User talk:Dank/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a super human 38 reviews. Your continued involvement with reviewing is greatly appreciated by the project and is one of the main reasons that the project has been so successful in the past couple of years. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Deeply appreciated, AR. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Much obliged for taking the time to ply your master skills to the Mahan-class destroyer article. Pendright (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. I expect someone will come along and do the other half of the article before long ... if not, I'll do it. Feel free to bring more articles to A-class, you're doing a great job. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Broth!

Healthy and nourishing

Thank you for your input on the articles. Here's some wholesome chicken noodle soup to make you feel better.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've got some broth here. I'll get back to your articles as soon as the fever's down. I generally enjoy your writing a lot, but in spots, it suffers from too many terms that our readers may find abstract or unfamiliar. Aim to paint pictures and to be specific when possible. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's really important to provide a deeper understanding of historical topics through contextualizing, but I guess it's quite easy to get lost in jargon when you try to convey all that knowledge you've amassed over several years. In the past few years, I've become more and more focused on writing for all types of readers, not just those who share my specific interests. So I take "I don't get what you're trying to say here"-comments very seriously. I really appreciate your recommendations regarding this.

If you're interested, you might want to have a look at galley. It's been a very ambitious on-and-off project for a few years now and my biggest undertaking so far. The article is still somewhat unruly and way too long, but I think it's really starting to get somewhere. I'm thinking that it might be ready for FAC before the end of the year. Right now I'm working on filling in minor gaps, emptying user:Peter Isotalo/galley and redistributing content to related articles (naval warfare, naval artillery, medieval warfare, warship, etc.) and sub-topics like galley tactics.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to bring galley to PR any time (with topic=history), I'll see it there.- Dank (push to talk) 10:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a PR for the galley article. Would you be focusing mostly on copyediting or content discussion? I've been working on it on my own for such a long time that I really feel like I want some input, but I'm wondering if I'd merely waste your time with overly messy prose (and a lot of repetition, I'm sure).

Peter ^Isotalo 14:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your writing is fine, Peter, and you pay attention to feedback, which is even better ... but I generally don't make any promises ... if you put a MilHist article up for review (PR, A-class, FAC), I'll get to it when I can and copyedit as much of it as I can. I'm pretty busy with copyediting software these days. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'll make a proper print-out reading in a week or so and then put it up for PR. Any help is welcome. Cheers!

Peter ^Isotalo 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for your patience. - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A Class

Last year you kindly suggested I take Æthelstan to A Class. I would now like to nominate Israel the Grammarian for FAC, and so far as I can see there are no live A Class projects for non-military historical articles, so I will have to go straight from GAN to FAC (once Æthelred is out of the way). Is this correct? Of course, I should be grateful for any comments on Israel. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. There's no A-class available, but it will probably help to run it through peer review (with topic=history). - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Rupert

t's promoted. Next: there are a few things Rupert mentioned that I didn't respond to, let me know (here or on my talk page) when you're finished, and let me know if you need help:

I found and fixed a few instances of where ship names weren't in italics, please check if I missed any;

Checked the text and did not find any names of ships without italics. I added italics to a couple of names in the Ships in class table. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked a few myself, but where possible, if you mention an action at a location, I think the convention is to include the link to the battle/campaign article rather than the location, for instance Battle of Balikpapan (1945) rather than just Balikpapan;

Your point is well taken regarding battles vs. locations. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her" - do we know the name of the troopship? If possible, please add it here;

H.M.A.S. Duntroon - added to Perkins section Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"A court of inquiry found the captain, the navigator, and the officer of the deck at fault for the collision" - were these Perkins' crew, or the troopship's? [I guessed "troopship" and added that - Dank]

Good question: Roscoe, the source, does not say. Jurgen Rohwer records the event but is silent on details. A reading of the event by Roscoe could lead one to assume he is referring to the troopship. I hesitate making this assumption. Perhaps the statement should be deleted. I removed Dank's guess it was the troopship. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"File:Photograph of the wreckage of the USS Downes, hit by bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306547.jpg": if possible, this image should cropped to reduce the effect of the whitespace. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I will have a crack;

I could use some help in cropping the Downes photo. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

wording: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her." For me, the word rammed makes it sound intentional, so I'd suggest rewording slightly. For instance, perhaps this might work: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when she collided with an Australian troopship." Either that or "when an Australian troopship accidentally rammed her"; "when rammed by an Australian troopship" (as above, probably use "collided with", or similar).

Substituted collided for rammed - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

End of AustralianRupert's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pendright (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I posted this on Rupert's talk page a short time ago. The 4th and 5th responses could use your help. Pendright (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked the citations on our article on HMAS Duntroon, both to DANFS ... which is silent on the question. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A little bit naughty?

