User talk:Dank/Archive 30

		2012 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for I award you this Silver Wiki in recognition of placing second in the 2012 Military historian of the year.   AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Before the voting, I really wasn't expecting that. Thanks for setting that up, AR. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A well-deserved acknowledgement of fine work! Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Dan. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I think their actual goal was to shame me into doing more writing. It's working :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated congrats Dan -- just recognition of the importance of prose review and copyediting in making quality articles, plus your direct involvement (co-noms) in several other A/FA pages... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done, and happy new year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Richly deserved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dank, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I already forgot about that. I just don't watchlist milhist pages much; I prefer to focus on less active projects where I can make a difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope you know you're always welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I asked about this on MILHIST talk a couple of days ago, but didn't get a straight answer. I've been adding new GANs at the bottom for a while now, and I see you just added one at the top. As far as I can work out, the ones at the top are the oldest. I know this isn't automated, and the ACR and FA lists seem to have the oldest at the bottom. I think we should we have all lists following the same rule. I'm happy to invert the GAN list if it helps. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson about automating that task, I'll weigh in there. I actually intentionally added that last one at the top ... I just tagged it for Milhist, but it's just about done, and it's one of the oldest. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You want I should invert the list? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Since people are expecting (for whatever reason) for it to run top-to-bottom, let's leave it that way while we're debating whether it can be automated. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Roger. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all your work at FAC. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that things are going well and you're "happy as a clam" ... which makes me happy too. The very best of the season, what's left of it. P.S. When I saw your quote, I thought "Tina Turner", before I clicked ... keep on rollin'! - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks of Tina Turner is thinkin' straight! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCopter Returns has suggested I contact you to request a copyedit of this article which is currently undergoing a GAR. I've been reluctant to go through the normal process after a negative experience when this article was copyedited on 18 July 2012.

I know this is a big ask as its a long article describing seven days of battles with reference to a number of sub articles. Its also been subjected to a protracted edit war, but I'm in the middle of going through it looking for comma problems, having weeded out most of the long sentences, so its not as bad as it was. Would you have time to take a look at it? --Rskp (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to this sometime today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the suggestions made about the Messines 1917 article, are you happy to support A-class status or so you think more work is necessary? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It just passed A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No objection, of course, and I hope consensus can be reached. But if not ... where I'm going with the post on Jimmy's talk page is that I hope we can have a very quick RfC to set up ground rules for a longer RfC to present, say, 5 options to Jimmy. One ground rule I think might be helpful is: after we get a rough idea what the 5 options are, each voter can discuss and vote in only one of the sections of their choice. That would deal with the main problem we've had in the past: a fair number of people who feel really strongly about their position feel a need to jump into every discussion anywhere to hammer away at their point, even though their points might not be entirely relevant to what others are discussing at the moment. You may or may not want to wait to do your RfCs within that context. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note : )

Afaict, your proposed rfc would concern the granting of adminship. Neither of these proposals do, though they do involve adminship obviously. But I'll keep it in mind. Thank you. - jc37 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done and good luck, hopefully some position can get consensus this time. If I had one wish for past RfA discussions (my wish for future RfA discussions is not to have them :), it would have been to break them into sections, and let everyone discuss and vote however they want ... in their own section. The problem is that each position has its adherents ... and the adherents get angry when people talk about anything else as if it might be a solution, so everyone is trying to talk over everyone, and the kind of discussion that produces several coherent, attractive plans doesn't happen. But ... I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we find out what Jimbo is going to be doing about it this month, and I asked on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nod. I wait with wondering interest : ) - jc37 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of recent comments pushed me in this direction ... including yours at WT:RFA#My thought (which won't happen). Is Rfacom at all in line with what you're looking for? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I strongly oppose situations where community discussions are limited to anything less than the community acting as a "committee of the whole".

