User talk:Dank/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 5

←

Archive 9

→

Signpost

Hey Dank. I;ve added the summary straight into the signpost, hope that is okay. I can;t speak for Ragesoss, but I think there's a freedom to write up what you want, so the ball is very much in your court. There are no signpost people, or if there are, you are one of them. Hiding T 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Master of my domain, eh? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi I was User:IJA and I want to end my account on wikipedia. So I requested for my userpage to be deleted. I have made it so I don't know my password by changing it to something I can't remember. Is there any way of deleting my account all together please? IJA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.224.15 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of emailing me a new password to my wikipedia registered email account please? I was User:IJA. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.59.67 (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when you're signing in, click on the link that emails your password to the email address you gave when you created the account. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done this however when I try typing in my temporary password it is say that it is incorrect. Should I try waiting another 24 hours? 86.145.59.67 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I tried using my old password and this has seemed to work. Thanks for all your help. I will not get in trouble for sock puppetry will I? Because I have not been using IP accounts for inappropriate reasons. IJA (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We're happy to delete userpages, but we prefer not to delete talk pages, especially when they have a lot of comments from various people, as your user talk page does, because those people might want to go back and look up something they said. If there's any harrassment or potential harrassment involved, that's different, feel free to email me and I'll look into it. The guideline I'm going by here is WP:VANISH, which says you can nominate your own talk page for deletion at WP:MfD if you'd like to make the case that there's a special reason for deletion. You can of course delete the one remaining comment on your talk page, and if you put the {{retired}} template on your userpage and talk page, it's unlikely anyone will leave you any messages, and they certainly won't expect an answer.

Best of luck pursuing your studies, and I hope what you've learned here will serve you well. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. You deleted my image Hack Movies logo.gif for no reason. I'm asking nicely, please put it back. You know you had no justified reason to delete it. You gave the code that the author had requested it be removed but the author is the writer/producer/director of the company who gave me permission to use it. Again, I'm asking nicely, please put reinstate the image.(User talk:Erkman27) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The code I used, G7, says that either the author requested it or the page was blanked; you blanked the page. That was a technical reason for deletion, but the admin who deleted the image before me had another reason: the image only linked to a deleted page. There's another problem: the image page doesn't say where the image came from. Read WP:PERMISSION (I see the image is a logo), and also let me know which Wikipedia article or articles the image is going to be in. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you mght be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Wikipedia community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SENSOR-Pesticides peer review

Hello again, Dank. Thanks very much for your initial comments peer-reviewing the SENSOR-Pesticides article. Several editors have looked at it and made suggestions, and I've expanded a few sections and modified others over the last few days. Would you be willing to glance over it again and let me know what you think? MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are some very good reviewers you've got, I would say more or less the same. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks again for your help! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

"There have been some events that happened since Seicer resigned the bit in April that Jimbo feels particularly strongly about."

Was this in regards to any of my actions, or in general? Just curious, thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I remembered the issue that you mentioned, I didn't remember that Jimbo had replied, I gave the link at WP:BN. Sorry about that, I'll do my homework before I speak up next time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Trollkarlen

Hiya, just curious what is your rationale for declining my speedy request on this one? I created the stub, and there have been no other substantive editors on the article. --El on ka 02:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but when I asked a related question today at WT:CSD#G7 question, SoWhy said that he declines G7s when there's been more than one editor and the article has been around for a few months. Your article has been around for more than 3 years. The same question has come up for other CSD criteria, including G11. The theory is that if an article has been around for a while, then it's likely people have seen it, and the fact that no one complained is at least a small argument in the article's favor ... and when it's been around so long, a week at PROD won't make a lot of difference. I restored the PROD; will that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I de-PRODded Trollkarlen after having changed it into an article on Svensk Magisk Cirkel, the organization that published it, and which should have a better chance of being seen as notable. This was also the article in Swedish Wikipedia that the Trollkarlen article was linked to. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tomas. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Dank, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know!
Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RfB passing threshold

