User talk:Dank/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Turn out the lights - the beer has arrived

Have an unyielding beer on me.

Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.

This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *^YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Dan, thank you for the invitation to help with copyediting. Recently I've become something of a Wikisloth and am not taking on new projects. However, I might be able to participate at some point next year. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Could you help with Nevado del Ruiz? Thanks, —Ceranthor 00:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put it on the todo list, I'd guess in 5 or 6 days if that's alright. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

This article is a current FAC. Would you be interested in copyediting it? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Someone at the Guild will probably do it if you add it to this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests; after they've done their pass, please ask me again. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

That quote was ~~stole~~ borrowed (of course!) from J.delanoy (one heck of an editor). And good luck with your Rfa which is undoubtely passed (although I don't want to cuse it now!). The support was well deserved, you'll make a great admin! :D Andy (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote btw is from Twain: "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Thanks kindly for your support, Andy! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had a look at his quotes, on the internet, away from the wiki, (shock horror!). Anyway congrats becoming the admin of the century, you get the mop, bucket and of course the 'crappy t-shirt'. Enjoy! Andy (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability and FAC

That's how I see it. If it's notable enough, someone can write it until they can't write any more. I just think that one line I quoted at WT:FAC divides whether it's notable or not; then again that's probably too subjective to me as a layman rather than a stormwatcher. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA - closed as successful

Congratulations! I have closed your RfA as successful.

On behalf of the community, thank you for submitting yourself to the trials of RfA and well done for coming through so well. Good luck with your new tools. You may find Wikipedia:New admin school useful, but don't be shy to ask other admins (or Crats) for help if in doubt.

Well done and enjoy your mop. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Whee! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And well deserved. If you send out thank-spam, please don't be offended if I simply delete it from my talk page :-) Good luck using the tools to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a better place to work. Geometry guy 21:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No card for YOU! Thanks for being someone I can always turn to, G-Guy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, just remember WP:DDTMP :P RockManQ^{Review me} 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's your shirt - congratulations! If you have any questions or problems, don't hesitate to ask. I won't hesitate to direct you to someone else who can actually answer. Frank | talk 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like the spokesmodel of the wiki, "For a wonderful answer to that question, look behind box #3!" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to switch doors. Congrats. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My congratulations, I am sure you will become a great sysop. Ruslik (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations --Banime (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan, congratulations! One of the most appropriate elevations to adminship in recent history. I regret I had not noticed that you were nominated; I would certainly have given my strongest endorsement.

Best wishes to you, as always.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My congratulations too - my advice is to work through the exercises at the school for new admins. I am sure you'll do well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you already were an admin :/ Guess I should watchlist WP:RFA, huh? Congrats! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on the new adminship. I hope you have managed to get a hang on some of the new features.

Now, regarding some recent discussions on GA/FA/copyediting. It is indeed a mystery why we have so little copyeditors working on FAC/GAC. This shortage is actually more severe than we think because even then, most of these copyediting tasks should have been thoroughly scrutinised and done at the Peer Review stage in the first place - this is the place where all it passes many eyes and the major problems ironed out. FAC/GAC shouldn't be like an ER where I think almost every nominator right now needs to bring an AED to resuscitate articles halfway through - that causes a lot of stress and agony between reviewers and editors. And no, it is not a thankless job - I am willing to offer half the credit of the article to the copyeditor because it is akin to doing the polish to shine, while I only merely did the rough assembly.

Even so, many of the copyeditors I have asked them may not seem to be meeting the professional standards that is demanded of at FAC - there lies the frustration. I came at an era where Good Articles didn't exist, and only see it as a mere transitional state - i.e. ideally all articles eventually have the potential to reach FA. Even short articles in the past do get promoted. Other editors tell me that copyediting is a valuable resources and that is what is holding them back from going to FAC, because there are simply not enough resources to go around. If we can get around a solution to this, I think the FA/GA will set to see tremendous gains in quality.