If we do RFACOM, we might as well approve Wizardman's proposal to go sysop people at his discretion : )

I've been in these kinds of discussions for years. And I'm still proposing ideas : )

So don't be discouraged, and keep trying : ) - jc37 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked around on people's talk pages and sent out a few emails ... all in all I'm up to 20 supports, so I'm not discouraged at all :) All I'm looking for is that we come up with a spectrum of maybe 5 proposals, and I'd like something like this to be on one end of the spectrum. Wales says he'll reply soon, I'll have more after that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank, thanks again for the help in ACR; without that assistance, I wouldn't have been able to pass GAN in what must have been a record hour or so. I'm back, because based on comments from Ed! at GAN, I wanted to find more information about the archaeological aspects. I know you mostly review for style and copyediting, but I would also ask your opinion about the new source I've added, Babits & Pecoraro. It's the unpublished report put out by the archaeologist who did the most recent work; at 246 pages or so, it's so crucial. It has an OCLC number, cites to sources, is done by a university professor, and worldcat has it listed as being in the East Carolina University library. I happen to also know that copies are available from the historic site, where I obtained mine. I've cited to it, and hope that it passes muster with WP:VERIFY.

Anyways, the sections I've greatly expanded are as follows: Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Construction, Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Site preservation and archaeology, and Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Historic site. I'm going through Peer Review right now, and plan on listing this as FAC when that's over. Thanks again for the help, and thanks in advance! If you're too busy, or not able to review them, just let me know. You've done a lion's share already Cdtew (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, hard questions on reliable sources are not my thing, could you post this at WT:MIL? If people are happy with the source, I'll go review it at PR. - Dank (push to talk) 10:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Cdtew (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I wanted to give you a symbol of my gratitude -- without your advice and monumental help, I wouldn't be going down this path to FAC, and wouldn't have made it this far with Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). I will be forever in your debt! Cdtew (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, it's a pleasure to help people as clueful and hard-working as you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• One last question for today -- can I close the Peer Review myself (per Peer Review instructions) since I've now closed out my reviews with the other two reviewers, or is it best for going to FAC to leave it open the full two week to one month period? Cdtew (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can close a peer review when they've found out what they want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I know I said I was going to wait, but I looked at my work calendar and realized if I don't nominate it for FAC now, I won't be able to until late February. So, here it is. Cdtew (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I may be second-guessing myself, but should I have added a "battle" infobox? Cdtew (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Per my standard disclaimer, I don't make calls on infoboxes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the fact that no one's commented on the article's FAC page for some time be troubling? Should I be out drumming up other editors to come and look at it? Cdtew (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're doing fine. On average, Milhist articles take a month to get through FAC, with not much happening for most of that time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I received a rather odd looking email from you last night (Australian time) containing only a URL - I think that your email account has been hacked. I've deleted the email without following the link, and anyone reading this who also received such an email should do the same. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I found out a minute ago that I've been hacked. I've changed my passwords and I'll send out notification right away. Thanks Nick. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to an advertisement... so to anyone else seeing this, if you get a weird email, you should let me know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been to any new websites except through Google News, I had a strong password and I've got Kaspersky anti-virus and url checker ... so I'm not sure how they got the password. I'm hoping they don't have a way to snoop me. I'll see if there's a way to notify Google. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I know how they did it ... a new bug was announced yesterday for Java 7, and all PC and Mac users are advised to disable Java until Oracle comes up with a patch. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your work on my Featured Articles! Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a great achievement, your articles are pretty easy to copyedit, Hawkeye. But I'll take the barnstar for FAC editing in general :) Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for a long response, but I promise it's worth a read. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied again. 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment on my proposal. As it's completely hypothetical at the moment, there are any number of changes that might be possible; although I proposed the system, it's up to the Wikipedia community as a whole to agree on what it should look like, if there's even a consensus for a new RFA system (which there probably isn't).

Regarding your specific suggestion: my original thinking was that permitting people to run for RFA only at certain designated times of year would ensure that there are always many RFAs at those times, so there's plenty of competition for the open slots. Allowing people to run outside of those elections and reducing the number of slots accordingly would, it seems to me, rather undermine the system, since anyone who wasn't sure whether they'd make it into the top 10 would just run before the election instead and guarantee themselves a place. The end result would be little change from the current system. But maybe I'm wrong, and if you think that change would be an improvement, feel free to suggest it. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your concern in the latest RfC that some people (me amongst them) are opposing every suggested change, whilst not providing evidence as to what type of reform they might support. One problem, IMO, is that there is a division in the community between those who feel RfA is too easy to pass (and therefore inexperienced or immature admins are created, a few of whom go on to abuse the position) and those who feel RfA is too much of a hazing experience (and therefore good candidates don't come forward). Both positions have merit.

