User talk:Dank/Archive 42

Happy New Year Dank!


Happy New Year! Dank, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
 * Thanks NA, best wishes for the new year. - Dank (push to talk) 06:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already
Hi Dank. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on  Wikipedia for a long  time to  come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen your user and talk pages in a while, Kudpung ... that's great stuff, I hope you won't mind if I come to you for lexicography help from time to time. Thanks for dropping by my page, it made me smile. Best for the new year. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
 * Thanks Bzuk, best wishes, and bring us more aviation articles for the Main Page. You know you want to :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Extensive edits on Mark Satin page by Colonies Chris
Hi Dank. I was looking forward to telling you and Brian that I had finished "perfecting" and updating the Mark Satin page (for its appearance as the FA article on the home page January 10), when I discovered that literally dozens of changes have just been made by a long-time Wikipedia editor calling himself "Colonies Chris."

Except for one change of a hyphen to a dash, ALL his edits involved removing my internal links from book publishers.

Since many of my updates (which occupied my last four days) involved updating internal links to book publishers, I felt it would be wise to confirm with you that it is now Wikipedia's policy to not provide internal links to book publishers.

A couple of things suggest to me that Colonies Chris's edits may be inappropriate. First, you may recall from 2011-2012, I was very careful to only link to book publishers on first mention - there was nothing random about my links. Second, Chris did a sloppy job - for all the dozens of internal links to publishers that he eliminated, he failed to eliminate at least 15 such links (see, e.g., footnotes 6, 17, 21, 37, and 93). Finally, Chris seems to be engaged in an edit war with someone else; see his talk page.

Obviously, with only nine days to go until the Satin page goes up on the home page, I cannot get into an edit war with a senior Wikipedia editor. Are his edits wise? If so, I will eliminate the 15+ remaining links to book publishers. (It will certainly make updating the Satin page easier in the future!) Are they unwise? If so, I would appreciate if you or Brian reverted his edits and communicated with him on his talk page. Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Colonies Chris generally knows what he's doing; ask him about his edits and he'll be happy to explain or revert himself. - Dank (push to talk) 05:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info.; I'll do that. - Babel41 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My FAC
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? Another review would be really helpful in determining a consensus or what else needs improving or fixing. Dan56 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like with my new workload I'll be covering pre-FAC (PR, A-class) and post-FAC (WP:TFAR), but not at FAC. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 05:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

TFA 16 January
Please note that at the nominator's request I have changed TFA for 16 January to a new article, for which a blurb is required. Also, can you remove the protection from the USS Constitution article which is now no longer scheduled? Only admins can do this, and I ain't one. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Brian, done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Rainbow Trout FA on Main page
No, Southern Europe is an introduced location. The only native range of the rainbow is the North Pacific in North American and Asia. I think what appears confusing is the line: outside their native range in the U.S. which is supposed to mean they've been introduced into non-native ranges in the US which is true. In other words, all the rainbow trout east of the rockies are introduced, not native. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, switched two things around, see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's accurate as written. Good work. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Today's featured article/February 4, 2015
Thanks for letting me know! I read it and I think most of the important information is preserved. I understand the need to shorten it and I think you've done a fine job. Thanks much! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, glad you liked it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, one more question ... the infobox says it was written by Dave Polsky, Stone and Parker. The lead says "Trey Parker and Matt Stone, along with writer Brian Graden". The TFA text (which Crisco just tweaked) now says "written by Brian Graden in collaboration with Parker and Matt Stone". Do you have a preference what we should say? - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note; I'd prefer we have Parker on his own first, so that the "pictured" doesn't raise the question "why favor Parker over Stone?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed ... wish I had thought of that :) - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article as it was written when it was successfully passed as an FA listed only Brian Graden and made no mention of Polsky, which I guess was added by someone else later. As far as what is mentioned include in the TFA, I suppose it should simply be whatever writers were listed in the credits of the episode itself. I'm not in a position now to go back and watch it but I can check that later. Or, if you had another solution in mind, that's fine, I don't have a strong preference. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check the episode later and get back to you. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The credits for the episode include Dave Polsky, not Brian Graden, so Polsky should be the one featured in the TFA text. I've changed the article accordingly. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fixed the Main Page paragraph. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything! Also, feel free to sign my autograph book if you like. I haven't done much with it for a while because I was on an extended break, but now I'm inviting people who I have positive wiki-experiences with to sign it. :D —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  13:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:YEAR
Didn't realize there was a different rule for years starting before 1000. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're welcome at TFA anytime ... institutional memory is a very good thing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing
Not sure where to go with this, so I thought I'd throw a question at you to see if you had a suggestion...

