User talk:Dank/Archive 15

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 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

i need your help this is a ip user on this article removing a source/content from a article without forming a conserius because i think when you remove a source you should get a consensus first before doing that type of edit. i have ask them do do that a few times but they just keep going back and just removing the soruce/content anyway. first where can we go to sort this out second i know i properly not handle this perfectly either. i do not want to break the 3rr rule which i think i may be close too if i have not already. i do not want to get any one in trouble but one of us may end up in trouble anyway. if you or amyone else you looks into this deems it that way. so any help you can give me or tell me where i can go to get this matter solve that would be great thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)

Hopefully one of the other admins you've notified about this will be able to help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see relation to the band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottonmouth_Kings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutput7777777 (talk • contribs)

I don't see a connection between his edits (or his deleted edits) and that username. - Dank (push to talk) 11:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Under what grounds are we allowed to undo a user's edit to their own page? I think this is allowed if you want to display the warnings or something... is that it? — Timneu22 · talk 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Their username was reported at WP:UAA for blocking, and I think there was a case for blocking, but since this new user is so ... interesting ... I've asked for a little patience at UAA while we try to engage them. If we let them delete everything we're saying and continue to ignore us, then someone will probably block them quickly. To answer your question: I can't recall that I've restored someone's user talk page after they blanked it before; my reading of WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages is that it's allowed occasionally. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he blanked it again. I think active warnings should be allowed to remain (people editing others' pages) but oh well. I'm still not sure he's as interesting as you do. :) I just wish someone from the Korea wikiproject would straighten him out (and I left a message there). Right now, his claims of representing the North Korea government are just tiring. — Timneu22 · talk 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And... he's blocked. Didn't take long. — Timneu22 · talk 16:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The report has been removed so he's probably been blocked. What was interesting about this one was that it's possible that they were an official in the North Korean government, although it's more likely they were just a troll. But as long as the community doesn't waste too much energy on a troll, it's never a mistake to give people a little rope ... the worst that can happen is, they continue to hang themselves, and then the issue gets settled in everyone's minds. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The first tagging and assessment drive challenge is starting now for WikiProject United States Public Policy. If you'd like to participate, start using the new assessment system and the project banner to tag and rate articles that are related to U.S. public policy. There's even a small prize for whoever does the most assessment this week.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to enter the Battle of Piave River (1809) article in the July contest. The problem is that I've already updated it, but it was on 5 July when I did it. Can it still be entered in the contest? The answer to this question was not clear to me from reading the contest rules. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please ask either User:AustralianRupert or User:The ed17, who did the evaluations for June. They'll know better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for my belated response. I do own this book, and it is tucked in a box on my storage (handy for doing research...). Try the following bookstores in Argentina (you can order online): "Yenny / El Ateneo" or "Instituto de Publicaciones Navales". Good luck!
Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you happen to remember if the book did or didn't have significant information on ARA Moreno? The copy at Google Books is too fuzzy to read. There's a copy of the book at the University of Notre Dame library, and I've got an interlibrary-loan order in for it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My memory is not so good... I believe there was relativley few text and much more images. Sorry for that. DPdH (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can't get the book, I'll quote you on that, heh :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The book arrived a couple of days ago through inter-library loan, I gave the info to Ed. Moreno is at A-class review now. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please may I have rollback rights as I think they would help me revert vandalism. I certainly do know the difference between good and bad faith edits. Thanks --Ratinator·Talk 14:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never given out user rights. WP:PERM is the place where people usually apply; best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I would like to add a page, that you deleted last year. I am new to wikipedia, and I can't say I understand all these lingo. Here is the paragraph I see, when I try to create a page about a coporation. Could you pls let me know what needs to be done to avoid deletion again?