I suspect reforming adminship to make it easier to remove abusive admins is necessary (though probably not sufficient) to appease the first camp. Debundling the tools might also help, though I see no evidence of consensus as to how to split them. To my mind, most of the major tools have the potential to be used in a janitorial fashion (eg deleting obvious speedies, blocking vandalism-only accounts, protecting BLPs against frank vandalism) or in a judgmental fashion (eg closing close-call AfDs as delete, blocking content-generating editors for incivility, protecting in the midst of a content dispute). One suggestion I haven't seen around much is some form of trial adminship period, during which the new admin is discouraged from performing contentious tasks, and mentors assess their progress and can recommend removal of the tools if necessary. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What you said was ideal ... "I'm not opposed to some form of light clerking" ... and for people opposed to any kind of clerking, if they gave us any clue what they're looking for, that's great too. In the past, we've had strong pushback against trial periods ... but if Jimbo requires that we raise the number of promotions, then the community will have to make some possibly uncomfortable choices, and I suppose trial adminship might be one of those choices. Thanks for bringing it up, I haven't seen that suggestion in the recent discussions. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that opposers such as myself have no alternatives, I expect many could give a list of changes as Floquenbeam did, and there'd be varying amounts of overlap between users but it's irrelevant because years of negotiation have failed to reach consensus. As I and a few others have said on the clerk discussion, maybe it is finally time for Jimbo or the foundation to step in and mandate changes, any changes, breaking the inertia and this cycle of RfA reform discussion Jebus989^✰ 13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would have my head for this, but I agree with you, in the sense that if Jimbo's going to step in anyway, it would be so much better if the community made all the calls, that we're asking him to take a specific action for a specific limited purpose, and we're setting out specifically what we think made it necessary for him to step in. I don't expect that RfC would pass, but we could conceivably get support for a much simpler RfC saying, roughly, "don't cross this line, Jimbo", and I've suggested that at the Clerk RfC talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Too Hard Medal
		Principal architect of RFA reform RFC

Somebody invented this and gave it to me for one of my crazy, over-ambitious RFCs. You deserve it too, whether the process succeeds or not it is worth it to at least try. Good luck from somebody who knows all about the tortuous road you have set yourself upon. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wear it with honor. I thought of you today, because it feels like Alaska down here :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 

To Dank, thank you for your calm response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I realize that you are passionate about the issue, but please try to assume good faith from editors whose opinions are different to yours. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Axl, and I will. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have struck in part; I didn't really need the strong language in order to make the point that RfCs on RfA don't seem to go very well, and I should have anticipated the strong reaction. Sorry about that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your feedback at the Laura Secord FAC. The lead I wrote was definitely quite a bit longer, but Natty10000 seems to have an issue with the "excessive repetitive" of the lead (or "precis", in Natty's words). This editor has twice gutted the lead since I've submitted the article to FAC: on 18 January and on 19 January.

I've just restored it, but if you'd like to see it, I'd suggest you do it before Natty gets his/her eyes on it again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet is not to revert Natty's edits, since too much activity when an article is at FAC can kill the FAC for that reason alone. I'll go ask them what they want. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank,

I can't recall thanking you recently for your continual hard work – and enthusiasm – copy editing and reviewing our Featured Article Candidates. You make, what can sometimes be difficult, decisions easier. It is always reassuring to see your name at FAC reviews and in the candidates revision history. Yours is an opinion that I trust. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That is really thoughtful, Graham, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean this change? It bugged me a bit back in 2007/08 but people were still passing at a reasonable rate (despite all the cries of "RFA is broken!"), whereas now RFA really is broken. Izno was right, I was getting ahead of myself and needed to rewrite it as the problem rather than a possible solution. Also while I'm here I want to sincerely thank you for trying so hard to fix the RFA problem, whatever it may be. Without people like you a volunteer project with the size and sort of problems Wikipedia has would crumble. James086^Talk 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Yes, that's the one ... I don't hear that opinion as much as other opinions at WT:RFA, but I have heard it often, and I'm delighted you added it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have not read this thoroughly - and I don't know if I will... - but I compliment you for trying one thing that is unfortunately rare in WP: to start out by finding out what the problem is - if there is one - before jumping on it to fix. Thank you. I only pity the hurry, of going through stage one in only a week, but anyway, good luck! And thanks for trying. - Nabla (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. I hope you'll decide to participate! - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is something that I think is a problem with the RfA process, but I don't know whether it fits your first round pattern, so I will let you decide. I am fine either way.

