User talk:Dank/Archive 39

Conflict of interest discussion

If you are stepping aside from closing the discussion, does this mean you would be willing to provide a bit more gentle guidance? There are some very thoughtful, interesting points being brought up. A light bit of moderation could help steer the discussion towards action. I'm not sure, though, of the right time to provide that nudge: personally I was hoping to get a clear consensus on a direction first, so distractions from dissenters later on could be minimized. But the usual eagerness to enact changes may try to move forward before that can happen. Your thoughts on the matter are welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would better to stay out of it ... once I lose neutrality, it's gone for good. Btw, I'll be tackling protection policy again, after I release my copyediting software, hopefully this quarter. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 10:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to stop by and say thanks for combing through some of the hurricane project's ACRs and FACs. It's always good to have a fresh perspective, and your edits have all been great. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like it, and feel free to revert stuff or tell me what you want done different. I'm going through these edits now, and adding some of them to my automated style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST 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 April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a staggering 46 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the honors this quarter, PM. Your efforts are appreciated, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A class reviews for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music

Hi. A while back you said you could help getting A class reviews set up. I'd like to give The Who a go at an ACR and see what happens. What do we technically need to do to start the review and ensure people know it's happening? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. You can do what WP:TROP does ... just create a section on your project's talk page where people can ask for A-class reviews, and ask people to use ~~~ rather than ~~~~ to sign in that section so that the comments don't get archived. I'm focusing on copyediting software these days rather than reviewing, but I'll be happy to look in from time to time and see how it's coming. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Meetings

You lucky lad being able to meet with Dennis in RL ;) I only get to chat with him over Skype. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's just down the road from me. I've been pretty slack about getting together with Wikipedians, outside of a few meetups and Wikimania. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Demonym for Katanga

Hello Dank, I hope you are well. I recall that you are quite well-versed on proper word usage, so I thought I would drop you a note regarding the correct denonym for Katanga. I am reviewing the Congo Crisis article for GA and this has popped up—the nominator and I have discussed it briefly and it seems both "Katangan" and "Katangese" are used in sources, but I had thought that Katangese was the correct term. Do you know what the actual situation is? Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxforddictionaries.com, m-w.com, and SOED all give "Katangese", so I'd go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly Dank, have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, you too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I noticed that you were looking at the non-RFC the other day. A couple of us have been talking about putting up a short watchlist notice to ask editors to try out VisualEditor. We've agreed on text, but kind of lost momentum. What do yout think? Is this something you'd be willing to post? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

My only concern there was that the short discussion at the non-RfC was listed for closing at WP:AN, and I had visions of someone coming in and doing a perfunctory close and causing some trouble. I'm sinking a lot of time into creating a copyediting style guide (and some software to go with it, as you know). I've also got my usual Milhist duties, and I have to be ready to deal with PC2 and COI (paid editing) issues as they come up, at least until the relevant RfCs are done. My plate is pretty full, and getting up to speed on VE issues is probably beyond me (and I don't want to make a post if I don't really know what I'm talking about, not that I haven't done that once or twice in the past :). Best of luck with that, and let me know if there's anything I can help with that I'm already up to speed on. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of MILHIST, Aaron Halfaker says he has an algorithm to estimate whether articles are correctly assessed. I've asked him to give me a list of stub-rated WPMED articles that might not be stubs any longer. I tried to do this by hand a while ago, and it is tedious. With luck, he might get to it a month from now. If it's as useful as I hope, then we should be able to adapt the code for use by other projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm interested in automation of various routine tasks, I'll be happy to check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's done! Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker have analyzed all 9,000+ plus of the WPMED stubs and found about 750 that they figured had at least a 50% chance of not being a stub. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. I've asked WPMED folks to have a go at re-assessing so we can give some feedback about how accurate the prediction is. Feel free to have a look if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watchlist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, Jake. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A query from out of the blue

Hi Dank.

I've got a project going on and Dennis Brown very emphatically suggested that I get in touch with you. Would you be so kind as to send me an email so that I can fill you in? ShoeHutch@gmail.com Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's a trap! ;) But seriously, yes I did recommend you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Certainly, email coming. Standard disclaimer: if it's on a subject with connections to RfCs I close, I can't talk about it privately, it has to be on-wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tim ... I can't help with your project right now, but best of luck ... I hope we'll be hearing about your progress soon on-wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. It seems unusual and perhaps unseemly to promote a potential and unformed future COI RfC for the closer to close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll respond on that page (WT:COI). - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A request