Don't you think it's a little bit naughty to alter your posting after someone has responded to it? Eric Corbett 22:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't arrive at Wikipedia yesterday, Eric, and I've seen this before. You goad an admin until people think "Wow, there must be some kind of bad blood between them". Well, I've never treated you with anything but respect, and whatever conflict is going on at WT:FAC and here is in your head, not mine. If you want to try to make a federal case out of it that I changed "the" to "the or a" and then explained the change immediately, feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, you're the dishonest <redacted>[1] I always thought you were. Eric Corbett 01:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. For anyone thinking of blocking Eric over this ... don't. He has a thing about admins that ... as far as I know, we haven't crossed paths for a while until today ... doesn't (usually) extend to the rest of Wikipedia, and he's (usually) a net positive. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Question?

The word summer only caught my eye once, which I fixed – I thought. Thanks for catching my lower case spelling of July. Spring did not show in my radar at all. But, I did notice that 7 December 1941 is still repeated in the Mahan, Cummings, Reid and Cassin sections. Is this by design? Pendright (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch; I thought I remembered removing most instances of "7 December 1941". I've removed more. I still see "During the summer of 1946" (which is problematic, because the Marshalls are nearly on the equator, so they don't have "summer" per se) and several cases of "spring", such as "in the spring of 1937". - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Spring and summer!

Dank: For whatever it’s worth, please accept my apology for embarrassing you. I was diligent about spring and summer with the ships in class, but apparently less so in the body of the article. Sorry! Pendright (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're in the top 1% if we're ranking editors by diligence, don't give it a second thought :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Kronan-thanks

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Question?

Dank: I hate to put you on the spot, but I do need a bit of advice. If you feel uncomfortable in giving it, I’ll understand. Question: Say a reviewer’s comments introduce material that needs further clarification as one sees it, how candid should one be regarding the response to the things said? Especially when the reviewer has informed you upfront your work is not up to speed. In any event, thank you. Pendright (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked for help at the FAC page for you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Somehow our wires got crossed, but thank you for your efforts. My post in response to yours follows. Pendright (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Dank apparently misunderstood my post, I am willing and able to respond and I intend to do so myself. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

From FAC page: No problem! Ordinarily, I’d accept all the help I could get. In this case, I think it’s my responsibility to make an effort to address all the questions put to me by the reviewers. If I get stuck, I’ll yell! Sorry for this little episode. Pendright (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Pendright (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for you in your copyediting role.

I just got challenged about using capitalization when referring to a specific turret, forex No. 3 Turret. I believe that since I'm referring to a named thing, it's therefore a proper noun. Am I correct? I'm waffling right now as I've seen plenty of British mentions of 'X' turret, etc., so I think it's time for a second opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on capitalization and punctuation tend to vary a lot. I'm not aware of anything I could look up that would settle this one, one way or the other. From a practical standpoint, if you can live with what the reviewer wants, go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Thanks for your FAC help. Am I running out of time? I have most of the remaining items pretty well scoped out, and should be done with them in a day or two. Thanks again! Pendright (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you're fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Curious

Is there a reason why The Mahan-class destroyer article is still shown as a GA? Pendright (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A-class is a wikiproject-level review, and wikiprojects have broad discretion, so it doesn't show up on the article page. It does show up on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing the COI / Terms of Use RFC

I'm willing to act as a Non-Admin Closer if you have at least one administrator. Please notify me on my talk page when the RFC is ready for closure. Will it be running 30 days? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I have to recuse on the question of who the closers will be. The RfC has been withdrawn for now, but I'll let you know when it's back on. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that you explain, since I have !voted on the RFC, I should avoid closing. I don't know why you referred to harassment. I don't think that there was any, only that I have a strong opinion that paid commercial editing is harmful. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

[Robert is referring to my linking WT:HARASSMENT on his talk page.] Oops, I wasn't saying "harassment" is relevant here, only that that's the talk page where I saw your comment (probably because that's where WP:OUTING is). - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Barbecue in North Carolina

This is the one I was talking about. Needs some research and construction. Barbecue in the United States would be the parent that would need updating to. In a couple of weeks, I should be ready to start plinking around with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John and I will see what books we've got here. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Help!

USS Mahan (DD-364) passed GA in January, and I’ve been working since to bring it up to A-Class standards. It now seems a likely candidate for such a review. But, frankly, I’m having difficulty with some of the instructions for requesting a review. I’m able to add the |A-Class=current| to the project banner (step 2), but no luck with step 3 of the instructions that follow:

• From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.

When I complete step 2, nothing happens. No apparent link to click on and no formatted page on which to discuss the article. So with some exasperation, I’m taking the liberty of asking you to bail me out - if you have the time or inclination. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Help, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The history tab at Talk:USS Mahan (DD-364) disagrees. On that talk page, hit "show" to expand the MILHIST banner. Follow the instructions at WP:MHR. Seems simple. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dank - I responded to Chris T. on his talk page. Pendright (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)