The problem is that we combine two different jobs; the janitor and the judge. Yes, I know that splitting the roles has been discussed and rejected before[note], but that's a rejection of a solution, and you said you want to identify problems, presumably including ones we have not figured out how to solve yet.

(Note: an off-topic observation about those rejections: Either the qualification criteria for janitor is the same as for janitor-judge, in which case the rejection reason is "why bother? Just become a janitor-judge as usual and don't use your judge tools" or the qualification criteria for janitor is not the same as for janitor-judge, in which case the rejection reason is "this is just s stealthy way to lower the standards". A nice catch-22.) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your view would fall under the 3rd broad category. One of the options mentioned there is de-bundling the tools more. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 07:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you're obviously giving it some deep thought, you're exactly the kind of person we need participating. I'd rather not take a position on tough issues, because I don't want to say anything that would suppress turnout by people who might disagree with me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving my blood pressure a bit of exercise... I've politely advised Kevin not to do that again. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, any time. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at AutomaticStrikeout's talk page.
Message added 17:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1

Ok, I'm just feeling dense. I've read over the page many times, and I honestly cannot tell what we're to be commenting on. I can't tell what and how things are applicable, and what they are applicable to. Since others do not seem to have this issue, I'm guessing I missed something somewhere : )

Clarification/help would be welcome : )

(Incidentally, as an aside, I will admit that your comment asking people to vote was a major turn off.) - jc37 00:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Look around for people in the RfC who are saying things you like, and jump in! It's really up to you guys to decide what the point is. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Longer answer: I'm suggesting that the standard RfC format is no good for RfA reform, because most people will vote against any "solution" that doesn't address what they think the "real problem" is ... and, as you can see from what we've got so far, different people have very different ideas of what "the problem" is, so single-issue RfCs are doomed to fail. I'm hoping that people who share similar views of "the problem" will get together and talk about solutions, and then it will be up to the closers to address different views of "the problem" in Round Three in line with the interest shown in the RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you capitalized it, which is fine, but you changed it within two quotes. My understanding that we are to leave such as they were in the original, but perhaps I'm mistaken.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I missed the quote marks, I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm very grateful for your help in all of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What's really missing from the adminship RfC is discussion on whether all of the old admins should need to hand in their tools and run again. Too many administrators, who never went through the same vetting process as the more current administrators, don't have any idea what the limitations on their tools are. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, you caught me just one day too late :) I've been more than happy to talk about RfA for four years, but one of the closers for the current RfC isn't around, and I'm stepping in (unless he comes back soon) ... so I can't discuss RfA, I'm sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank, I know you're busy with RfA reform stuff that's far over my head, but I thought I'd point you to a discussion I just raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Carolina#Two proposals to motivate article creation and improvement. I'm suggesting some reforms to draw interest to the project based on what they do at WP:MILHIST, which I think is pretty inspiring. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your thoughts, since you work in both projects. If you're overwhelmed right now, I understand completely. Cdtew (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I know you don't get involved with Requests for Assessment, but is it considered uncouth/not kosher to prompt other editors who do reviews over there to clear out a backlog? I have 3 articles awaiting assessment (and I think most of the reviewers are Australian, hence asleep), while Bushranger has 1. To be fair and honest, I'm asking for contest purposes. I repeat, I am asking for informational purposes only, not to prompt you to do anything (mainly since I assume from past history that's not your bag). Cdtew (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea, I don't work over there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To the point and honest, that's why I appreciate you! Thanks. Cdtew (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time. Btw, people are making meetup noises, is Greensboro too far for you? - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'd probably be able to do Greensboro, depending on the day and date. Thanks for letting me know! Cdtew (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank, you changed "Her father was an officer in the Portuguese navy..." to "Her father was a Portuguese navy officer whose own father..."[1] The Viscount of Inhaúma was a Portuguese navy officer... of the Brazilian navy. His father-in-law was a Portuguese officer... of the Portuguese navy. Do you believe that that should really have been changed? --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the semicolon and changed "an officer in the Portuguese navy" to "a Portuguese navy office"; are those different? "whose" seems to refer to "officer" both before and after the change. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid the confusion that like Inhaúma his father-in-law was a Portuguese who served Brazil when he was actually a Portuguese who served the Portuguese navy. But if you say that the different wording won't change the meaning, then it's fine. --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No you're right, I've changed it back (but without the semicolon). - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (  Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years.   12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