I think I've stumbled across a user who has engaged and/or will be engaging in paid editing, who has also recently created an article about themselves. I don't think I have any hard proof - just a few pieces from various places that have my spidey sense tingling.

Any idea where I should take this? Mlaffs (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm out of the loop on that, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So, this is the question we're asking
Don't forget a summary ("no consensus" or similar, when you're ready with the research) and your signature. Too bad that an admin had to close this beast. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. I'll try not to be such an ... admin :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dank, I don't know if you are aware of Administrators' noticeboard, but it is related when you get back around to it. :) —  22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am. If any day's snapshot of that page is particularly relevant to the question of whether we're backlogged in deletion work, then please add a link to that version of the page to any evidence you want to present. Thanks for all your work on this so far ... and to come, I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

 * Heh, thanks PM. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The musicologist
I don't mind a few extra characters, but am used from article writing - taught by Tim riley - that you have to add "the musicologist" if their is no link, - I understood "only if there is no link". Also: who else would make such a statement about Bach's music but a musicologist? (And here we have The Authority, compared to Spitta in the 19th century.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll ask Tim. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: the Bach scholar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that's better, I'll suggest this to Tim. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just found about the one and added to the little article (which still is without data about the man's birth and life, - find something about a Richard Jones ...): "Anybody wishing to get to grips with the music of Bach will be well advised to equip themselves with this survey as their starting point." ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ps: also "Along the road you will be rewarded by Jones's happy ability to formulate his insights in an effective and compelling way.", imagine: happy ability! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "the Bach scholar". It's self-explanatory, accurate, and puts the person in context.  Tim riley  talk    17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. Tim, once you are here, can you find any personal information on Jones. (Or should we leave him a private life?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are four Richard Joneses in Grove none of whom is this man. I think we let him alone.  Tim riley  talk    18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WPVG
Hey Dank—saw your message about wanting to do more VG stuff but having reservations about the learning curve. Let me know if you need to run something past someone, or if there's any way I can help. czar ⨹   18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail from !
—  01:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:John.hb2
Hi Dank, regarding this user, why do you think they should be autopatrolled, having never made a mainspace edit, much less actually created an article? — xaosflux  Talk 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He's my partner and one of the best copyeditors I know. He's helping me by editing TFAs, mostly entirely in his userspace, so far. It would be a waste of patroller time to check his edits to see if he's vandalizing something, but if you'd like for Wikipedians to check his edits, I have no objection. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dank, if you two are editing from the same IP, I'd put something on your userpages to make sure no one thinks you're socking. That said, I'm happy to see that you finally got him to register an account! ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I don't think he wants me calling attention to him on my userpage, but I'll ask him to put a short intro on his userpage. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Autopatrolled is really only used for flagging when entirely new articles are created (has no impact on edits to existing articles)...a lot of things caught in new page patrol are things like broken templates, reference issues, etc (it's much more than just not be vandalism). Confirmed on the other hand is very appropriate until the account gets promoted to autoconfirmed, as you have personally confirmed this is a real person making good faith edits.  —  xaosflux  Talk 20:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the autopatrolled user-right. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor little clarification, flagging doesn't care if they are articles. If they are creating a lot of new user pages to edit these, then it may also be appropriate. —   21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment on AN
Just wanted to clarify that my concerns at AN (re:Griffin close) were in no way related to you, your abilities, or anything else related to you for that matter. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review
Hi Dan. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Blackrock at FAC
Hi there. I'm leaving this message to everyone who commented on the Murder of Leigh Leigh FAC nomination. As you showed interest in that nomination, it might interest you to know that the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder, Blackrock (film), is now also nominated for FAC, see here. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

