User talk:Dank/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dank, I know I still need to get my act together and finish Washington + collab with you on NC. But I'm not here for that; I'm here to ask if you would consider standing to be a WP:MILHIST coordinator for this term. It's really not a lot of work; mainly you would be needed to give opinions on random topics at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for the invite Ed, I'm off to the Raleigh meetup but I'll think about this when I get back. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good and take your time, the nomination period has been extended to March 15 because of a lack of nominations —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've read everything over, I should be able to at least get done what people are expecting of coordinators, and I think this would dovetail nicely with my work on battleships. I'll go add my name. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good! The project will be much better off with you as a coord. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As a sitting coordinator, I'd also love to have you appointed after they kick me out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And the same to you! Sorry our chat was only a brief one. My next trip to the US is in August - San Fran unfortunately, rather a way away - but the microbreweries going on in North Carolina are rather tempting me back :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Dank. Room & Board is an American furniture company. Could you please undelete the text that was there? I can add some New York Times citations to keep it from being all advertising. It makes no sense to allow a completely uncited article for Pottery Barn and delete this one. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what develops at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Room_.26_Board. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see an oppose. So (for example Bankrate.com which I found had been deleted and then made into an article), do you care if I start over with a new article? I don't know the rules and just happened to run into the deletion log. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you, Dank. Sorry to bother you with the undelete request. Your request for comment gave me an idea, so thanks for that, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Notability is going to be your main hurdle; see WP:CORP and WP:WHYNOT for more ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I hadn't expected anyone to remember me. Maurreen (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, good to see you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the majority of these reports by Calton all have one or two promotional edits a month ago, and have not returned. Should we keep blocking them, or do you think just deleting the spam is enough? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion: like Blanche DuBois, we "have always depended on the kindness of strangers", the patrollers. If we continue not to mark new userspace pages as new pages so that it's hard for the patrollers to find the bad ones, and deny the patrollers' requests if they catch these pages too soon, and deny the requests if they don't find the objectionable accounts til one month after they're created, then we're making things difficult on the people who are getting most of the work done, without any payoff that I can see. I'm happy blocking inappropriate usernames at any time, and every time I've asked at WT:U about this, people are fine with it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It turns out it was just a few of them anyway. I feel very 50/50 about it, I block spammers all the time but when it seems like they put up their spam and then walked away, the problem is usually solved by deleting the spam. How Calton finds all this stuff is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be very good at it. If we're going to give patrollers a small window of time to catch these things, then I think pages like this should show up on new page patrol, or a separate patrol page for userspace that works the same way; then it would make sense to say that if no one has decided to tag the page for a month, it's probably okay. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I listed this article on the GA nominations page in January and it's currently "on hold". My reviewer left comments on March 2 and I responded to all of them but he/she hasn't promoted or commented on what I've done. It's been more than seven days. I left a message on his/her talk page asking if I needed to do more but I've recieved no response. Nothing is wrong with the article (well, as far as I can tell). Are you able to promote it since you're an admin and a WikiProject GA member (assuming you think it meets the requirements)? Do I really have to renominate it in order to get it promoted? // Gbern3 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this isn't my area and I don't have time to help with this right now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I don't recall any involvement with this article or this material but correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the quote here? [1] It's not a big deal, I'm just curious. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer quotes either for controversial statements (where you don't want to put words in their mouths) or for short, widely-quoted statements that came to represent an event or a time according to the sources, such as "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Occasionally, the source uses language that allows some wiggle-room in interpretation, and I prefer to quote them so that the reader can see the difficulty and make up their own mind on the interpretation. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only other place I can think of that I used quotes like that is Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, where a journal hailed the ship as "the last word in heavy battleship design and the ... most powerfully armed warship afloat". I'm still unsure why a statement from a Senator shouldn't be quoted though. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read a definitive answer on why Google and Wikipedia have put so many journalists out of work, but I think part of the answer is that traditional journalism is symbiotic with politics; quoting a dignitary gives the journalist's work the air of truthiness while promoting the dignitary. People in general, especially young people, have come to see quotes like this as less than persuasive. The quote you mention isn't necessarily a WP:PEACOCK problem, both because there's some support for the opinion in our article and because it's important to represent the rah-rah sentiment that was so pervasive and crucial during the war, but past discussions on PEACOCK issues have made me leery of putting any effusive quotes in an article I'm working on unless I'm prepared to spend a lot of time defending them. You're welcome to re-insert it if you like, but I think we're likely to get some resistance at FAC, if we're headed there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had reported the above user for being a promotional name. You had replied there were some constructive edits from the user account, and therefore you had requested for the edits that seemed to be in conflict. I have seen that the user has made many constructive edits, apart from a handful of sports/Olympic related edits.[2] Ice_hockey_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_–_Men's_tournament, Vyacheslav_Bulanov and Brent_Reiber are amongst those few handful ones. My viewpoint is that given the way lobbying goes on for various issues at Olympics (and it is a sponsored event finally), the name Canadaolympics is as promotional as a name like IndiaCommonwealthGames or SouthAfricaFootballWorldCup. I would want the user to be asked to change his or her user name to a more non-promotional sounding one. If the user refuses, I'll not push the point as I have nothing against him, despite my opinion that the name is clearly totally promotional. What's your view on this? If possible, do kindly reply on my talk. Thanks.▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Might interest you Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check my busy social calendar :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's just NJA using the KittyBot account to remove them manually-assisted with AWB in non-bot mode, I believe. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The name wasn't an exact match for the subjects the editor was writing about. It could have been dealt with at WP:COI just as readily. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umumu (talk • contribs)