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu reading your comment - you say that "changing the threshold" for RfB ran into opposition this summer, thereby implying that the threshold is still 90%. But we have had conclusive results on the books for awhile that the threshold changed. We haven't tested it much, because there have been few candidates since then where its come up; but frankly, by persistently ignoring the RfB bar poll, folks reduce the chances that it will be taken into account when a borderline RfB is closed. Nathan^T 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because several people that I regularly collaborate with might wind up at RfB, I think I have WP:COI on the subject of what the percentages should be and I've noticed resistance to even the discussion of the subject in the past, so I'd rather focus on ways to get good information to the candidates and the voters; that might fix the perceived problem all by itself. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And btw ... I mentioned 85%. It's the other guys who are saying 90%. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You said that we wouldn't get 85% again, which if it was a reference to the required passing percentage... it was certainly oblique. Your later remarks included that changing the threshold ran into opposition in the summer (which it did, in a sense, partly because people did not realize it had already changed) and also that changing the passing percentages was unlikely to get consensus (even though it already has). Perhaps I have a conflict, having proposed the RfB bar poll (on WT:RFA, initially, it was later moved), but I find it incredibly frustrating to see something like that basically ignored even though it had the input of a huge number of people compared to what we now normally see on WT:RFA. Nathan^T 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you want me to make a retraction of sorts at WT:RFA; I don't mind. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry about page deletion

Hi sorry if I'm posting in the wrong section. I just wanted to inquiry as to the deletion of the Web hooks page. Do you think it might be ok for me to create it? It was mentioned at a google conference and i think it's pretty cool concept. -Andriyko (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see I deleted that on June 17; it was a copy of webhooks.pbworks.com, so there was a copyright problem. Please see WP:WHYNOT for some ideas on how to avoid deletion of articles like that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

MichaelkourlasBot

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting the redirect left behind after the page move I made. -- allen四names 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The sectioning here through the insertion of headers created some rather arbitrary units. I moved your link to the earlier discussion up to the top of the whole section. There is another of your comments that is in part a reply to me about discussion location, part a comment on the more specific issue. I would like to have your permission to divide this conversation into a meta part (on the location issue), like this:

Is it really a good idea to have this discussion in two places? Wouldn't it be better to keep it at the village pump, where it is more likely to be seen by more people? --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer a pointer from VPP to whichever is the appropriate guideline or policy page, because people will actually be able to find previous conversations about citations if you keep them at WT:CITE. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

...and then leave the rest of the comment starting with "My problem with...") where it is, as a reply to Carl (CBM), as it was in context. As you can see, someone later added the "discussion location" heading here, in spite of the fact that most of your comment did not concern that issue.

The location issue distracts from the actual argument, so it would be good to get it out of the way. --Hegvald (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that talking about "where to talk" can get distracting, so feel free to move that comment as you wish if it's getting in the way. I haven't kept up with the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks. --Hegvald (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Question Mark recreated

w/o sock-list - Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

nevermind Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Declined G7 of Chris McGrath (computer engineer)

Perfectly reasonable of you to decline the G7 speedy deletion of Chris McGrath (computer engineer) with other contributors, but the only other contributing editors have both voted for delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris McGrath (computer engineer), where the original author also requested a delete. I just thought a speedy could help things along and close the AfD. Josh Parris 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I weighed in at the AfD, you will probably get a quick deletion there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Mercado (Asian Boyz 1226)

NEW NOTIFICATION FOR YOU DANK

Hey you just deleted my Marvin MErcado article for no apparent reason besides your wants. It said my article was deleted for attacking a certain group of people, by you But my article did not attack any group of people

It took me along time to find those sources and now you just threw it off like nothing

-creatordnk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatordnk (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, sorry, there's probably a good article in this somewhere. Thanks for complaining :) I've asked for help at WP:DRAW#Marvin Mercado. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

William Nichols

Hey, thanks for the copyedits and clean-up on William Nichols (architect), my eyes were beginning to cross! :) Altairisfar _talk 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, I'm always happy to work on North Carolina-related articles. If for any reason it doesn't seem to be passing at DYK, give me a holler within the 5 days and we'll do more polishing. It looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will, thanks again. Altairisfar _talk 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw ^talk 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Sorry, I know you've been putting effort into reorganizing some of the policy pages. That work is appreciated but demoting a policy without a decently-long and decently-advertised discussion leaves too many people out of the loop. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WT:IAR. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry, I don't recall working with anyone on "shaping NPA." There must be some mistake. Can you point me to a diff? Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now where Risker mentions me as having worked on that page, which may well be true. It's been a while. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines

I found a slew of userspace pages in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines tonight. I'm half asleep, so I hope you'll forgive my rambling here:

Wasn't there a bot that to catch and announce additions to this category? Or was that only watching the subcat Category:General style guidelines? Some of the pages appear to have been in the WP style cat for a month.
There seems to be a pattern of folks copying guideline pages into userspace drafts while learning wiki syntax. Consequently, there are userspace pages marked with {{Style}} and {{Style-guideline}}/{{MoS-guideline}}. I'm thinking those templates ought to be restricted to WP namespace, so they don't lend any fake authority (however unintended) to pages elsewhere; thoughts?
I regularly find and remove userspace pages from mainspace categories. I've noticed some of the recent ones have been pages that were created via ArticleWizard—and indeed, several of the ones I found tonight in the WP style cat were ArticleWizard creations, too. Do you by chance happen to know anything about that utility? If it's smart enough to create a page in userspace vs mainspace, it oughta be smart enough to comment out categories when creating a page in userspace.

Thanks in advance for putting up with the stream-of-consciousness format of my queries :) Maralia (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Just in November we had a pile of userspace pages in Category:General style guidelines, and I asked about this yesterday at Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Project-space_categories_in_userspace. It really seems like we need a bot (or just some folks handy with AWB) to remove the cats from these pages. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly ...

... you'll have to be desysopped for this. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Where's mah beatin' stick? Protonk (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You laugh ... but have you seen what they do to people who don't capitalize properly at WT:MOS? *shudder* - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely suspect they beat them with well worn and dog-earned copies of their favorite style guides. Just as I imagine beatings are meted out with Emily Post for mishandling CIVIL issues. On that note, I really should write the article for Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's gay. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh no my friend, It's pretty hip to the streets Protonk (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently Colbert consults Emily Post, and "rainbows are just God's way of frowning at gay people." - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Section names should not normally contain links

Was this ever redacted from WP:MOSHEAD? I saw a discussion in late October, how the technical reason had been overcome. I've searched and read, and cannot find it anymore. I've come to you, Dank. Thanks. — Cpiral Cpiral 08:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I know I've seen a lot of section headings where the whole heading was linked. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted the Q at Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Section_names_should_not_normally_contain_links. — Cpiral Cpiral 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't redacted. It's always said "should not normally contain links". I found the discussion I was looking for at WT:Accessibility by using a special search phrase JAWS prefix:Wikipedia talk — Cpiral Cpiral 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work. OTOH, the bug appears to have been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. Vassyana (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm going to pass this on to Sage, User:Ragesoss. Hiding T 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiding. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, Vassyana. I understand you've got some concerns about a story in this week's proposed Discussion Report. I may be the only Wikipedian who doesn't know the story :) I only worked on the Policy Report; I'll sit this one out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it will play out. the offending material is widely disseminated across other Wikipedia pages, so I'm kind of balancing freedom of press issues... Hiding T 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know the story, but as a general observation, people often don't understand that a fact-checked story coming from a well-trusted journalist can be the best defense against rumors and gossip, which are inevitably worse than the truth. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not 100% on the story myself, I've just been summarising relevant discussions. I think the request stems from a wrinkle with the BLP policy. Hiding T 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See [1]. The same apologies are extended to you. Vassyana (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New User Problem.

Can you take a look at Star Trek (film) and the associated talk page? I have a user who has removed five sources including one from cnn to replace with a blog reference. Why because it's truth. BNeed a bit of help as I can't revert anymore and he doesn't understand reliability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind WP:3RR is that once several reverts have occurred, it's time to upgrade to some kind of dispute resolution ... sometimes an invitation to WP:Third opinion works. Sometimes asking an admin for help works out, but if the admin steps in and starts doing the reverting because you're at your 3RR limit, that could be perceived as a policy violation; see for instance WP:OWN#Multiple editors. It's better just to make an invitation of some kind to the offender, and report it at WP:AN3 if they don't respond. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There are exceptions to 3RR; see WP:GRAPEVINE (BLP policy) for instance. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Happy Holidays!

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki talk contribs wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:MisterWiki/Happy Holidays}} to your friends' talk pages.