I really liked the edits you made to some of the hurricane articles recently, and I've just written something of a novelty page – 1850 Atlantic hurricane season. It's the first real season article before official records exist, so it's more historical than scientific, if that makes sense. Normally I'm fairly confident in my writing abilities, but here I've had to do a bit more digging and "connect-the-dots" research than normal. I don't think I've crossed the OR threshold, but I'm afraid the writing may be a bit choppier than what I've produced in the past. I'd like to do some more of these very early seasons, and I was wondering if you'd do me the favor of skimming through 1850 and letting me know what makes sense and what doesn't. With your suggestions I'd be able to refine my process a bit and make sure I'm not broadcasting incomprehensible jargon. No problem at all if you don't have the time or inclination, it's not an especially pressing issue. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyedited per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Julian, I forgot to answer your question, sorry. Glad you liked the edits, I'll keep an eye on your A-class process. The first sentence isn't bad but wouldn't be my choice; I might go with "was the last year ...". I didn't think it was choppy at all. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Porter Alexander

Orlady (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I copyedited that, actually. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

Reading over the comments on the MediaViewer discussion & I think you're entirely on the ball - this isn't Gotterdamerung, it's just the dispute of the month that happens to have flared up interestingly.

I am lost on quite how Arbcom works, but if you'd like I'd be happy to try and draft some findings/remedies that more or less fit with what you've been saying - in crude form, "Finding: we usually get it right". "Finding: this time we didn't, it happens". "Remedy: reopen the discussion, take it slow, and stand down the cagefight" with a possible "go for a walk in the sunshine and wait a week first". Let me know your thoughts... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the next deadline is 3 days away, but if you have a chance to work something up, I'd appreciate that a lot! - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One last thing

[Jc moved this from his talk page today - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)]

Okay, I'm happy with my text, and I've changed my "draft" to my "full closing statement". (One thing I just caught: in your statement, could you change "therefore" to "also"? The voters didn't say that #1 implied #2; just the opposite. And since you like "prevent", let's go with that rather than "preclude"). For the "more concise, unified closure text for pasting to the top of the RfC", do the 3 paragraphs that I agreed with "word-for-word" work for you, with pointers to our full closing statements here? - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Jc, RfC is closed, have a peek. Thanks so much for your hard work on the close ... hopefully, when we get to some kind of stable endpoint to the PC2 saga, people will look back and realize what a difference your hard work made. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded until now.

Thank you for your kind words. And thank you for your work on the closure as well : )

As an aside, just so you're aware, I split your message (See User talk:Peter James) - revert or modify at your discretion, of course : )

And of course, if you think it's better there, feel free to move this thread to the PC2 closure page instead.

All the best - jc37 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is good, thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

FC

Hey Dank, would you be able to step in and do the FAs for a couple weeks? Adam's very busy for this month, and I'm hoping to divide the work so that no single person will have to do all of it. :-) Let me know! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, but I never can remember the template ... if someone can list the articles I have to do in the proper format, I'll fill in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They're all listed already! Thanks Dank, you're a lifesaver. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ed and Ian: Happy to help. I did short summaries of the FAs ... I know you guys also like commentary of some kind, but I'm not going to have time to do that, just the summaries. If you can find someone to do those, great. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your brilliant copyedits on Kangana Ranaut. I look forward to using your script on some of the other Indian film-related articles. KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, I'll add this to my "shiny things" folder (linked at the top of this page). I look forward to seeing more of your articles at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I intend to nominate Ranbir Kapoor's article after this, but only after expanding the "in the media" section. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Dank on Kangana Ranaut. Meanwhile, the article Gemini (2002 Tamil film) recently passed its FAC, but the nominator Sriram Vikram still feels the prose needs to look more international in style. You free/interested to clean it up? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you liked my work. I'm trying to cover as much of FAC and A-class as I can ... I probably don't have time for other articles, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Input at FAC

Howdy Dank. Are you willing to do a review or copyediting on Thirteen (Megadeth album), an FA candidate of a friend of mine? The review page is here, so feel free to raise any issues you'll find. I was impressed by your work on Katy Perry (and other FACs as well), so thought to give you a call. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it, after I do the more urgent FACs. Glad you like my work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to bug you, but despite your comment about being more of a copyedit or than a reviewer, I do need an explicit statement as to whether you support Katy Perry's FAC for promotion or not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Dank, how's it going! I was wondering if you could help me with Sleeping Dogs (video game) since I really need help with it. Is there any way you could help me take it to GA with copyediting? know you copy edit a lot of stuff so I thought you would like this. What do you think? Thanks for everything in advance, URDNEXT (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'm trying to cover as much of A-class and FAC as I can, so my copyediting time is booked. Hopefully I'll see your work at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Super Mrio Bros. 3 is something I have been working on and I'll take it to FA in a couple of weeks. Maybe Ill see tou there? URDNEXT (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

Dank, I saw your note that you were editing Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). Then I looked at the template you placed at the top of the article. It says that the article is undergoing a major edit. I just wondered if you knew that this article has been under peer review at Wikipedia:Featured_Article_Candidates#Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). Several editors, including myself, have spent quite a bit of time working on this article. I would like to suggest that you bring any issues up at the peer review site (link provided above), and be sure to ping the original nominator who developed the article. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The template lies :) It's actually in very good shape. I'll save what I have so far ... let me know what you think. The point of the template is just to ask other people not to edit it for a little while, because it will be a major pain if they do ... VisualEditor doesn't have true section editing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being so cheerful in response to my comment. :) Your edits are good. I just saw one issue. There is one long sentence. The length is not so much of a problem, but I notice that there are two "then's". While that in itself is just a minor issue, and the two "then's" could stay, I think the second phrase beginning "then" --

"then empties 0.72 miles (1.16 km) later into the Susquehanna between Bloomsburg and Rupert"

needs the word "and" before it.