TFA
Hi Dan, following Brian's comment, I've knocked up a rough draft blurb here. Do you want to have a play around with it there - the space is there as long as you need it. If you'd prefer I dropped it into TFAR for additional scrutiny, I'm happy to do that too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done; see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting TFA blurbs
Re the following discussion at a TFAR nomination:
 * (me) Dank, there's no point in copyediting the blurb for errors if you don't make the same corrections to the article.
 * (you) That's a pretty significant extension of my job (because I'd then have to watchlist all the articles, engage a much wider set of editors, and figure out which changes are necessary at TFA but not in articles). Also, it's not a job anyone else has asked me to do so far. I suggested in January to Brian and Crisco that we solicit volunteers to help with various jobs; they suggested we wait until we've been in the job a bit longer. Transferring some TFA edits to the article text, and engaging editors on the article talk page about other TFA edits, might be a good job for volunteers.

I completely disagree with this. The blurb reflects the article. If you change "Futball" back to "Football" in the blurb, but don't make the same change in the article, what will happen? Someone else will come along at TFA day to WP:ERRORS and say that the blurb ought to say "Futball" like it does in the article. A passing admin then makes the change to the blurb and your edit is lost. If you make the correction in both places it will stick. Saying that it requires (yet more) volunteers to do this is excessive and extra bureaucracy all-round. Saying that it requires lots of extra work is not correct. I can say from long experience that I never found that making minor corrections or improvements to the leads of articles was a big job or one that required significant engagement with other editors to debate the rights and wrongs, and I was doing everything at TFA single-handed. If you needed to be asked to do this (and that's a surprising attitude for a coordinator to take), you have now been asked. Yours, BencherliteTalk 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look back at what you did during the period when I was copyediting your TFA paragraphs in November and December. My recollection is that you didn't make the same changes to the articles that you made at TFA, but I wasn't looking for this specifically so I could be wrong. I don't have time to do it right now, but it won't be long. Actually ... kind of a shame that I have to make time for this now when we're headed into a critical discussion at WP:VPR on what we're going to do about the declining numbers of patrollers and admins, but this sounds like a serious challenge so I better make time for it. I'll have a look. The question isn't as black-and-white as you're painting it, and I put more stock in delegating than you do ... but in a volunteer organization, I have no authority to assign jobs, all I can do is develop a nose for what kinds of work people are willing to share and what kinds I'll have to do myself ... and then stop doing the work myself, and keep an eye on what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Please don't make this out to be some big issue or some grand assault on your way of working. Obviously not every change in a TFA blurb needs a corresponding change to the article - sometimes the blurb needs to be phrased one way for reasons of space, or when combining two sentences into one (to give just two examples), and I specifically referred to "errors", after all. But changing "Futball" to "Football" is an example of something that needs to be changed in the lead not just the blurb, and I don't think trawling through my past contributions and past versions of the leads of TFAs from the end of last year in order to check how often I made changes to the lead of an article compared to the wording of a blurb is a constructive use of your time, particularly if you're otherwise busy. I don't think personalising the issue with comments such as "I put more stock in delegating than you do" is helpful either.  BencherliteTalk 12:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The word in question here was the non-word "futball". For me, if I came across a TFA paragraph that said "footblal", I would fix that both at TFA and in the article (and I have been doing that, all along). "futball" falls in a gray area; I don't know anything about Peruvian sports journalism, so no, I don't think I'd make a snap decision that it was a misspelling and correct it both places without asking anyone. (I changed it in this case only because you implied that you wanted us to, when you said "which has been changed, without good reason".) You mentioned WP:ERRORS above (errors reported about the TFA paragraph), and I thought that's what you were talking about at first ... the most common ERROR reports lately have been comma errors, so the question is how far I should go in transferring changes like these in the TFA paragraph to the article. The last two things I mentioned weren't personal attacks, they were the meat of the argument of how to make this call. The best guide to what I should do is what you were doing during your tenure; that's most likely to reflect a consensus on what's expected, and that's why I looked at your edits. As it turns out, you took roughly the same approach as I'm taking, so I don't see a conflict. On the subject of delegating (which is usually only accomplished on Wikipedia by not doing stuff that other people can do), Milhist in general has had a more relaxed attitude on who's responsible for what than FAC/FAR/TFA have had, and your preferences seem to be more in line with the latter and mine with the former ... no surprise there. I will try to be more diligent in making sure that important changes get made to article leads, at least before Main Page day. I hope I'm being reasonably clear here; if not, let me know. Thanks for your help at TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Stalkers, note that I'm doing more with article leads now ... please see User_talk:Bencherlite.