Oh yes, I would like to thank you for the assistance for the Odex article at FAC the other time. Real life is killing me right now, so I have to hold off its third peer review for another few weeks. I hope you will be able to offer some advice when it is up by then. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, be sure to ask again if I miss it when it shows up. Thanks for your help. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft

I'm curious about your recent post at the FAC; there are plenty of reliable sources not affiliated with TSR, Wizards, of the Hickmans. I've posted a more complete list at the FAC page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

comment addressed to you at Talk FAC

here ya go Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Confession: I didn't read the FAC. No time! I'm actually just killing time waiting for my wife to meet me to go out to lunch. But your copmments at WT:FAC are like, "Wow, they worked very hard, kudos and all, and it makes me feel really thumbs-up warm 'n fuzzy to see an article get promoted that will.. you know... encourage others to write similar articles. Peace, dude." Now, there's nothing wrong with that sentiment. In fact, I support it. But it is not written anywhere in WIAFA, and not even a broad interpretation of the spirit of WIAFA. So does it really have a place in FAC !voting? Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Defining what a Featured Article should be wasn't the purpose of that paragraph; the structure was, "to people who say this, I say this". To people who say that Tropical Storm Erick (2007) can't pass because it's obvious when you look at it that not enough work was done, my answer is, I don't think that's true. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TF:HR

The home robotics task force was requested for discussion. Since there was no activity, I had placed it to WP:ROBO/DNE. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 6. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 09:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some advise

As I can see you have not used your new mop yet. So I have a few practical suggestions for you. Of course, you need to visit Wikipedia:New_admin_school and play in various admin sandboxes, which it has. As there is a backlog on WP:RFD, your help in clearing it will be much appreciated. This is probably the least controversial area of all XFDs. You also can try yourself on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. I should admit that admit that related activities take more my time that I had thought it would take before my own RFA. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another tip is to start using some admin scripts. Take a look at WP:JS, especially in the admin section, I usually suggest EasyBlock, Protection.js and closeAFD as must-haves for any admin that likes to make his/her life easier. Good luck with the tools, have fun! And congrats on the RfA :-D So Why 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the protection script. I'm going to be busy nurturing copyeditors for a while; I can ease into XfD after I get that project started. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Advice

Just the advice given to me on my (admittedly failed) RfA; don't block Jimbo or shave HAGGER? into another editors head and you should be fine :).Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can block Jimbo? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for looking at you wrong, man. You've got a license to kill. ;) Protonk (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironholds forgot to mention about deleting the main page. Don't forget that ;) I'm no admin, so I'm not in any position to advise you. You're more experienced than me :) Good luck with your adminship! Chamal ^talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... and then you lose your sysop priviledges at the same time!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet still a surprisingly well attended block log. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on the successful RfA! Sorry I haven't been paying much attention to things... Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Dank55! :) Malinaccier (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Had I known about your nomination, I would have surely supported. I dont often visit RfA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have told you, but we don't talk about ~~fight club~~ RFA. Thanks, Dinesh, I appreciate it. What I'm excited about is being done with all of that, so I can move on to trying to grow a community of copyeditors. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats :) I'm sure you'll do well. If you have any questions - there ALWAYS are a few at the beginning - or need any assistance feel free to shout out :) The tip I always give people is to know six policies or guidelines (OR, NPOV, V, RS, BLP, N) and two subpages (SYN from OR, UNDUE from NPOV) which seem to come up *a lot*, and have in mind a way to deal with violations. Oh and WP:WARN and WP:CSD are handy links to bookmark, as even almost 2 years into adminship I still forget which little thingy goes where. If you look in my monobook, there's a hook for a CSD script (it's in my userspace but ^demon wrote it and I merely copied it when he stopped maintaining it) I use for speedy deletions which may be of use. Anyway, good luck! Orderinchaos 03:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations...Modernist (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Good luck. :) Acalamari 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA and Best wishes again. Thanks for the personalised note on my talk page. Appreciated -- Tinu Cherian - 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too, hope we'll still be seeing you at FAC now you are part of the admin Cabal. If you are doing something about copy editing feel free to include me in (as well as what I did on Harvey Milk my user page details some of what I get up to). Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there is no super-secret admin cabal; all this work for nothing! So, back to copyediting for me, although I'm going to be focusing on recruiting and nurturing. I'll give you a holler as soon as I set up the new AP Stylebook page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. I find RfAs a bit stressful but your RfA would have been worth a visit. -- Banjeboi 06:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Benji! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Easter egg

what do you mean by saying "easter egg"? please explain this (a group of self-replicating machines in factories would be "automated factories" [[1]]) --Solphusion (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Thanks

