestion, I've also asked . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Thank you
I wanted to thank you directly for helping out so much with Typhoon Karen's FAC. Sorry for my lack of presence on it but I should have time tomorrow to address things myself when I get home. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I figured it fell off your watchlist. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

1987 Giro
Hey Dank,

I recently become active again and saw your comment, and renominated 1987 Giro d'Italia for FA if you wish to review it, here is the link to the page Featured article candidates/1987 Giro d'Italia/archive2 here. Thanks! Disc Wheel ( Talk  +  Tontributions )  20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some copyediting on the lead section and replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale ACR
Hello Dank, I have reworded the lead at Dassault Rafale. If there are any other issues please feel welcomed to list them all. Thank you for your comment. Sp33dyphil (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA blurbs
I have agreed with Chris that I will do the TFA scheduling for January (he will take over for February). I have already scheduled 1st and 2nd from TFAR, and will shortly add 3rd Jan, also from TFAR. The next few following that will be my picks. We need to establish a procedure whereby (1) I list my proposed choices, (2) you create the necessary blurbs in your userspace and (3) I copy your blurbs and complete the scheduling steps. I propose to use this page to list my choices, so you will need to keep a regular watch on it. I will need to know where I can pick up your blurbs. Do you think this is a workable procedure? I am pinging Bencherlite to see if he has any comment or advice to add. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Entirely your choice how you do it. From previous discussions I gather that Chris will be double-checking the images in any event.  I wonder whether (a) two weeks on, two weeks off might spread the load a little more evenly, as making the choices for a whole month (especially if TFAR is quiet) might get a little tiring particularly for prolific article writers like you all; (b) for a "coordinator's choice", the scheduling coordinator might want to at least start the TFA blurb page, even if it is just with little more than a bold link, a placeholder sentence and an "in progress" comment, so that the bot can apply move protection, people can see more readily what is in the pipeline (rather than wait for the Dank blurb) and also because it might encourage someone else to come up with a blurb, which Dank can then play with.  Having said that, sometimes the blurbs I was offered at TFA were rather poor and caused me more work because they were either so short or so long (and sometimes so boring as well) that I had to start again anyway. BencherliteTalk 12:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough experience yet to say, but my instinct is that Brian's way will cause fewer headaches in the long run, so I'm willing to give it a shot. Daily TFAs will be at User:Dank/TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bencherlite, for your comments. I personally think the one-month intervals will give us better opportunities to continue as content editors. If this proves not to be the case, we can always vary the terms later. At least in the first instance I will be scheduling far enough in advance, I think, for Dan to do his blurb work without the need for a holding text, but again we shall see how the new system pans out. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan – first few listed. Please advise any queries on my talk - if you are silent I will assume all is well Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian, I can't see how we're going to get the page history to be accurate if we don't do it Bencherlite's way. My first thought had been that I didn't want to have a blank page sitting there, but I think I'm going to be able to do my work quickly, as long as you create the pages when I'm around (which is most of the time). Could you create some skeleton pages for Jan 8-11 please? - Dank (push to talk) 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify exactly what the problem is at present – what "page history" are you referring to? I'm not sure what you mean by "skeleton pages" – the system seemed to work OK for the first four blurbs. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By "skeleton pages", I'm referring to what Bencherlite suggested above. I wasn't actually sure what you were asking me to do ... going forward, it's Wikipedia policy that the history of a page should reflect who actually made the edits, for a bunch of reasons ... merges or moves are better than pasting. (I wrote Today's featured article/January 4, 2015, for instance, but I'm not in the history.) Easier than a merge or a move here would be for me to simply write the text where it belongs. I have no problem at all with you and Crisco vetting my work before it shows up on that page ... I can write it in my userspace first if you like so you can have a look, I'm working on the next four now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not just add them to the actual TFA page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Brian wants to have a hand in vetting my work, Crisco ... and I want to be clear, I have no problem with that request, although I hope that as time goes by, I will have proved myself sufficiently that this isn't an issue. I'm happy with however you guys want to do this ... as long as we don't have a TFA that I wrote appearing with no mention of me in the history. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not, I have no wish to vet your work in any way. You, as I've said elsewhere, are the blurb guru and need no input from me. All I want is a way of advising you what articles I propose to schedule, so that you can produce your blurbs. I think I understand the problem more clearly now: the way I have proceeded so far means that the blurbs come into mainspace under my name in the history rather than yours, which I agree won't do. If I use the first paragraph of the exisiting lead as a dummy blurb and create the "skeleton pages" on that basis, will that solve the problem for you?  If so, I'll open the skeletons for the dates 8 to 11 Jan. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works fine. I should usually be quick enough that no one will waste their time puzzling over the wrong text; if I'm going to be unavailable, I'll give you a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And, sorry for the mixup. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've opened TFA pages for the chosen articles 8 to 11 January. I will complete the final scheduling steps, including notifications, when the blurbs are in place. I won't be doing any more scheduling before Christmas; I'll do a few more in the lull before the New Year. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've vetted the images through 11 January. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. Are you adding hover-captions as well? I see Bencherlite was adding those this morning ... I have a slight preference for you to do them, but I'll be happy to do them if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll add them as I go through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

 * Hopefully not all the bores, that's me most days :) Best of the season, Brian, and I'm excited too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Dear Dan—a Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, and a Happy New Year! Have fun and make it a really great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men! Love from all the Asher household. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy holidays, John! - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Why does the small, shivering figure on the right remind me of nominators of Featured Content? Happy holidays, Gavin! - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry New Year
Whatever beliefs you have, merry New Year! We all mark that with new calendars, whether we like it or not! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You Gregorianists and your beliefs. Bring back the Julian calendar! New Year's is a month off! - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2014

 * Thanks Tom, it's an honor. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, been a long time! Best of the season. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * It's been a pleasure to work with you all year, Hawkeye, let's do it again next year. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Looking forward to more of your articles on the Main Page, Victoria. Best of the season! - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Seasonal greetings

 * Made me warm on a cold day. Thx Ruhrfisch. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Was good to see you recently at A-class. Best wishes for the season, E. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for Mark Satin FA article summary on home page
Hi Dank, really glad to hear from you that the Mark Satin bio is going to be featured on the home page January 10. I have reviewed your 1200-character summary and it is terrific!! I do have four small edits that I hope you will consider:

1.) Begin third sentence with "His book New Age Politics," not "New Age Politics."

2.) In third sentence, eliminate the internal link to "simple living." An editor linked it many years ago, but there's no need to highlight that phrase in a 1200-chartacter summary.  (You should retain the phrase though.)

3.) Still later in third sentence, "these and other themes" could become simply "these themes."

4.) Fourth sentence should begin, "He also co-drafted," not "He co-drafted"; and should end after "Values." No need to include "in 1984" there ... readers will pick up it was during the period of New Options, and that is sufficient for this summary.

My count shows that these edits will bring us down from 1,203 characters to 1,198!

Thanks again for doing such a good job with this summary. I am assiduously going through the bio for updates and corrections ... hope to finish by end of year. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it, Babel. Done, except that I left "1984" in. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Dank! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)