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (stalker) I think that the blurb does not have to reflect the article exactly. Example: the Twelve (remember?), capital in the blurb as many know it like that, not capital in the article where it would contradict the sources for the article. More generally: If a term is used which is generally understood, such as football, the article could still say futball, in the context of explanation and sources. My 2ct, with thanks for thoughtful blurb smoothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, Gerda and Dan, I unfortunately disagree with both of you in some respects.
 * Peru. Not a grey area at all. The article should never have said "Futball", Gerda. "Futball" is not a word in English (and futball is not even a redirect to anything) and so should not be appearing in an English phrase or sentence e.g. "South American Futball Confederation" (although "futball" might be appropriate in another language e.g. if it was being used to give the local name of an organisation, as in the opening lines of CONMEBOL itself). So that word was a red flag to me. A little checking of the article as it stood when nominated showed that (a) the article used "South American Futball Confederation (CONMEBOL)" in the lead and "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)" in the body of the article, indicating something had gone wrong (since usage should be consistent); (b) the article passed FAC using "Football" not "Futball"; (c) the article on CONMEBOL uses "Football". In such circumstances, the only option is to change the blurb *and* the article back to say "Football". There were also issues about singular/plural usage - I wasn't going to get involved in the article unless and until the FAC nominator had been notified and had had a chance to comment. Once he returned, I changed the article back to the FAC state in these areas.
 * Bach. I thought it should be "Twelve" and changed TFAR nomination and article accordingly. Gerda disagreed and reinstated "twelve" in both places. Fine, I wasn't going to argue further, whatever my personal preference. Dank then thought that "Twelve" was right and changed the blurb to say "Twelve" but not the article. To change it in one place but not the other is a cop-out.
 * On points such as these, blurbs should be consistent with the article, otherwise you get a situation where you have a perfect and corrected blurb for one day but a imperfect and uncorrected article before during and after TFA day - and the risk that someone will ask at WP:ERRORS for the blurb to be "corrected" to the imperfect article's approach during TFA day. In such cases, how is the responding admin supposed to know that the blurb is "right" and the article is "wrong" when the guiding principle at WP:ERRORS is that the blurb defers to the article? In cases where there's more than one right way of doing it and the TFA blurb goes in one direction and the article goes the other (e.g. because the blurb needs to compress two sentences into one to save space) then those sorts of changes don't have to be made in the article as well, of course. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse my ignorance but what is a cop-out? - I thought not changing the article for Bach was intentional and made sense. I try to avoid contradicting the sources, - still remember the still-born Boy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It means avoiding the issue. I didn't argue with your change back to "twelve" and that's not what I'm talking about (still less am I interested in revisiting Britten-related issues). BencherliteTalk 15:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Inserted: I'm sure this is a longer answer than you were looking for here. I'm not trying to avoid your questions ... as you know, I've been working on copyediting leads and I'll keep on doing that, and I'm going to pose exactly the questions you posed here to Sasata and Tim Riley, who just today have both reverted changes I made to lead sections, and see which way they'd like to go with this. And please don't take any of the following as criticism of your tenure as TFA coord ... your tenure was successful, and the broad acceptance you received speaks for itself. - Dank (push to talk)
 * 2) There's a chance I could have avoided the particular form this conflict is taking if I had just been bolder in making edits to articles all along, or if when challenged on the point I had said "I should have been bolder all along".
 * 3) This is actually not the trivial issue that some think it is. I would love for TFA paragraphs and articles to be "right" in all respects all the time ... the question is, what's "right", and what's the best way to reach that goal in an "anyone can edit" environment, while observing basic social skills? I wasn't even thinking about this problem until November, and I didn't get a TFA hat until last month, so the fact I haven't pursued a solution to this problem yet doesn't mean I never will. What it means is that I haven't felt that I had the resources that I need yet to solve the problem. Some of the things I'm lacking are: consensus within Wikipedia (and even among publishing professionals) as to what resources I should be consulting to find answers, pages on Wikipedia that give answers to or even discussion on most of the questions that come up for a TFA copyeditor, support from the FA community specifically for my TFA job (I already have some support in my copyediting role), support from a network of professionals outside Wikipedia to help me find answers, and support from other Wikipedians interested in these same questions. This is my top priority, on Wikipedia and in my life for that matter, and I'm already working on all of these problems, but the solution isn't coming tomorrow.