"A page with this title has previously been deleted.If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 03:26, 20 May 2009 Dank (talk | contribs) deleted "The Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.canturkfed.net/en/home_en.html) "

Nigbolu (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm short on time today, I'm going to wait and see if my talk page stalkers who like to handle these things are still around :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo! I still have stalkers :) How you been Protonk? - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Busy and away, alternating. I'm trying to write Glejser test, maybe I'll finish w/ the figures and get on it tomorrow. You? Protonk (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing some writing, helping out at the law office, and reading up on battleships and battlecruisers to help me collaborate at WP:SHIPS. Good to hear from you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and contributions in getting this article to FA. I'm ready to get started on Akagi. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let me second Cla68's comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we all enjoy working together, I'll get on it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dank! I wanted to let you know that applications are being taken now for Wikipedia Online Ambassadors, and to encourage you to apply. Happy editing, --Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal invitation. I'm really busy right now but I'll look into it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dank. User:Lttbk is adding the same information to Brea Police Department (California) and appears to be engaged in another edit war. I realize you blocked User:Official Brea PD Information because of a potential user name violation, but I thought I would mention the ongoing activity. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I blocked only because of the violation of username policy, and the new name is probably not a violation of that policy. I'm really slammed for time right now; you might want to try WP:COIN, our conflict of interest noticeboard, since he's claiming to be speaking "officially". - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering, why can't I accept articles on Wikipedia Articles For Creation? When will I be able to accept them? Thanks for helping Solar Rocker (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you just started your account 2 days ago; I don't know how they handle things but they might want you to have more experience. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok it's just that it says either your account is too new or you are blocked, I thought I was blocked but now I know it's because I'm too new. Just out of interest, do you think my contributions to Wikipedia have been good so far? Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slammed for time, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but when you come back on, can you let me know? Thanks :) Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dank,

I'm preparing Japanese battleship Haruna for an FAC run. Most of the pre-FAC work has been reference tweaking to a lighter usage of Combined Fleet tabular records. However, I suspect the text could also be in need of a copyedit. When you have time, would you be willing to copyedit the article? In exchange, if you want it can be a co-nom @ FAC. Cam ^(Chat) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do this one, thanks; give me a few days, though. Rohwer and Parshall & Tully (see Library link above) have a bunch of stuff on Haruna that I'll need to add pre-FAC. Oddly, G & D, Battleships (Axis and Neutral Powers) has only a brief mention on p. 58. It's in Conway's of course. That's it for the books I have here; do you want anything through inter-library loan? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm good. I just got my hands on a few new books on a trip to the States that I have yet to add info from (Stille, Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship 1941-1945 is the biggie). Thanks in advance for all your help! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Almost caught up on my A-class reviews, then some work on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, then you're next :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm working on Japanese battleship Kirishima and Japanese battleship Hiei in the meantime; I won't be ready to deal with an FAC until mid-late August at the earliest anyways. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

...who did you piss off? (you'll have to look at the deletion history) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was a guy I blocked who was reported to WP:UAA this morning for an obscene username. At least he's creative. That page hasn't been deleted yet, btw, and I'd rather not do it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rivadavia class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:The ed17 deserves most of the credit and I see he got credit. But recognition is always nice, thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dank. This is Omri, I am new to this whole Wiki world and I guess I did something wrong since you chose to block me. can you please explain to me what I did wrong? Also the Nazmiyal site has more history and information than anywhere else on the web (since I know that most of the content was research heavily and vetted before uploading, I know it is all good, clear and accurate). I would like very much to continue posting information and correcting a lot of the information out there that is simply wrong. I look forward to hearing from you. All the best, Omri Schwartz (You can email me directly at: omrisch@gmail.com)

I'm sorry, I'm not getting any hits on "Omri" or "Nazmiyal" in my log (recently), which article was this? - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I set up an "antiquerugexpert" login and then I listed some of the sites I work with so that you would know I am on the up & up.

Ah, right, the page and username was User:Antiquerugexpert. Please see WP:WHYNOT for advice on how to proceed. It will be easier for people to talk with you if you take a few moments to create an account; pick any name that represents you rather than your business. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to bore you, but like many other new users to Wiki, I must have done something wrong as you have blocked my Bankfighter page :( It also says "(autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite". Does this mean that I can't even try to fix the problem?

I do believe that a description of Bankfighter is important for consumers. I would be happy to remove whatever information you were dissatisfied with.

