User talk:Dank/Archive 40

Rodent FAC

Time is running out at our Rodent FAC and we have not attracted as much interest and comment as we would have liked. I see you are active at FAC and if you felt like reviewing/commenting on the article it would be most helpful. Its a fascinating topic (or so I think) ! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth. I didn't read it closely enough to support the nomination, but I made some comments and offered an assessment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Reviewing a long article takes quite a commitment of time and I admit that the length of an article is one of the factors I consider before taking on a review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The writing is excellent, it was a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

A note to significant contributors to the Ford Island article: its been nominated for promotion to Good article status. The nomination is listed at Good article nominations - Geography. Thanks for your work to improve the article! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: Removed GA nomination template from the talk page. Per User:TParis, the article is already under A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ford Island. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

Hi Dank. As you probably know, despite you and one other editor supporting my original FAC for The Fifth Element, the review was archived as, accordingly to the closer, a minimum of 3 people need to support a nomination. Now that two weeks has elapsed since the nomination was archived, I have renominated it. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fifth Element/archive2. There have only been minor changes since you supported the original nomination. Here is the difference between the version you supported and the current version: [1]. I'd be ever so grateful if you could support the nomination again; now that all of your and everybody else's concerns have already been addressed I anticipate this nomination to go much quicker and smoother. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X FAC

Hi Dan, this FAC has plenty of support and the requisite checks but a quick pass suggested it would benefit from a copyeditor such as yourself running through it before we consider promotion, if you can spare the time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done (for the lead), but I'm not a good choice for a copyeditor for WP:VG, there's not a lot of overlap in my experiences as a reader and writer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs FAC

Hey Dank, are you available for providing feedback at the Sleeping Dogs FAC? [2] Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. See my reply to Ian just above. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright. URDNEXT (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Astatine

Hi Dank. Thanks again for prose reviewing fluorine during its FAC. I wanted to know if could I ask you to copyedit another element article, astatine? Basically, I think this article is fine, I only need checks at technical things, such as prose quality and links, after which the FAC should start. It's not a great rush, if that's a thing, just let me know if you can help. Thanks--R8R (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather take a look after it's got at least one support at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand you; sure, it should be the case soon.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI regarding 2002 Pacific typhoon season...

...that was me countering vandalism additions of fake storms, incorrect stat alterations, et cetera. I just thought I'd let you know. Dustin (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

short lede massaging request

Hey Dan. Do you mind taking a look at the proposed lede for SAS Inc? I'm doing a GA review and I think the proposed lede is an improvement but also introduces some other minor problems. My guess is a quick look should take between 10 and 15 minutes of your time. I'd love to have your input there. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm feeling really pushed for time these days, so probably not, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Protonk (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

VE and edit conflicts

I've noticed some of your recent edit summaries about using VE and being concerned about edit conflicts. You might be interested to know that per a conversation I just had at the VE feedback page, if you edit a page with VE there is no difference in edit conflicts than if you had edited it with wikitext -- even though the whole article is available to edit, Mediawiki is apparently smart enough to understand which sections you actually did edit. So if you used to edit an article section by section, and you do the same with VE, saving after each section, you'll get exactly the same chance of edit conflict as before. Of course, if you edit the whole article in VE in one go, then the chance of an ec is higher, but that's true with wikitext too. It's just that it's more tempting with VE because you can always see the rest of the article. Anyway, thought you might be interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great news, I didn't know that. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Sorry I didn't get a chance to finish addressing your comments for 2002 PTS's FAC, but thanks so much for your edits! It really helped push the article over the top :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies, that made it easier to see what you wanted. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2014 – September 2015

Hi Dan, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. Thanks for standing and all the best for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck as lead coord, Ian! - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Input on FAC?

Hi Dan, we've collaborated before on a couple of MILHIST FACs and I wondered if I could ask for your assistance with one I've got underway at the moment - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1. I'm hoping to have the article ready for the Main Page by November 6, the centenary of Lody's death - quite a tight deadline. I'd value your input on any issues that might exist with the article; would you be able to have a look at it? Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to our announcements page (so it shows at the top of this page, for instance). I'm busy with my style guide and software at the moment, I'll check in on it later on. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

July to September 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 July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an amazing 45 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting help

Hello and thanks for the copyedits on Megadeth. However, I hope you'll lend your talents on Master of Puppets, as I'm planning to take a shot at FA with that one. I know it's long way till we reach there, but some basic wording will be much appreciated. If you're short on time, I understand.--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Megadeth article, I was rethinking a couple of my FAC suggestions. I'm pretty busy with my copyediting software, so I'm not taking requests. I do keep an eye on the FAC urgents page, and I'll run through your article if it gets that far. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

support prose on Carl Hans Lody

I added a heading around your prose support, so it didn't get lost in the reviews. Hope that's okay. auntieruth (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Short FACs tend not to have subsections, and longer ones tend to have them, and people do a lot of reformatting sometimes. Very glad to see you reviewing! - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. en-dash discussion

I'm having a discussion with an editor over at User talk:Doremo#Hyphen vs en-dash on the proper punctuation for ship-class names like Conte di Cavour-class battleships when the first part is open. MOS says that usually these use an en-dash rather than a hyphen, but I've never seen that usage in any of my reference books. I'm wondering what the various style guides have to say about the issue and if ship names are some sort of exception. Your thoughts on the topic would be welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any advice on dashes. Folks at WT:MOS will probably be helpful with this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping more that you could check the various style guides for me as I know that you don't do dashes. The other editor has already trotted out the Chicago Manual of Style so you needn't bother with that one. But you've got the AP style guide, right?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have the 2013 AP Styleguide. The terms "en-dash" and "em-dash" appear on one of the last pages but not in the punctuation section, where the editors talk about "dashes" and avoid any mention of dashes vs. hyphens. Chicago 16, on pages 331-333 (yes, I meant a hyphen, which is common in informal text), gives advice that's typical for style guides, which is to say: it's unclear, it waffles, and it differs from other style guides. The difference in length between their hyphens and en-dashes is so slight that most readers are sure to miss the distinction. In short, there's no such thing as standardized, accepted wisdom on hyphens vs. dashes, and most readers don't notice the difference, though house style guides can and do make up rules all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry, I just realized that he's quoting from the article on dashes, not the dashes section of the MOS and so lacks authority from the git go to make these changes. Thanks for checking on it for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dank:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.