MisterWiki talk contribs 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Civility and Consensus (category shift failure)

I noticed in my watchlist. Any quick comment/future thougts? (Feel free to ignore.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Current thoughts are at WT:U#Thank you. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse slow acknowledgment ... my watchlist has expanded 10(+?) fold recently.

Will not respond in detail on Christmas Eve :-), but what you said here is quite good/interesting. Suspect I'll have some questions for you in 2010 ... but for now, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for Copyvio Question

Hi, I was wondering whether the article with title "Tapan Chowdhury" falls into Speedy Deletion category as it is a Copyvio from http://www.bei-bd.org/staticcontents/index/board_governors . I didn't dare to notify this to the article's talk page as there are some powerful Administrators are protecting the article from deletion, especially a 'biting' Administrator with harsh language. Thank you.--Hangamatha (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please ask at WT:Copyright problems. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi Dank, I received a message on my talk page (the last message) and I was wondering if you could take a look at it. The source caught me by surprise and I thought that an administrator should be aware of it. Shinerunner (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You handled it well on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Dank. Shinerunner (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pioneersolutions

I just received this email from an account I blocked in July: "I do not understand, why I have been blocked creating a Wiki page about our company? other comapny wuch as Price Water House coopers, Goldman Sachs, etc have done so. What am I doing incorrectly? please assist. Many thanks, Zamir"

As I said on your talk page, we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group or organization. There is no "User:Goldman Sachs" on Wikipedia. Please register an account that represents only you, and before you create an article about your company, read WP:WHYNOT ... if you don't know our policies on conflict of interest, then it's possible your article will be deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		Your help with the featured article candidacy of the article North Carolina-class battleship was invaluable. I truly appreciate all of the assistance you provided. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, and I'll be happy to help with any ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RFB

Running out for some holiday sales but wanted to drop a quick note thanking you for the kind tone of your reply on Julian's RFB. In my opinion there's no such thing as "badgering" on RFX -- I always welcome discussion and challenges to my views. But thank you for going out of your way to be so darn friendly about it. :) Will respond on the RFB later today. --JayHenry (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, several of those avenues are worth exploring, I think, and I look forward to your take. The whole "ageism" thing has died away at RfA, and my preference would be to keep it that way, it lowers the level of the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Think you're right about ageism. It's just one of those issues that doesn't lead to productive discussion. I've kept my responses to the other issues I see. --JayHenry (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I'll go have a look as soon as I'm done with this morning's crop of G11 pages. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Day (North Carolina)

I would appreciate any help you can give me. I wasn't sure what would be good to put up there to try and get a DYK, as this is one of my first articles. What should we do?Cdtew (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We prefer books, newspapers, and other things we define as reliable sources over most websites, so the first thing to improve is the sourcing. There are a ton of hits for this guy at books.google.com, and some of the websites you mention also list their sources. I'll start adding some sources, too. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just added a book source for the specific DYK fact, and will try throughout the rest of the day to put in more sources. What drew your attention to this article?Cdtew (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep an eye on WP:WNC. Thanks for the sources, and I agree that's the right "hook". - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought my day was free today but it filled up in a hurry. I won't be able to make the DYK window on this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak

Seeing that you have taken an interest in this article. I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. I would like to see you take a neutral attitude and seek comments from all parties concern before taking an action requested by Monkeyassault. Roman888 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken any actions (other than declining the speedy), and don't intend to take any actions or vote in the current AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that Roman888 has not only created what appears to be a POV article but has also been coatracking Najib Tun Razak, using personal POV blogs as sources for negative information in violation of the BLP, and adding copyrighted material to articles such as Port Klang Free Zone. We are supposed to assume good faith but Roman888's talk contributions, user page, and edits all tell me something else. I would like to start procedures for having him blocked. Monkeyassault (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that this individual has blatantly deleted and whitewashed whole sections of articles, it would be fit to report him for edit-warring and vandalism. The articles which has been mentioned contains information that fulfills the following criterias: reliable, notable and of journalistic content. Nothing of the information can be construed as NPOV according to Monkeyassault. It would be better to freeze the article for another few months until proper consensus can be achieved. Roman888 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for re-posting the Speedy Delete, I skimmed the first line of your previous comment and did not see that you had already declined it. Hope it does not cause a problem. Riverpa (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)