You're welcome, and congratulations ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

MOSHEAD script

Hi Dan,

Sorry to be at loggerheads over the new alt-text guideline. I value your opinion and I see where you're coming from; I certainly wouldn't want to stir up fresh arguments on Wikipedia. But I really don't think it'll be a problem; no one is going to get trampled in the rush to add alt text to images. ;)

Did you have a chance to test out that MOSHEAD-checking script? I'd appreciate feedback on it, especially from you.

BTW, that workshop on Wikipedia editing for scientists is happening in San Francisco on the 16th at roughly 12:30-2:30pm local time. If you were available to help, that'd be great for us, but I'll totally understand if you're busy with other things. Proteins (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I visit San Francisco everyone once in a while (I'm in North Carolina) ... are you asking me to attend in person or online?

With Alt text, I'm asking that we not underestimate the job, and we make sure that we've got people who really enjoy this kind of thing and want to devote some time to it before we add the current recommendation to MOS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea where you lived. I was just hoping to find a few people online to welcome the scientists and help them with the more recondite editing. We'll have a handful of live volunteers as well, plus Tim Vickers and myself.

I'm not trivializing the amount of work for alt text. I know rather well how much work it is, after doing the various images on acid dissociation constant. But I believe we all have time to develop best practices and good guidelines at a reasonable pace. My sense is that GA reviewers and the FAC directors are not going to insist on universal alt text in the near future, despite its being part of the MoS. Of course, that hypothesis remains to be tested. If the alt-text guideline survives this initial round of discussion, which seems likely, then I'll ask Raul and Sandy for their advice on its implementation at FAC, and then talk to the people at WP:WPGA.

Any advice on the MOSHEAD script? I'm thinking of making a few others, such as one for WP:ENGVAR, but I'd like to learn what I can from this script before starting the next. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll need about a week before I can get to MOSHEAD. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush — I'm going to be busy, too. Thanks for looking, Proteins (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Animated images

Hi. Regarding WP:Image use policy#Animated images, I just wanted to emphasize a comment I made at the end of the last discussion, Wikipedia talk:Accessibility/Archive 4#Moving images.: "Or, Tell us if you ever see an article that is already using the static-link method! (I've never seen one.) Perhaps the policy should rather be changed to reflect actual practices/usage..."

See also Wikipedia talk:Accessibility/Archive 7#Animated image in essay. It's really just Andy who detests all animations embedded within articles. I believe the majority of readers/editors find them rather useful... Making them harder for a reader to find is a terrible mistake.

I've been meaning to bring this up at the Image use policy page, but still have no time. Would love it if you could do so! I'd guess that a fixed kb/mb size would need to be decided upon, as a recommended maximum for embedding (?) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to animations, only to articles grossly over the WP:SIZE limits. For large animations, I favor a caption that says "click here for the animated image". The engine animation that you point out is 356 KB; that's fine by me, I think the extra KB are worth it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Open reviews update

I've now posted the working group proposal to WT:GAN - your eyes (and input) on its progress would be most welcome. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about you apologize for falsely accusing me of a false edit summary.—DCGeist (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's ask over at WT:NFC (there is no WT:NFCC, for historical reasons) if it was a false edit summary; maybe I got it wrong. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

message for you

Message for you at User_talk:DCGeist#Hiya_Dan. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to sister projects

You have advanced the position that you do not think it constructive to have a disputed banner on a section for months. So you have advanced some wording, I have edited that wording in the spirit of compromise. I have not got all I want and from what you are saying you have not got all you want. But the disputed banner is gone and in the form I have edited section, I get in-line wikisource included. Now we can go back to the version before either of us edited the page, and continue the debate, but are we not closer now to a compromise and hence a consensus with the current wording? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're an admin and experienced with style guidelines discussions, so I'll give you the short version. If you don't like the "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus" infobox, then I'd like for you to actively work to change the policy. (I could live with a different policy on consensus or policy on policy, but we've got the ones we've got). Also, if you believe that you do have consensus on any point of guidelines or policy, but we have posted notices all over the place looking for people who share your view and haven't found any, then instead of simply making the change and sticking us with the burden of finding other people who share your view, I'd like for you to do some of the work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not usually monitor other peoples talk pages so it is better if you reply on mine.