•   12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
•   Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
•   Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
•   Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
•   Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

•   Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
•   Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
•   HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of   The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank. Sorry about the last few days; it's been a pretty heavy week for various reasons. I'm back in the game and I'll take a look at things. It's going to be a busy weekend though, so I'll just let the other two get on with closing the first round though and get stuck in afterwards. If you want me to withdraw I'll understand Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused ... email coming. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your tenacity in moving things forward and I sincerely hope that the community will finally agree to some positive reforms of the system. I can't help feeling however that the current discussions are a bit like the problem in a country I once lived in for many years: Calling a meeting to set a date to a organise a meeting to set a date for a meeting to deliberate on an issue. This was particularly common in infrastructures that did not have a commercial aim, i.e societies, associations, and other non-profits. I just hope the participant enthusiasm will not tire, and you can rely on my continued support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, and I believe things will pick up shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is my take on the first round of straw polls. I'm posting it here because with you being the principle architect of revived efforts to do something about RfA, I feel that it is more use here than at WT:RfA where it seems to me that there is a lot of IDHT, or people not fully examining the background before they express their opinions. I'm also surprised at the low turnout (14 - 40) and that not all users thought it necessary to vote on all polls. You're welcome to quote from the summary below if you wish. That said, I'm getting more and more confused, because although no one has pointed it out, JC has been on a relentless campaign for a very long time to get some aspects of adminship changed, but with little end support. It seems to me that there are parallel discussions going on and perhaps if the two of you could get together and consolidate your efforts, maybe it would be a great leap forward.

At the end of the day, I would say that witch hunts and mass hysteria against adminship have done far, far greater damage to this Wikipedia than the sum total of any errors or misdeeds by our sysops, and that the destructive environment at RfA is the result of groupthink.

Regarding the closure of the first round of RFCs which were to determine what aspects of reform should be discussed, proposals 3, 4, 6, and 7 have sufficient support.

1. Im staggered (but not unduly surprised) to see that the community wants 9:14:6 (29) no discussion about the negatively charged RfA participation. The only conclusion I could come to is that the community wants to keep RfA as the one playground for obnoxious behaviour with impunity. That would be wrong however, because the oppose voters were not among those who traditionally disrupt RfA. So I think in actual fact that the turnout to this poll was too low to be representative, after all, literally 1,000s of users have voted at RfAs over the years, and just as many have joined discussions at WT:RfA.
2. With regard to qualifications for voters, again at 7:8:5 (20) I contend that the turnout was so low that it cannot bear any relationship to what a much broader section of the community may have concluded, the call was too close and the result is invalid.
3. What happens elsewhere: at 30:5:5 (40) there is no denying the consensus for further discussion, but again, 40 participants don't represent the community. Generally the opposers seem to be saying that RfA isn't itself the problem. But if it's not, why do those who are known for incivility elsewhere tend to congregate around RfAs? Perhaps the supporters are expecting discussions about incivility on RfA to solve the problem of all incivility on Wikipedia.
4. The motion to further discuss candidate criteria was carried at 20:12:7 (39). In hindsight I should have supported this. However, there are going to be many sides to the forthcoming debate: Some just want a simple uniformity of criteria; some want minimum criteria, which at best would probably be low and probably only serve to deter the SNOWs and NOTNOWs which aren't really a problem anyway; some will argue for a lower bar simply to make it easier for them to get the bit in the same way as some argue for unbundling - some people really do think it's a big deal to be able to have some higher measure of control over content and contributors than every registered editor already has - and compared to most web fora and blogs, that is a heck of a lot already and more than most moderators even get. Whatever gets decided won't automatically mean a pass for every candidate who meets the criteria, and it won't stop people like me from continuing to impose high individual standards. For one thing, lowering the bar will only leave us open to a flood of new admins who might have to be desysoped later.
5. At 5:18:0 (23) the consensus of those who voted shows that most feel that the actual system is not broken - a view which I strongly support - and hence needs no further discussion.
6. The participants have almost unanimously concurred with 13:1:0 (14) that discussion is necessary on what should be done to find more candidates. The one oppose was just making sure that recruitment is not to be confused with training for hat collectors.::#I was confused by this. Is it not almost an iteration of No.4?. At 19:7:2 (28)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic ... you'd like to be able to have a full and effective debate on this at WT:RFA or in RfCs, but you find that people tune out before ... well, anything happens. Having said that: it is what it is, the only way to make progress is going to be through RfCs, and we've got a good one going. It doesn't matter that the first round didn't have 1000 participants ... the WT:Requests_for_adminship/Clerks RfC is giving the same results ... currently, we're hopelessly deadlocked on what the current RfC (WP:RFA2013) is calling the first two categories. If anyone wants to explore ways to accomplish some of the same goals as people have wanted to accomplish with clerking, I've made a suggestion at WT:RFA2013. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I see you are listed as a member of the WikiProject Robotics project. Some of us are trying to assess who and how many of those Wikipedia editors who have signed on to the project in the pass seven years are still active, or would like to still be active, in the endeavor of improving Robotics-related articles on the English Wikipedia.

