User talk:Dank/Archive 71

Thanks and goodbye
Thank you for your cooperation with my attempts to make MP as good as it should be, but the majority of people around Errors are not those with whom I wish to spend any more time. Kevin McE (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very kind thing to say, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Clovermoss (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Clovermoss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Blurbs
Hi Dank. Would it be in any way helpful for me to have an attempt at draft blurbs for some of the FACs which pass while you are on your break? (Or at any other time.) For you to review when you are back. Assuming that you don't get to appreciate the tranquility too much. Or anyone else to review, at any time. If not, feel free to simply say so. (I would be inclined to leave the images alone for now.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering. I'll probably be starting my month-long wikibreak on Dec 28, and I don't know what's going to happen then ... people have been very cooperative as I've been working through the 2018 FACs, so it may be that they start doing their own blurbs when I'm not around ... and if so, I don't want to do anything to discourage that. So I'd prefer that we wait and see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gog, are you interested in doing blurbs from the second half of 2017? John has some on his to-do list (see User talk:Johnboddie/sandbox), and Wehwalt is working on the ones he nommed or co-nommed, but that still leaves a lot to do ... see WP:FA2017. If you want to pick a few from that list (that haven't been scheduled yet of course), let me know which ones you want. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Several seem up my street just from the titles. I'll have a go at a couple. Maybe some or all of Battle of Rossbach, A Wizard of Earthsea, Macedonia (ancient kingdom)? (Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz and Battle of Leuthen are also in my areas of prior knowledge.) Let me know which. Should I insert images as well? What do I do once (I think) I have finished one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Battle of Rossbach, Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz and Battle of Leuthen would be great. We're not doing images for 2017 or 2018. Create a page in your userspace for these. Let me know if you have any questions. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gog, let's strike Battle of Leuthen from the list because I'd like to be more cautious and cover just Sept 30 to Dec 31 for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog, while you're here (and pinging too). You mentioned that there hadn't been much reaction to the copyediting work on pages such as WT:Today's featured article/December 2019 ... but a fair number of people have expressed opinions at, for instance, Talk:Beaune Altarpiece. When I get back from my wikibreak in January, I'll be looking to see if there's been any engagement with the people who have commented at Talk:Beaune Altarpiece, and whether GOCE copyeditors are taking comments on board. I don't have much of a say (or much of an opinion, usually) in how these issues are treated at FAC, and I don't think it's any of my business what happens in response to GOCE's request page ... but I do think TFA coords have a role in making sure that anything happening in TFA-space is at least moving in the right direction. (That's all I ask, really, I'm not looking for perfection.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Dank. I am not seeing this. There hasn't been any copy edit of Beaune Altarpiece. I assume that you are referring to the notes left which were suggestions for involved editors to implement or not, as they wished. Some have been, some haven't. Virtually all of the changes suggested were questions of MoS-compliance. One such minor change which caught my eye has the response from one of the nominators "Engvar issue, I believe. Not going there." I could correct this impression, but at the cost of causing how much ill will? I am not sure that it would be either helpful or productive (or the best use of everyone's time) to get involved in what will no doubt be seen as a nit-picking, point-scoring dispute over each. I am more inclined to step away from the horse. I am happy to take your advice on this, but that thread looks to me like a battlefield waiting to happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood that there are Wikipedians who would take what I just said as an invitation to do battle, but you're not one of those guys, and I knew that. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for the people involved in copyediting (editing or leaving comments, either way) to get a better sense than they currently have of what FAC reviewers generally are and aren't okay with. I'm not looking for miracles, just some energy expended, some improvement, and (when things blow up) some engagement. I don't think it's a big ask, given that the project is currently operating in TFA-space. And there's no rush; I'm hoping my wikibreak doesn't end till late January. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC) (Needless to say, the education and the civility need to go both ways ... I'm not giving FAC reviewers a free pass. But for some reason, an oversight I'm sure, I don't get to make the rules around here.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just now got pinged to another problem article ... Sarastro1 (a FAC coord until recently) wasn't happy with what happened to Arthur Gilligan. You might want to check the article histories. Again, no rush (on my account), I won't be making any judgment calls on this until late January. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah. Enlightenment. OK. I'll have a chat with the two others who have so far contributed. I think my message needs to include: that FAC nominators vary greatly in how much they will accept changes to "their" articles because the changes make them more MoS compliant, ie the MoS doesn't in fact trump an editor's preference; that we should leave personal preference issues if we possibly can; and that if there is reasonably toned kick back we should engage with it. Of course, it probably doesn't help that all three of us are well used to copy editing pre-FAC articles, sometimes from very experienced nominators, and getting thanked for it. Let's see if we old dogs can learn some new tricks.