Please advise, thanks!

brittany@mhconnect.com

"99.239.1.5 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)"

Not boring :) Actually, all I did was block that particular name and post this notice (with an extra sentence about contesting the block): "Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a few moments to create a new account with a username that represents only you." Another admin deleted the page; you may want to see WP:WHYNOT for advice on how to proceed. You can also click on the bubble at the top of this page for real-time help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're still wanting a useful coordinator backoffice task, the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards is worth watchlisting (if you haven't already; I did check and you haven't voted on anything, hence this assumption). Noms don't come up that often but when they do they can sometimes, especially for the chevrons which requires broad support, languish for days. The reason this came to mind is that I've just posted an A-Class medal nom :) EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(via email) Hi, Dank. I appreciate the steps Wikipedia takes to maintain the integrity of its encyclopedia. I am new to this and was trying to be careful to follow the correct steps to add a neutral description of a company division I work with called Cryovac. Many people, especially in the foodservice industry, have begun using the term "Cryovac" or "Cryovacking" to describe a certain way food is cooked in a package, and it is actually an incorrect usage. Cryovac wanted to list its company on Wikipedia so that when people type it in they see that it is a company that makes food packaging, not a cooking process. I think we may have gone too far by adding general product descriptions, and will of course remove those references if necessary and stick to a general company description.

Can you let me know what I would need to do to make sure this page follows Wikipedia's standards? I also hadn't realized I should use my own name as a username instead of a general one for the company--I can change that, too. Regards, Dave

Hi, Dave. You can use any name that doesn't represent your company. I didn't delete your page; in fact, it's still there, but I recommend WP:WHYNOT for advice on how to proceed. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your emails ... I don't know the answers to your questions, I recommend you click on the bubble at the top of this page for real-time help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenville Business Magazine Hi! Greenville Business Magazine was recently "speedily deleted" because of its username. I have changed to my personal username and edited most of the information so that it's just the basic facts. Can you let me know if this page will work via my sharpemikayla account? Thank you!!

Please check with either User:Vianello, who deleted the page, or the guy who notified you of the problem; or if you like, you can click on the bubble at the top of my page for real-time help. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, 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.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. 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 22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I say your message in the channel (and realized that I should stalk "Patar" instead of just "Patar_knight"), and the answer is, sadly, a resounding "no". There's barely any users in there. It should be publicized more to the project members. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll spend more time there, maybe people will come by with copyediting questions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have got there too late to help. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding at the AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pointing some admins active in UAA blocking to this thread ... we've already got a lot for potential clerks to digest over at WT:UAA. I really appreciate the restraint; not much has been said so far over at WT:UAA about whether clerkship is something we want, whether it can work, and what the job is ... which is perfect, actually, we need to see first who shows up, what they can do and what they want to do. If we set the bar too high, potential clerks will give up before we start, and if we set it too low, they won't be motivated, so let's see what we get. I also really appreciate the fact that we haven't had anyone jump in talking about how much more they know than some clerk and how the project is doomed ... it's true of course that UAA admins do fabulous work, and at some point we want to impress on clerks just how much goes into it and how dedicated and knowledgeable some of the admins are, but it might be better to keep the atmosphere light and easy while we're "recruiting".