As I said we can go back to an earlier version with the disputed template. Then there will not have been any "Any substantive edit to this page" so we will not have to consider whether they "reflect consensus" or we can try to put in compromise wording. But I am trying to reach a compromise over an issue on which very few editors have expressed an opinion, and which meets most of the concerns of the parties to the conversation. While it probably does not give anyone what the would like, it probably does reflect a working compromise. BTW have you ever edited a page like a treaty or a convention where the text of of the articles to the treaty are intertwined with the commentary on the article? Or is this just an exercise in semantics? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood; I roll the other way, I prefer to keep conversations in one place and I don't mind watchlisting userpages, so I'll copy this conversation to your talk page and reply over there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with Kim's point of view as a reading of the Consensus archives will show :-) --PBS (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm away for a week. I'll catch up with your thoughts when I get back. -PBS (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review 3 (Odexed)

Thanks for assisting in the improvement for the article Odex's actions against file-sharing, and please accept my apologies for the previous lack of response and edits due to dealing with real-life issues. I'm pleased to let you know that the third PR for the article is now up, and looking forward to hearing feedback from you so that it can be brought over to FAC soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Winter Solstice

Ϣere Spiel Chequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.

BTW before your RFA you and I discussed a possible MOS tweak, do you fancy taking this up in Jan? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be happy to help with that in January if you'd like a change. If I remember right, the sentence we were dealing with (which has been removed) was "If he had been a breakfast cereal, he would have had to be Wheaties" (referring to Dan White in Harvey Milk). You wanted to link Wheaties to explain what they were to non-Americans, but MOS tries to be very strict on quotations, even to the point of not allowing links inside quotations, and you wondered what to do. I think the "journalistic" answer is: quotations should be used sparingly, and only when they express something in a snappy or elegant way, or when the exact words reveal something interesting about the speaker. So, 20 years ago, the answer might have been: if you need to explain a word inside quotations because a lot of people won't get it, then the quotation isn't doing its job, and you should get another quotation. I'm not sure, but it's possible this was the thinking of the people who wrote the "no links inside quotations" rule at MOS. In the internet age, I can easily see that a quotation might be perfect in one country and obscure in another, and I think I agree with you that a link to Wiktionary might be suitable in this case. Would you like to make that or some similar argument at WT:MOS? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's well put. I'm a little cautious using the wheaties example as it might provoke some to say who cares? But the general point is that in a global encyclopaedia what's succinct and clear in one part of the world can be quite ambiguous in another - I remember the interesting reaction from one US colleague when someone took pity on her and said it was "time for a fagbreak" (her first day in the UK, and she was the only smoker in the team). I'll have a look at the relevant bit of MOS and drop you a note in 2009. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

I think it will be interesting for you to read this page (especially the banner at the top). Ruslik (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I dug through the WP:ROLLBACK poll and wasn't surprised. I left some thoughts on the current VP page, hopefully you can add some. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

Dan, if you are having a holiday I hope you have a good one. Thanks for the advice, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You too Graham. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke!

Thanks for the translations! Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979 was the only one that didn't have nouns capitalized, so I fixed that one just now. Can you put translations on that article too? Mike H. Fierce! 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, some music. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

uncyclopedia:AAAAA! My eyes! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, with a correction by User:SoWhy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 08:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas and best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE

Hi Dan. This matter pertains to an article which I have in PR right now [2], and the article's title and content. I have left this message for two more admins to get an overall opinion. You have also copyedited/reviewed my articles before and I request your help this time around also. I had created an article about a year back (Aug 2007) called Mysore kingdom literature which went as a sub-article to the main FA Kingdom of Mysore which also I authored. Shortly thereafter, another user changed the name to Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore (oct 13th 2007). This title stayed for quite a while. Around Nov 7th 2008, I started to expand the article with the intent of making it a FA. Being fully aware that all the writings described in the article were written in Kannada language (which I normally write about), I moved the article to a more appropriate Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore on Nov 13th 2008. However, after significant expansion thereafter, by Dec 16th 2008, I had covered (for context/better roundedness/completeness) some writers and poets who had lived outside the Mysore territory, but never-the-less left an indelible impact on literature within the kingdom also. To give the article an apt name, because it now covered literature in Kannada language over an area vastly larger than just the Kingdom of Mysore, user:Michael Devore (a frequent and helpful copy editor of my articles) and I though up the name Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE. The period 1900-2000 is normally covered under Modern Kannada literature. Since I was solely resposiblle for writing the article, I did not think it necessary to start a discussion about the name change. About this time (Dec 5th 2008), User:Fowler &fowler, a user with whom my interactions have been less than pleasant, had started a FAR on the original FA, Kingdom of Mysore, in which this literature related article I have described was a sub-article. Fowler first insisted that the name Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore must stay as is since the main article was in FAR and that some of his concerns were linked to the sub-article on literature. I pointed out to him that a FAR can't include topics outside the main FAR'ed article itself. But now he claims that the article should include literature from the period 1900-1947 (the last part of the kingdoms existance). But he does not understand that adding details of literature from the period 1900-1947 to the article breaks the "mature" modern period of Kannada literature into two pieces, 1900-1947 and 1947- to date, which quite logically should stay as one article, and does currently (Modern Kannada literature, also authored by me). He has reverted the article name to the pre-Dec16th name, stared a thread on Talk:Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore and users Mattisse and Docku have supported him. Meanwhile the original FAR has been shelved and Sandy rightly restarted the FAR hoping to create a better atmosphere there. I have not bothered to reply on that talk thread started by Fowler to prevent verbose discussions that lead nowhere. So, I would like to know what your advice on the matter is. Over the last 1 year and 4 months (Aug2007- to date) I have done 99% of the edits and brought in 100% of the content. Everyone has an opinion on how to write an article and what to name an article, but I feel as the main contributor, I should be allowed to proceed with the title and content I last gave it, Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE and let any discussions regarding title happen in the PR/FAC with concensus. Also, the sub-article has nothing to do with the main FAR'ed article where Fowler seems to have concerns. Please advice. PS:The period 1900-1950 would usually include numerous writers, far too numerous to include in the above summary style article under discusion. Hence I felt the better place for that period should be Modern Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how Kannada literature typically is divided into periods, and I'm not good with weighing length of time an article has a particular name vs. who created and maintained the article vs. naming guidelines. (That is, I know WP:NAME, but I'm not experienced with naming conflicts.) Try dealing with these issues at FAC and FAR, and if that doesn't give an outcome you like, then try Requested Moves. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Request your participation in RFC

A user has spoken ill of your copy editing efforts, and in particular, the lead for Harvey Milk. Now he has requested an RFC for the length of the lead. I would appreciate your input since you had experience in constructing the article. See here and here. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Moni, I'll reply there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

terrorist

I am not sure that it is but I'll go with the flow. It is far more important for me that it is in a guideline than which guideline it is in. Lets see if anyone else has any opinion on it. --PBS (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen evidence that people want to take that and related issues out of the guidelines, so I agree. Thanks for working with me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An answer to your AN policy question

Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface#Arb_Break.

Evidently WP:POLICY has some comment on the subject. It doesn't explicitly dictate that the status quo is preferred but it distinguishes between article content and project pages and recognizes some of the "gaming" concerns you noted. Happy new year, BTW. Protonk (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll have to be more careful myself when editing policies and guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: WT:RFA

I wasn't sure if you meant that my talk page was watchlisted, or that you had WT:RFA watchlisted, but anyway, here is my reply. I am pretty tired (woke up 5 minutes ago), so parts may not make sense if my brain has not quite formulated them properly - I have a habit of speaking volumes of crap if I am tired, so I'm hoping this time has been an exception. Anyway, yes, thanks again. — neuro^(talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