 * 4) Bencherlite, as you know, I've been busy copyediting all the article leads for upcoming TFAs, as you asked, and yesterday you thanked me for taking your point on board. Now you seem to be saying I'm copping out. Did something happen between yesterday and today? I can think of one possibility ... the disclaimer I worked up that I'm occasionally using is at User:Dank/Copyediting2 ... and it says "feel free to revert if you disagree". That statement doesn't, of course, mean that neither I nor anyone else is allowed to disagree if they revert ... that's on a case-by-case basis.
 * 5) One part of the conflict we're having here is the conflict between getting things right (in some sense) and basic social skills (in some sense) ... and we're not going to solve that conflict with a clever argument, it's never going to go away (and especially not at TFA, which is where the FA community's standards and expectations run right smack up against those of the wider Wikipedian community.)
 * 6) On the questions concerning Peru national football team, that's currently at TFAR, and support for putting it on the Main Page is shaky, in part because of the problems you've pointed out (and thanks for that). One of the worst mistakes a hat-wearing Wikipedian can make is to act as if their areas of responsibility and authority are much bigger than they actually are. I don't actually know yet how big my job is ... and I'd like to be cautious until I do know ... but there's at least a reasonable argument that I could get in trouble if it looks like I think I'm the arbiter of language issues even for Featured Articles that will never show up on the Main Page, including (possibly) this article. I'll wait until the article is either scheduled or not before I say more on this.
 * Followup: this one is now at Today's featured article/March 15, 2015, I did the TFA paragraph and the lead section, feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Concerning the question on "the Twelve", that's from Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22, and that raises the same question of whether that's my job now: does the community expect me to be reverting edits on articles that were on the Main Page a month ago? It will never be at TFA again, so if I start reverting edits and waving my TFA hat around, would that be rejected by the broader Wikipedian community as evidence of OWNership or poor social skills or trying to unilaterally claim a bigger role than the one the community actually gave me? I don't know, but I want to at least ask the question and get some clarity on it, after I've done the prep work I mentioned above.
 * 2) Gerda, capitalization rules are difficult ... it's not as simple as "They did it 400 years ago, so it must be okay now". WP:MOSCAPS and English-language dictionaries are good places to get answers to questions like these ... though as I say, I'm not taking a position on "the Twelve" at this time. I've got plenty of other work to do, and the relevant article is long past its TFA date. (As a side note, history is on your side, Gerda ... English, Farsi, and a few other languages are more regular than other languages precisely because the rules developed at a time when many people learning the language were adults learning it as a second language, and these people learned a simplified version of the language, and simplified the language in the process. The same thing is going on today ... English is a more universal language now than any language has ever been, but that means that, inevitably, English-speakers are losing some control of the language, and the rules are getting simpler. This process will continue if English-speaking machines don't interfere with the natural evolution of the language ... and it's too early to say about that. So ... you and all the other non-native speakers may wind up having the last laugh on this and many other grammar and orthography questions.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a wealth of thoughts! The Twelve are over on the Main page, and I believe the article is fine, saying twelve in agreement with its sources. Forgive me grieving mother the boy. No dictionary tells us how to spell the name of a piece of art. I believe in the name its creator chose, MoS is against it, some Bilderstürmer even eliminated the (disturbing?) evidence from the article. Bencherlite argued that it is only one letter, I say true. It's only one letter, so why does MoS win over the creator? Sorry once more. I should simply eliminate the article from my creations and try to forgot it. - A related discussion was on Talk:La voix humaine, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AI in the sky, take two
What do you know, the signpost wrote a special report on the service I was referring to. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was very happy to see that getting some press. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia .pt
I don't know whether anyone here is heavily involved at .pt (I barely grasp how administrative things work here). You might want to see if Lecen, Paulista01, Cristiano Tomás or Felipe Menegaz can offer more of an insight into how .pt operates at that level. &bull; Astynax talk 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