A little feedback at WT:UAA and WP:UAA might be helpful so that potential clerks get an idea that this is something real and worth putting some energy into. Maybe we can get a discussion on what the initial vote on clerkship might look like at, maybe at the end of September, at WT:UAA#Voting?. Please feel free to comment here or there, or email me if you want to express private reservations about the whole thing.I didn't get any email replies, and I think the time has passed now, please contact me on-wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also ... people are starting to discuss CSD clerkship ... which seems like an awfully big job for a clerk to me, there's so much to know. It might help to break that into chunks ... and if we do that, then I'm thinking the G11/db-spam chunk would fit most naturally with UAA clerking. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly support this idea. I know there's one guy, an admin, who's devoted himself to the unglamorous task of reviewing the stuff in the holding pen and removing entries when it's clear they're not editing again. Having someone do non-admin stuff like removing clear false positives, confirming whether a "-bot" account really is a bot and reviewing edit histories to see if accounts are stale would free up a lot more time and leave admins' jobs to purely deciding what to do. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've followed the discussion a bit. I'll leave my comment here, but feel free to move it. Perhaps you have some ideas to deal with these concerns. Clerking is something I consider essential in RfA candidates. The ability to remove reports, to negotiate and to advise of policy, is what adminning is all about. I won't support anyone at RfA until I've seen them prove they know when to say no. I would prefer more editors did it and that no one was restricted from doing it. I consider this important to encouraging more admins. Thus I oppose clerkship as a right to do things, but support more people clerking without permission as a route to (more) adminship. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents ... but I want to stress that I'm not trying to control the conversation by inviting admins to my talk page, your point is valid and important. I think we're just talking about a few boards, and even on those boards, I think all we're talking about is the right to stick a "clerk's note" in front of your comment ... everyone else can (and will!) comment, too. I only see three potential benefits to "official" clerks: 1. it's possible they'll be granted the right to see deleted contribs ... not any time soon, but it might happen ... and that could be majorly helpful with UAA and CSD, I think 2. if clerking becomes a "thing" that people take more seriously, then it might not frustrate informal clerkers, it might even inspire them to do more clerking 3. the main point: people are "clerking" anyway ... and sometimes they suck at it, which creates even more work for admins. Some kind of quality control, or at least the notion that quality control is important, would be really helpful, particularly as the number of active admins declines. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm a bit like "tl;dr" on the big policy discussions which extend over several pages. I think I understand what you're trying to do, and a more obvious route to adminship might have advantages. Even simply a nice badge might have advantages. However I hope you take my point forward. Informal clerks, like informal editors not needing permission to edit, encourage more and better. I really wouldn't want to see any additional restrictions (it seems these are currently being proposed) put in place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take it forward, I'll mention your point at my lightning talk at the NYC wikiconference, and maybe there will be an open discussion as well. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to second the comments from zzuuzz, I agree that clerking around UAA is important and I personally like the non-admin who boldly take the initiative to help out there without being invited, asked, or trained. That gives us a very clear and true measure of their thought process. While I would encourage a clerkship concept there in which we told some potential admin candidates that they might considering helping out there, I would rather stay away from the formalized training concept ala SPI clerks which seems like overkill for this case.  7  01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Agree with what zzuuzz has said re: UAA clerking (I've no recent experience there), and for CSD my $0.02 is that clerking would be nice but not really necessary, about 10% of the legitimate speedies I've nuked recently were done by anons. However, it'd be a good way to recognise those editors who CSD often. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've read over the clerking ideas, and I've got to disagree with them. Yes, I will contribute, but I think there's a better way to go about doing this. As the primary reason brought up for clerking is the need to get people familiar with admin work so they can successfully pass an RfA, I believe the problem should be addressed at the root - the RfA process itself (there's no problem with UAA or CSD IMO, so we shouldn't target the problem from there). That means we need to look at how people are voting and why, what candidates look like and how we can improve their chances at becoming admins. There's no harm in promoting a reasonable user to admin, but the process has become difficult and grueling. Maybe we can create an RfA voting guideline page, RfA potential candidate page, and other pages to guide the process. The current RfA is messy in terms of what's going on - there are no solid suggestions on when someone should nominate themselves, etc. I think that once we provide a stable backbone for the process, it'll make RfAs more logical and:

• Allow reasonable good admin candidates pass more easily
• Disallow those that are not ready yet.

I'm still busy revamping abuse response and long-term abuse, but I can work on this with you and others too. And yes... I tend to find badly shaped projects and get them going again. xP Netalarm^talk 05:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the current contents of WT:RFA. And WT:RFA has had more edits than any other page on Wikipedia (I think that's still true), much of it devoted to the general subject you're talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposals for changing RfA aren't gaining much traction. One possibility is that ideas should be better developed before they are proposed at the RfA page. To that end, I was intrigued by your suggestion about clerkship, and thought I'd try to flesh it out a bit. I haven't been a regular at RPP, but from reading the page, it appears that the process is as follows:

1. An editor bring a request to the RPP page asking for some form of protection.
2. An admin reviews the request, and reviews the page in question.
3. The admin makes a decision on the type of protection and the duration
4. The admin then pushes the buttons to make it happen

I presume step three takes a bit of time, to ascertain that there have been xxx recent problematic edits in yyy hours. The admin has to confirm that the requesting party isn't the main problem, as that would lead to a different action. The admin has to confirm that the problems are coming from multiple people, otherwise a block of a specific individual would be in order. The admin has to be aware of past requests, and determine whether this time period should be shorter, longer, or about the same as the last request. I think these tasks are ones that an editor with experience, but not yet an admin could perform.