...aaaand I just noticed the message at the bottom, which would appear to be too late in the process, since I had to post it first, heh. What would you like done? — neuro^(talk) 08:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks neuro, I'll reply over there after I can find some coffee. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I deal primarily with language and copyediting issues, but thanks for the notice. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: RfA questions

Indeed, I've had no bad experiences with you either -- which is why I was surprised, to say the least, to see you register such vocal disappointment right on the RfA rather than coming to discuss with me first. I do not feel that four questions is necessarily hard nor an excess amount, and certainly not that they were particularly hard questions. Surely we would like our admins to have a basic understanding of BLP? And I certainly would like to know potential admins' stances on recall, and whether they'll give vandals a second chance. GlassCobra 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to give it about 24 hours ... if it looks like the RFA is going to succeed with high probability, then I can jump back in and make it clear that I wasn't attacking your lack of cluefulness. My biggest concern was, this idea of "buttonworthiness" seems to be important at RFA, and I wanted to make sure that didn't get overlooked while we slogged through a long list of difficult questions. My objection was really 3 different objections at once, and we can pick those apart after the RFA is over and figure out if my objections have any merit. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty confused by your statement here -- if the RfA doesn't appear that it will succeed, are you not going to clarify that you weren't attacking me? That seems rather disingenuous. I also don't really understand what you mean about "the idea of 'buttonworthiness.'" Are you somehow suggesting that knowing the answers to questions about important facets of adminship is unrelated to the process of acquiring the mop? I'd like some more clarification. GlassCobra 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not being disingenuous; we'll clear it up. What I'm saying is that I don't want to do an analysis of what's said during any RFA for any candidate, because shifting the focus from the candidate to the commenters isn't fair to the candidate, until that RFA seems to be a lock one way or the other. This RFA has gotten tighter, so I think I'd prefer to wait til it's over. You didn't do anything wrong; we have a difference of opinion on how difficult those questions were.

In other news, my allergies are acting up something fierce, and I need to take a short wikibreak. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, I'm feeling better today, but I've got to run around dealing with allergy problems for a few days; I'll get back to this soon. I copied my statement saying what I hope comes across as supportive from your talk page to the RFA; is that enough for now? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, you were the one with the issues with my questions. I copied my statement from here in reply. GlassCobra 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Update

Just thought I ought to let you know how much I appreciate your work on this - I've found it extremely useful. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The theory is that sometimes it helps to know what we're all arguing about :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, if we all subscribed to that the noticeboards would be a lot less entertaining... EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should GA reviewers learn their trade?

Irish poets, learn your trade

Sing whatever is well made,

Scorn the sort now growing up,

all out of shape from toe to top.

But on the other hand:

I have just come across a GA reviewer who admits "I have no background in this subject, and so I really cannot tell which side of the coin is the correct one." How can such a reviewer possibly tell that the article is accurate and unbiased?

In the case I'm thinking of, the article was written by an editor now under sanction from ArbCom for misleading editing, and the GA nomination was made by the sort of nationalist who spends a great deal of time editing Pelasgians to insert his National Truth; I happen to know these because they are my field; but there's no reason to expect reviewers to do so.

I don't particularly want you to intervene in the review (which is why I'm not linking); but you should consider whether GA ought to warrant the verifiability of articles. I would either require that reviewers know the field in question, or take out the condition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RS is the wiki-subject I know the least about, Sept. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question on my RfA

I answered your question (and those following it) on my RfA. Not that it really matters, but I thought I should mention it, if only to be civil.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Switched to Support, and gave my rationale there. This one could easily be in the discretionary range (70%-80%) of the bureaucrats, so I really have no idea whether it will pass or fail, but I hope it passes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moshe

2 hypotheses: 1) that simply from editing patterns he thinks he has identified an editor that I know off WP. He hasn't. 2) that it is a rehash of a joke once made by Edna Everage "lesbianism has always left a very nasty taste in my mouth", i.e. that it is just sexism of the crudest kind. Either way, the joke's on him. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