 * "Do battle". I try to be here to improve the encyclopedia. It is only occasionally that I have found that, umm, being very firm, achieves this, net, long term.


 * "what FAC reviewers generally are and aren't okay with". Is there a typo in there? I thought that we were talking about FAC nominators. You realise that outside source and image reviews I am possibly the most frequent FAC reviewer this year? I get to see a lot of reviewer comments, and interact a fair bit over what we "are and aren't ok with". Although I note that at least one FAC coordinator seems somewhat hacked off regarding a laissez faire attitude to the MoS.


 * "I don't get to make the rules around here" I could start a RfC?


 * Hmm. Sounds as if we are creating work for you and others. Which was not the intention.


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given you some stuff to chew on here, thanks for listening. If there's anything I can help with (before my wikibreak starts on the 28th) please let me know. I know that what you're doing is really hard, and I appreciate it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello! I only noticed that Gilligan was up for TFA when I had a quick look today. I noticed the copy-edit and would normally have  had no problem with it. I question whether some of the changes were necessary or were improvements that desperately needed making to prevent the earth from being flung from its orbit, but I would not have been too bothered. However, several of the edits "for flow" simply introduced errors. The response on my talk page was: "Thank you for correcting the errors I made because of my lack of a deep understanding of the game of cricket". But if such mistakes can be made through lack of understanding, is this process helpful? It certainly resulted in me having to spend more time than I intended going through and seeing what needed to be fixed (and probably being a little grumpier than necessary in edit summaries as well). And in fairness, probably reverting things that I normally wouldn't have bothered with. Anyway, sorry Dan, I'll get off your talk page now and return to the dusty box I've been hiding in! Sarastro (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was very happy to see your name pop up on my watchlist. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro: Firstly can I say how honoured I feel to receive a direct communication from you, under any circumstances. Although on reflection I also feel a little like a tail ender facing Bob Willis. No, obviously it is not helpful for anyone to edit a FAC, or FAC-wanabe, the subject of which they don't have at least a reasonable grasp of. Ie at least know what they don't know. That is why copy editors hunt in packs: I would only exceptionally copy edit a FAC on a film, video, video game or any sort of music; but another copy editor may feel entirely at home with these. The editor in question is a vastly more experienced copy editor than me and I trusted them to exercise this judgement. (Cue old joke about "assume".) Hopefully it is an easily learned lesson for the future to only edit FACs where we are familiar with the topic, and if none of us are then "First, do no harm." The concept, I still feel, is sound; but we need to work the bugs out damn fast.

I started into the copy edit diff for Gilligan and stopped just after the infobox. Wince. I wish now that I had taken that one myself. I am not at all surprised that you were grumpy. I'm grumpy about what is happening to "my" today's TFA right now, but I expected most of the help not to be. You are entirely justified in being unhappy that this help didn't. I can't defend it, only apologise and say that we will try, hard, to learn from it. I feel highly motivated to; you can imagine my embarrassment that I have broken your ten-month slumber in your dusty box in order to tell me that I screwed up. I may never live this down. Sadly I know some experienced Wikipedians in RL; they certainly won't let me forget. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gog, it may be down to my failure to communicate, but I think the message you're receiving is more cosmic than the one I was trying to deliver. You're doing fine. I spoke up because I had no choice ... when a bunch of editors who have been around the block all feel like the copyediting is just too much, then there's a good chance it's just too much, and if it's happening in TFA-space, then the coords have to ask people to slow down, calm down, talk with each other, and spend more time looking over each other's shoulders. That's all that's going on here. I could take some of my own advice, actually. I'm sure you guys will do fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * What a great award, I didn't know about this one. Always happy to see your name pop up as well. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Best of the season, Gavin! - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wishing you a very happy Christmas and New Year from me too, Dank, and thanks for all your work on TFA this year and responding to last-minute issues that are raised with good humour and insightfulness. Hope you have a good one too, . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible without the competence and good humor displayed at ERRORS by you and others. Happy holidays! - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers – You too! - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

 * Looks like they're having fun! Those guys really knew how to party. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Namaste! - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Dank: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thanks, same to you! - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)