I'm imaging that a template could be put together for a clerk. The clerk would review the situation, and place a template on the RPP page, which might read something like:

More than xxx instances of problematic edits in the last yyy hours. This page was last semi/full protected on xx/yy/zzzz for a period of xxxx Recommendation: semi/full protection for xxxx. The admin would review the analysis, and then, depending on how long the clerk has been active and how well the admin knows the clerk, the admin will do a spot check or more in depth check. Over time, the admins will learn which clerks have a clue (and presumably, the clerks will also learn from feedback) and be able to trust the clerk report more and more. I imagine that the template could even have a button on it (which only works if an admin clicks it), automatically providing the protection level proposed. While a first read may sound like this is adding bureaucracy, once established, it should result in smoother operations. With a decent number of clerks monitoring the site, the recommendations could be completed soon after the request, and the actual protection would take literally seconds by the admin in cases of trust, and far less time than usual even when review is warranted. The result would be an off loading of a fair proportion of the effort needed for RPP, while giving admin candidates more real world experience in RPP issues than one gets from simply making reports. I'm sure there are some holes in this, but maybe if we address some of the concerns outside the glare of RfA, a more well-thought out proposal could be presented to editors. (including deciding the right venue, as this technically isn't a revision to admin duties, although it is clear that those interested in RfA will also be interested.)--SPhilbrickT 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) You did a good job at WT:RFA, I'm sorry that didn't work out. What you're saying above makes a lot of sense, but I have to admit I rarely get around to WP:RFPP these days, I'll go have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'd be very comfortable with a clerking program at RFPP. We've gotten one suggestion that UAA clerks and admins discuss and encourage WP:G3 tagging, but there are other boards that seem more relevant to G3, and RFPP would be one of them. Good people, lots of collegial activity, people are largely in agreement, and they have to deal with a lot of judgment calls and difficult questions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I like that proposal! RFPP, in my opinion, is quite often backlogged, because few admins are habitués there and because if one wants to do a thorough review of the page before protecting it, it can take time. That's why I think your proposal could help. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I'm going to draft something in a user subpage tomorrow, with the intention of getting some first round tweaking, then moving a draft to VP (or other suitable location).--SPhilbrickT 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Great, thanks. This is going so well that I've just created the WP:Clerking page ... the only content is a request to keep things to the talk page until we've got an idea where consensus lies. I'd like to see your ideas on that talk page whenever you're ready. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I've just started, but here's a draft. I created at my own user subpage, before seeing your suggestion to make it part of the new clerking page. I'm happy to move it, if we can decide exactly where.--SPhilbrickT 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) My suggestion FWIW is to keep what you've done there, and put a quarter of what you've got at WT:Clerking. People value brevity over all else in discussions like these. Then if we get some nibbles, we can flesh out our responses. - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Done--SPhilbrickT 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC) My username I am not claiming any special grandfathering exceptions. According to the terms of my unban arbitration agreement this is my username. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I didn't know that, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Reply Not sure if you've seen it, but I've replied at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Clerking_again. I think this reply is a good summary of my reasons for opposing clerking, so please take a look and reply when you have time. :D. Netalarmtalk 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC) People (not me, but a lot of people) get annoyed at how much traffic WT:RFA gets. I gave people the links to WP:Clerking and WT:UAA, so if they're interested, they'll probably be watchlisting in one of those places. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like interest in discussing the general question has died out at WT:UAA, which is fine: people who want to be clerks are busy doing clerk-like things, and admins are busy helping them, which was the goal in the first place ... now the question is how to keep that going. I don't mind taking questions here on my userpage, but traditionally, big questions aren't decided in userspace; Wikipedians are wary (rightly so) of the inherent bias of a personal talk page. But we can talk about this stuff all day long at WT:Clerking if you like; I'll go add a perma-link to that RFA discussion over there to get us started. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, I didn't know about this so I was watching RfA. Looking at clerking page now, thanks for the notice. Netalarmtalk 05:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Help for reviewing my first article Hi Dank, many thanks for your kind help in advance, could you please do me a faver to check my first draft article here? User:Silena/Eonon Is is a standard organization wiki article? Is it netual engough?If you have any advice pls feel free to tell me, many thanks! Silena (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I notice you've already asked for help, let's see how that goes. You can also click on the bubble at the top of this page for real-time help any time. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Secondary account - みんな空の下 I'm thinking about a secondary account called "みんな空の下", known in Japanese form of "Minna Sora no Shita", in reference to an Ayaka song from last year. Is it possible I can create the secondary account as long as I follow the rules for multiple accounts? Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't read Japanese. Try this question at WT:WikiProject Japan. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Deleted 'tribs I understand your point and, as someone who's trying to help out at UAA, I can certainly see how it would help; however, I get to see many pages that are not yet deleted, when I keep an eye on UAA reports (because, usually, it's the blocking admin who deletes the user's spammy page). In those cases a vandal fighter/clerk would be able to block and tag the pages for speedy deletion, if they're not already, and doesn't need to see any deleted 'tribs. When there are deleted pages, the clerk would just step aside and let an admin deal with it (after all, we're not trying to replace admins, but only to try and limit backlogs)... I'm definitely not saying that seeing deleted 'tribs would be bad (it would certainly be useful), only that it might make it harder for the proposal to pass. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I'm still waiting to hear from even one Wikipedian who says "Okay, I think letting clerks block these guys would be a great idea ... but man, no way they should be able to see all of their contribs, that's way too much power!" - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I think the issue would be more about liability than power... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Legal liability for the Foundation? That's up to Mike Godwin, I'll go ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Done. Btw ... what does the bolding on "I think" mean? I'm not saying that there are no arguments, and you're dumb if you make them; I'm saying that the main argument is that people think that other people won't like it ... I haven't yet seen someone saying that they don't like it, that they'd like to trust clerks with blocking but not with seeing deleted contribs for those accounts. Let's see what Mike says about the legal liability. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) It's just an old habit of mine: I speak only for myself and try to emphasize it as strongly as I can... I'm weird enough to respond "I think it's ..." when someone asks me if I know what time it is... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Haha, I hear that, I'm a bit the same way and it gets me into trouble sometimes ... I'm just trying to make it clear that I'm speaking for myself and myself only. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC) GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation There are currently 2,505 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today! The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk). Haruna The page is looking great at the moment. I'm ready to nominate for FAC when you are; I've been doing general tweaks and fixes over the last few days. Ping me when you're ready and we'll co-nominate. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, but I'm at my limit of 2 co-noms at FAC at the same time, and it sometimes takes a long time to pass FAC these days. I see some things I want to copyedit, I'll do it when I get up in the morning. Best of luck! - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Alright. FAC is up. Thank-you so much for all of your phenomenal help w/ the article. Your extensive notes also make my own tweaking of Hiei, Kirishima and Kongo much easier when the time eventually comes. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Cam, happy to help such a prolific writer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Holding pen I'm coming here, because you were the admin making the call on Christinevalmy; I don't know if they have made any new edits, after August, 17, so I can't do anything. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Battle of Morotai Hi, I noticed that you are a coordinator for MILHIST, and I would like you to look at the recent edits at the Battle of Morotai article. I don't want to get dragged into the current edit war anymore than I already am, and I need an expert's help to verify if the information being changed is correct or sourced. Your help is appreciated! Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I've got the NYC Wikiconference in a couple of days, I'll have a look when I get back. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) It looks like other people are on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC) You caught me... [1] Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC) The wikiconference has put me in a copyediting mood. It went well, I thought. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010  The WikiChevrons  By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Roger! - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 August newsletter We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight. Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare. Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology. Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology. Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock. The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago. The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats. The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock. The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas. We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these. Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list. Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, 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.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 23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)