Contrary to popular belief my technical knowledge is minimal. Tra had a good idea there in terms of how to protect your editnotice, though, and it's what I would suggest if you want security. Giggy (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I would argue that Editnotice falls in the category of "Pages that are very frequently transcluded", and thus WP:Protection policy already allows me to permanently full-protect it, but when I argue my case on Sunday at WT:Protect, it's possible that people will disagree, and if so, then they might use the fact I had protected my Editnotice page as evidence that I don't know protection policy. I'm being super-careful, but that's my style in policy discussions. So, I'll hold off til after the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Hi. How are you. Do you have time to copy edit this article for me. It's peer-review is coming to an end.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I gave it a shot, but I gave up. I'm not familiar enough with the material to make good copyediting decisions. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama on MoS

As i look further at the history of MoS, i see your contribution, which makes it clear that you are the most innocent of 3 editors, where i thot there were only 2 involved. Please read what i said at User_talk:Kevin_McE#Obama_on_MoS, which i'd have said to you instead if my research had been a little less haphazard.
Since this is really part of a potential 4-way discussion, i intend to collect my 3 msgs on my talk page; i trust you won't mind breaking your Editnotice promise by replying on my page if an MoS-related reply seems needed. (But -- of course(?) -- i'll look here in case you comment on Editnotice.)
P.S. Tnx for your Editnotice msg, which uses a needed feature i was unaware of.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem; replied on your talk page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

editnotice

What was implemented was not my proposed system - under my system the editnotice content was supposed to be stored directly at the .css page --Random832 (contribs) 13:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The system we have now doesn't work well; any IP can change anyone's editnotice without their knowledge (unless they happen to have their two editnotice pages watchlisted, but most people don't know the pages exist). Not sure where to go with this; I don't usually follow VPT. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

big daddy

		The Special Barnstar
		For volunteering for summation duties at wt:RFA beyond the sanity of most of us mortals. Were Spiel Chequers 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bling. No telling whether I will be helpful, but I'll give it a shot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My own question, of course

:) Keepscases (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact you had asked a question :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

Heh. Actually, the RfA isn't increasing my stress level significantly - I'm getting a lot of good feedback. (Hey, that's good reason to run for adminship in the first place: free advice!) Anyway, the "unintentional hilarity" was just the juxtaposition of "a feeling of self-respect" with "one of Christianity's seven deadly sins" -- it sounded like it implied that Christians don't have any self-respect, which I'm certain wasn't its intention. Maybe I just have a hair-trigger humor button. ;-) Graymornings_(talk) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to squeeze too much meaning out of your comment, and I struck part of my answer at RFA. I'll be happy to fill you in on how debates in the past have come out on this issue, after your RFA. Glad you're enjoying it! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If he's enjoying RfA, he clearly isn't stable enough to handle the mop ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor

So, in my long, slow crawl back to article writing (as opposed to bahammering people or deleting articles about bands or fighting Sisyphean battles over notability), I took on a project to create an article from scratch and bring it up to GA status. Fast inverse square root has been percolating in my userspace for a week or so now and I just moved it to mainspace today. If you don't mind, could you give it a copyedit and check for clarity/errors. I claim no special expertise in the areas of numerical analysis, so both papers heavily referenced in the article were learning experiences for me (I still only understand about 25% of the McEniry paper). Likely problems (I'll try and fix them over the day, but I've got actual math homework to do as well) which don't relate to understanding are LaTeX errors, inconsistent notation and gratuitous spelling/grammar errors. Thanks for any help you can spare! Protonk (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some work on it, but I have to get back to my RFA project before it goes stale, sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a saint, thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just got passed. I've got some more work to do with it, but your help has been invaluable. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Dear Dan, Many thanks for your support in my RFA, "full of clue" was high praise that will take some living up to. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here, think diva as you read it... Ϣere Spell Checkers 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't too much, not at all ... - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Right on with the name change. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, fair use images in user talk space. Not a propitious start. ;) Protonk (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfft. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RAWR, "Not so!" shout the fair use goblins! Protonk (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean ... thanks! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan, no name change, WereSpellCheckers is a sock I use from insecure PCs such as Internet cafes and especially when using family PCs accessed by my very tec savvy teenage relatives. Were Spiel Chequers 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Dank55, thank you very much for taking part in my RfA, which failed last night. I can honestly say I prefer a weak support with a thorough comment than a full support with only a signature. You offered valuable input and kept my RfA open and transparent - my ultimate goal. Hope to bump into you more often around the wiki! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very encouraging. Best of luck. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny St. Louis