If you have the time and inclination, would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page, or perhaps indicate current interest by your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Participants page. If you are no longer interested in participating, please just remove your name from the Participants page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I've been working on H. C. McNeile, an author with a MilHist tag, (so I'm partly justified in coming along with a begging bowl!) I've now got the page at peer review; one reviewer commented:

• "...from which he passed out and was commissioned into the Royal Engineers as a second lieutenant in July 1907" If he was commissioned, could we take if for gospel that he initially passed out?
  • As far as I am aware, the two are not mutually exclusive, so both should be OK. I'll drop a line to a couple of the MilHist bods to see if they agree. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • One would assume that if you pass out, your accepted into the lower ranks and thus able to apply for promotion or commission. If you don't pass out, you can't. The "passing out" bit just seemed redundant IMO.

Should the "passing out" be dropped, or both "passing out" and "commissioned" bits be left in? (If there is any chance you could give the page a once-over to ensure I haven't made any hideous errors as far as military vernacular etc, that would be absolutely great too, although I appreciate your time is taken up!) Many thanks indeed for your help. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd drop "passed out". - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great - it's dropped. Many thanks as always. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I reverted or changed a handful of your copy-edits to British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War. Hopefully my edit summaries explain the things I was concerned about. There were only a few on which I felt that the attempt to solve a problem introduced other problems or affected the prose in other ways. But I wanted to talk to you about "however". I know it's flavour of the month, and I know it's over-used, but that doesn't mean that it has to be removed wholesale. I agree with most of your removals of it on this article, but there are a few which I think were legitimate. For example, this one—where something was intended but circumstances conspired to prevent it (there may be better word or phrases than "however", but "as it happened" doesn't really work). Also these: nevertheless works (better than "however", actually) for the first one; "Despite the risks" doesn't work (though I'll grant you that "however" is ambiguous) because that sentence is elaborating on the one before wrt the risks and Blair's attitude; However, the MoD continued to lack confidence... to me seems like one of the legitimate uses of "however" and the MoD's confidence wasn't really related to the political pressure as "despite" implies; and "On the other hand" just seems like "however" with more words and sounds inarticulate. I'd like to hear your thinking (on "however" in general and those specific examples) before I do anything. Thanks for your through look at the article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Define "however" for me. (The most common meaning is something along the lines of "nevertheless", but Wikipedians seem to use it in roughly ten different senses ... how do you use it?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it another way. I take it that, in one case where you're objecting, "however" implies that "something was intended but circumstances conspired to prevent it"; in another case, it's roughly synonymous to "on the other hand". In other cases, it means "nevertheless". And in the cases where you're not objecting, I take it that my rewriting did capture the sense ... and note that I rewrote it in a lot of different ways, depending on what I guessed was your sense. Now ... if "however" can mean so many different things, how is the reader supposed to know what it means? They may be able to guess, but we're aiming for readability at FAC, which includes not making the reader guess, if at all possible. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Were all of the ways in which you re-wrote it, completely unambiguous? Each and every one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that it has multiple different meanings, some of which aren't the best uses of the word, but the same could be said for many words. In most cases, the reader can establish the exact meaning from the context. I'll reply in more detail later today or tomorrow, I'm abou to get on a train. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dank. I wonder if you could clear a doubt I have: "As second in command of that unit he put down a mutiny of navy artillerymen in the Island of the Snakes on 7 October." Should I add a "," after "unit"? Or is it fine as it is now? --Lecen (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's better with a comma, although this is something I don't generally fix when I'm copyediting since it's also commonly seen without the comma. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the comma, anyway. