User talk:Dankirkd

A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq

 * I had to change the hook from "more than 50" to "dozens" because you didn't have a good enough reference for the 50 figure. I left a message asking you for a better reference but you didn't respond.


 * As for dropping the second phrase concerning the legislation - I initially included it but thought it just looked awkward on the front page and detracted from the hook's—and the update's—overall impact. These things are always a matter of judgement and lots of hooks have to be pruned in order to fit in. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and other people will sometimes make edits to your material that you don't like.


 * I'm sorry you didn't like my edit, and maybe you are correct that I should have left the phrase in, but I did what seemed appropriate at the time. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article had cited sources that referenced the 50 plus number

Yes, it was sourced to OpenLeft, and if you'd seen the message I left on the suggestions page, here, you would have seen that I questioned the reliability of that source. Unfortunately, you didn't return to the page in question in time to resolve that issue, and I made the decision to go ahead with the use of the hook, albeit by substituting "dozens" for "fifty" as I found a source in the article that cited dozens. I think I should add that normally, I would have waited for you to respond, but given that your hook had already attracted quite a bit of opposition, it seemed to me wisest to go ahead with promoting it while we had an apparent consensus, rather than wait for someone else to come along and raise new objections.

I also see you made edits to other hooks that created problems

I have been doing DYK updates for eight months, I'm the second most prolific updater in DYK history. In all that time, I have had, IIRC, exactly two complaints, and both of them came from yesterday's update—which I already explained was prepared in a hurry. I am also the leading contributor to the DYK suggestions page—there is no-one at DYK who works harder than me to resolve issues and try to get hooks promoted.

In regards to your own hook however, I would like to rectify any possible impression you may have that I handled it carelessly. That is far from the case, I actually spent considerable time trying to integrate your hook into the update in the best possible way, which is largely responsible for the fact that I got to bed at 3.30am last night rather than 2.30. To begin with, I put it in second spot to ensure it got maximum exposure (it couldn't go into top spot because that is reserved for a picture hook). Secondly, I spent considerable time shuffling the hooks around to try and set your hook off in the best possible light. Finally, I was forced to ditch one of the hooks I had already selected in favour of a different one because I felt the selection of hooks did not suit the political one (political hooks are often difficult to integrate because the hooks selected with them can often read like a commentary on the political hook itself).

So you see, I did actually spend a considerable amount of time working to present your hook in the most effective way, and I think by and large I did a pretty good job. As for ditching the final phrase - that was admittedly a last minute change I made after posting the hooks to the front page, where I saw the update as a whole was a little too long. On reflection however, I still think that edit was justifiable, as I don't think the extra phrase added anything vitally important, and probably only detracted from its "punchiness".

To sum up, I did the best I possibly could for the hook in the limited time available, had it been left up to someone else you may well have had a much worse outcome as there aren't too many other updaters who put as much thought into updates as myself. One don't always get ideal outcomes however, in spite of one's best efforts. Given your concerns though, I am thinking that perhaps we should add a clause in the rules stating that hooks are subject to alteration by updaters, to at least forewarn people of the possibility. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Update on dates
Hi Dan, just thought you might be interested to know of a change. The Manual of Style has been updated, and now states (to simplify it a bit) that dates should pretty much never be linked. See MOS:UNLINKDATES for more details. Just wanted to let you know, as this contradicts the fairly specific instructions I gave you on the matter a month or two back.

Glad to see you're staying active in the project! -Pete (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just noticed you've been fending off some vandalism on the Dave Reichert article. First, thanks for doing that. Also, it's a good idea to leave a warning on the offending editor's talk page. (Doesn't have to be as formal as the one I left.) This leaves a record, which makes it a pretty straightforward procedure for an administrator to block the user if the behavior continues. Hope you're having a good election season! ;) -Pete (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the tip. Dankirkd (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

File:ResponsiblePlan.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:ResponsiblePlan.png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ResponsiblePlan.png
Thanks for uploading File:ResponsiblePlan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)