TFAFULL
FWIW, I never counted "Full article..." as part of the character count, and my experience at TFAR over the years is that nobody else did either, so you needn't worry on that front. Have there been comments/questions somewhere to say that people don't understand what it means? For I can't say that I've seen any in the time since the discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 171 that led to the current wording, including the dots, back in October 2012. BencherliteTalk 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just emailed you about this ... yes, i've never included it in character count either, though the ellipsis does take up space just the same. No one has pointed to that particular ellipsis and said they don't know what it means, but whenever an ellipsis means something other than the most common meaning of "material has been omitted", there are always readers who don't know what it means. There are several reasons I don't like the ellipsis ... the main two are the one I just gave (it's not the most common meaning for an ellipsis) and the fact that writing it that particular way just looks wrong to some people, and doesn't match standard orthography (certainly in North America per AP Stylebook, Chicago, and others, and I suspect elsewhere, though I'm no expert on orthography). When punctuation looks wrong, most people ignore it, but that doesn't negate the fact that to others, the wrongness is more significant, as if we had misspelled a word, and that's not what I want people seeing in the first thing they pull up on Wikipedia. You asked me to become more stubborn about making things right; I am :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the technical term is aposiopesis, which uses an ellipsis but not to mean that material has been omitted. You do realise that every TFA since February 2004, when TFA started, has had either "more..." or "full article..." - is it really necessary to pull the dots unilaterally after 11 years of no apparent problems or complaints? BencherliteTalk 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I understand where you're coming up with "unilaterally": I made an edit 11 days ago adding a space in front of the ellipsis per WP:ELLIPSIS and was reverted. If this counts as being a similar edit, then you're right, I'm not following WP:BRD. My position is that I'm raising a different issue here so I was following BRD, but since you disagree, I'll self-revert and discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't waving BRD at you (nor was I going to revert you), it was more that we'd had the dots for 11 years (and they were kept the last time this was discussed in 2012) so a consensus view of whether we want the dots (and if so should there be a space) would probably be wise. A bit bikesheddy, I know, but... BencherliteTalk 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of unilateral changes ... I just read the discussion. I'll continue this at WT:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest T:MP, where the last such discussion was - more visible and it also affects WP:TFL of course. BencherliteTalk 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My hat isn't that big, TFL people can do what they want. If you want to start a discussion there, you're welcome to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

TFA for 10 March
Hi Dank, At one stage I had Air raids on Japan flagged as a possible TFA for either 9 or 10 March 2015 (the 70th anniversary of the largest attack on Tokyo) ...but didn't do much with it. Would it be OK for it to replace Ronnie Lee Gardner as the 10 March TFA, and if so what do I need to do to replace the blurb? The Gardner article doesn't seem to have a connection with the date that I can see. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Brian is doing all the scheduling for March, I have pinged him. I remember the article ... fun times. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vannevar Bush is scheduled for 11 March, so slotting Air raids on Japan in on 10th would mean back-to-back war-related articles. Because of the number of MilHist articles that have reached FA status, I try to schedule five or six as TFAs every month, but as far as possible I spread them out. At present we have war-related articles scheduled for 5th, 10th and 17th March; there will be at least two, possibly three more before the end of the month. If Nick-D is interested, I can fit his article on one of these dates, maybe 21st? But I need to know quickly, because I will be scheduling up to 21st tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that advice Brian - it looks like I've well and truly missed the bus here. I might aim for 15 June instead (the 70th anniversary of the end of the most devastating period of raids, and well before the August aniversary of the atomic bombings which I assume will also be TFA). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)