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad luck there, this is a slow time for WP:Milhist reviewers at FAC. Are there any other wikiprojects that might be interested in reviewing this? - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't entirely chalk this one up to bad timing; I had some further improvements I'd hoped to make to the article, but dropped the ball when work got busy. I'll see what I can do this week. As for other projects, maybe Wikiproject international relations? Homunculus (duihua) 03:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask them when the article goes back up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dank, I'm not sure what's being asked here: "Gabe, is there anyone whose 'geek skill' is language that I can talk with who's interested in working on this and similar articles at FAC?" Would you please clarify? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure ... I just have a second before supper, but I'm offering to help, on condition that there's someone I can talk with who thinks of the relevant prose problems as interesting problems that they're willing to spend some time on. That might or might not be you, depending on your interests and availability. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed something. What are you "offering to help" with? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The George Harrison FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, right, sorry about that. Evan and I would more than appreciate any help you can give at the Harrison FAC, thanks for offering. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've got the page that will become the next Harrison FAC watchlisted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks again. I hate to push my luck, but if you have some free time before then, please consider taking a brief look here, its not a long article. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• FTR, I don't care "what it sounds like" as long as the prose is high-quality. I apprciate your edits and advice. Thanks again. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My goal was to help, but I don't think I can, on that one. I don't know how to make going to the drugstore to buy paper interesting, for instance ... but I'm not arguing about what needs to be in there, I'm assuming biographers have dwelt lovingly on every detail, so your hands may be tied. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I hear you on details. I was also worried about that part. That's the paper he wrote his last lyrics on. Do you think its overly detailed in general? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I can't say because I don't have experience with the relevant wikiprojects; "whatever is typically done" plays a role in figuring out what's right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Been there, done that. Some reviewers want more and more detail, some want less, but your guess is better than mine, so if you think some areas need a trim please feel free. I can always add back anything that's IMO crucial. I've reworked the lead a bit, have you taken a look yet? If you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts in terms of "The lead doesn't feel right to me"? Thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'm supporting, but I had some questions. This was an experiment, and I wound up not feeling comfortable with it. I like to stick to copyediting history articles, because I'm more familiar with the conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I hear you and I appreciate your help, but I hope this doesn't mean that you are no longer interested in taking a look at the next Harrison FAC. I wouldn't be too concerned with conventions as I'm quite sure any comments and/or edits you make would be helpful and a net positive. I'll keep an eye out for your next MilHist FAC and return the favour with (at least one) review. Thanks again. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, Sarastro was wrong about several comments and correct about several others. I have now resolved the correct comments, and Sarastro has stricken their oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading Sarastro's comments, I decided I better stick to what I'm good at, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thsnk You.Prashant  ✉  18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, at FAC, I'm only doing military history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping! :) ceranthor 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Aloha, just so you know, Fuso has passed it's review. One of the better articles out of all the ones i've reviewed, so well done. Good luck with the wikicup aswell. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I reviewed your Yamashiro article? We worked together fairly well on the Fuso article, but I thought i'd ask incase you'd prefer a different reviewer. Let me know ★★RetroLord★★ 10:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer it :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "I'd prefer it if you'd review my article". - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Military History Award
	You definitely deserve one of these for your efforts on history and military related articles. Great job on Japanese battleship Fusō and congrats on the GA! Keep up the great work! "Dank"e!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld! Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)