I don't have an opinion on any questions that pit one nationality against another. - Dank (push to talk) 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All these variants keep both Romanian and Hungarian names, so I don't see why one nationality would be offended. I just wanted to standardize the form of the lead, because it could look messy when one article looks in one way and other article in a different way (Umumu (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

What I mean is, I don't have an opinion when different nationalities might see things differently, and this is one of those questions. - Dank (push to talk) 09:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked your point of view. Romanians and Hungarians may be subjective, so I thought you can say which format is more appropriate for wikipedia. Thanks anyway.(Umumu (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that you focused your attentions on articles destined for FAC. I didn't say as much initially on my current ACR so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship. I'm most concerned about prose quality as I've had some issues with previous FACs in that regard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I hope I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note, I'm having health problems. When I get back, I'll finish SMS Helgoland first, then look at your article. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, anytime in the next week or so would be fine, before the ACR expires. But if your health problems preclude that deadline, don't worry about it. I'm in no real hurry to get it to FAC, especially since I've been bumping heads with a prominent FAC reviewer of late.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Tom. I will wear them with honor. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Dank! See, I told you it would work out. :-) It's nice to have you onboard. Hope your health problems work themselves out soon... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two doctor visits down, two to go, things are looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to hear. Any idea what is wrong? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The only ongoing problems at this point are acid reflux and sinus congestion ... annoying, but the meds have them under control. My doctor keeps asking me about stress ... I'm not sure if he'd understand what preparing articles for FAC means :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Augh, acid reflux. I'm probably going to get that someday; my dad has it horrible. He can't go anywhere without being sure that he has Tums. Hahah -- I just wrote a paper about my 'philosophies of education' (I'm majoring to be a teacher), and I mentioned that I edit Wikipedia in it... I had to figure out how to keep it short while still ensuring that he understands what I mean when I say "a coordinator of the military history project." :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out my user page. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		thank-you for all of your help in copyediting Japanese battleship Yamato at its FAC. Even if it ends up not passing, you have helped to improve the article significantly. Cam (Chat) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's kind, thank you. Let me know when one of your articles comes up for SHIPS/MILHIST peer review and we'll do it again. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. FAC is the eventual destination, so if you don't mind that would be awesome once the ACR is done. Cam ^(Chat) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your deliting. Could you restore the information. It's hard to repeat. My referenses were being created.

Where is my page?

I've never deleted the page at Kyiv School of Ukrainian Language. It's still there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on the article Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II. (& I'm still not sure about "ton"). As a small token of thanks, do accept free admission to the National Maritime Museum of Ireland valid until the end of 2011. ClemMcGann (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! It won't open til October, but I'll keep this in mind on my next trip to the Irish Isles (you know, that nice green island not far from North America, plus a few inconsequential islands to the east). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I said "valid until the end of 2011." Nonetheless, even if it isn't open to the public, you will get in. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations. More specifically, thank you for your "enthusiastic" support. I really owe it to a few people that I was able to mature, and you are certainly one of them. I am very thankful for your encouragement, as you are one of the best admins there are. Thanks! ceranthor 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)