Perhaps the first "then" in that sentence could be removed. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The sentence I edited started "0.72 miles (1.16 km) later ...", but WP:NUMERAL doesn't want sentences starting with a numeral, so I stuck in "then" ... but you're right, that's wrong. I got rid of the "then" before "flows parallel", and added the "and" you wanted, does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe you added two "and's". There is no need for the first "and" (where you removed the first "then"). It just continues a series of verb phrases. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the third paragraph in the section "Course", there is a sentence that starts with the numeral "2". Even before you told me about WP:NUMERAL, I had seen that and was going to mention it to you. I usually prefer words to the smaller numbers, but if you change that "2" to "Two", then why not change all the other single digit numbers in that section? I see "1 mile", "2 miles", "2 to 3 miles", etc. In the previous paragraph there is "1.5 to 2 miles" -- that's more of a problem. You can't change "2" to "two" and leave "1.5". What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx, that's fixed I think. MOSNUM prefers numerals (even if the numeral is "1") before measurements and units. On the "and" issue above ... I think I need that "and" or the series will be nonparallel ... I'll think about that a bit as soon as I get to the end. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a toss-up. It's O.K. with or without. Maybe adds to comprehension with. I'll leave it up to you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have done that when I was editing earlier, but now, seeing 2-foot-high and 100-foot-long, I like your version better, so, if you don't mind taking the time, go ahead and change them all.

I like your change from "was" to "has been". Regarding the other verb change, of course "averaged at" is not good, and you changed it to "has averaged", but I don't think a full verb is needed there. Look at the next sentence, which ends, "with an average of...". I think you could use "averaging" in the first one, following a comma (if not "with an average of"). CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Did that. On "2-foot-high", go with whichever you like. (Most people put the "high" after the template because it's a pain to code it into the template every time.) I'm supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But your impulse was to put "high" and "long" with the measurement, which makes it easier to read. Is it necessary to add "high", "long", etc., to the template, so that it shows up in the metric measurement?

What did you decide re the first "and" (where you removed the first "then"); did you see my note about three small paragraphs above this?

I don't know how I missed that "are", which you changed to "is", and the missing "is". But other editors edited after I did. Maybe I just missed it. I'm glad you caught those. You're a very good editor. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kindly ... but I think you caught a lot more than I did, this was in very good shape. I don't have a preference on "-long"; if you decide you like that, then "|adj=on" should be replaced by "|adj=mid|-long" or whatever (very clunky, I know, that's why people generally just give up and do whatever is easiest). I just got rid of one "and", possibly not the one you wanted. Feel free to drop by any time. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising

Hi. I addressed your comment about Temperatures Rising. Jimknut (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watchlisting it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

Thanks for taking on The Fifth Element. I really felt like a bit of a heel for having to oppose its promotion, but hopefully I'll soon be able to strike it. Eric Corbett 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, feel free to revert or edit anything I do, to your satisfaction (but not yet, I'm using VE, as you did). - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the results of your work, and hopefully to striking my oppose. I've been trying out VE for the past week or so in response to the plea from the developers, but I'm on the verge of opting out again for a number of reasons, not least the lack of section editing. Eric Corbett 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dank: As you know, Mahan-class destroyer was promoted. Thank you very much for all you did to help make that happen. Pendright (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And you can read about it in this week's Signpost. Happy to help! Will you be bringing USS Mahan to FAC too? - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Right now I am waiting to see whether or not it will make A-class. If the article does make it, I’d probably give it a go. Thanks for asking! Pendright (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd ... someone typed "HELD TO NEXT WEEK" and hid your Featured Article from this week's Signpost, I'm not sure why ... I guess they have something special planned next week. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Successful FA

Thanks to your help, Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson is now a featured article :'D! Couldn't have done it without you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I really enjoyed that one, thanks for bringing it to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope we can work on more FA's together :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bring it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

openness, patience, receptivity
Thank you for following Rilke, asking good questions, for quality reviewing of FAs such as Pedro I of Brazil, for liking "a willingness to do and say unpopular things and the ability to get away with it", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 May 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 226th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, and thanks for much more that you do, such as yesterday's ARA Rivadavia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, these awards are a great service to the community. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)