Thanks, I actually meant to change it to {{tl|db-vandalism}, but got side-tracked with home stuff and forgot. Thanks for the catch and the reminder, and sorry for the mis-class. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I also brought it up out of self-interest; CSD deletion work is easier when things are correctly tagged. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralli Car

Oh – I thought it was a bizarre misspelling of rally car, and some way off-target to boot. I think I was probably being a little over-zealous with Twinkle. I should've been more thorough. As for action, I think linking it into cart is probably fine. I'm sure it'll see some expansion over the years! Thanks for alerting me to my mistake. Happy editing, Seegoon (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Zainabia Islamic Center, Atlanta

Thanks, but they saw the tag before you deleted. They made at least one edit after I added the SD tag and before I had a chance to notify them. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re Squatfest

Would you mind explaining why it is appropriate to delete this page? After you deleted the page i went and re read the rule. I do not understand why the page is inappropriate. I tried answering the criticisms of it in the discussion page but obviously that got deleted too. Jacob Vardy (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Our policy is at Wikipedia:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article ... that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I think it's fair to say that the point of "TROPFEST SUX CORPORATE COCK" is to disparage Tropfest. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I interpreted ‘subject’ as the subject of the article, not what the subject of thought of a third person. It is fair to say that "TROPFEST SUX CORPORATE COCK" disparages Tropfest but the article is not about tropfest – it is about Squatfest. Squatfest being a protest against the increasing commercialisation of Tropfest.

Will it be acceptable if I emphasise that the quote is a quote and not the attitude of the article writer(s)? Or should I just remove the quote from an expanded article. I would hesitate to do the later as the quote in question is the motto of the Squatfest. 144.132.133.182 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Aim for something that would be printable in one of the top U.S. magazines or newspapers. We don't have stuffy lawyers, but we have to deal with the same libel laws that everyone else has to deal with. Besides that, we're trying to grease the flow of information into and out of Wikipedia, and having a professional appearance helps. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

/grin. You realise that the yankee media is globaly notoriuous for being rabidly right wing and conservative. That said, the USA does have some of the best libel laws in the world - to whit statements must be malicious rather than just untrue.

I have added a lot more materiel and tried to contextualise the quote. Thank you for your criticism. After years of reading Wikipedia this is only the second time that I have found that I actually know more than is available – as opposed to disagreeing with interpretation or phrasing. Jacob Vardy (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you find Wikipedia useful. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Shablackwell

I have not missed since you and I talked. 8-) I was adding instructions on how to document permission to use the materials. Enjoy... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Jaindl Elementary School (under construction)

Erik, I've declined the db-nonsense speedy; how was this "incoherent gibberish"? The article probably won't survive, but that tag seems bitey to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should it perhaps be tagged as a PROD? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm weak at AfD, but WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education makes me think that AfD would be better, because they might decide to turn it into a redirect, and possibly move some of the information over into the school district article, rather than just deleting the page. Btw, I put this on my talk page rather than yours because I don't want people reading your talk page to think you did something wrong; we're currently discussing CSD issues relevant to RFAs, and it's been pointed out that people use db-nonsense more often than they should. I'm looking for some kind of standardization so that it doesn't keep turning up as a problem at RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orefield Middle School

Remember A7 specifically doesn't apply to schools. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it had been changed so it had been so that it did apply. My mistake if no. Most of those school stubs were either apparent copies of printed text or single, incomplete sentences. I'm not against them staying, but if they're copyvios, I thought it best to err on the side of caution.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an attempt to reach consensus at Wikipedia:Notability (schools), but it looks like it didn't work. WP:CSD A7 appears to be unchanged. I'd like to know more about notability of schools, if you have any links for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Elixir Technology

I'm declining the speedy, because they asserted notability. If you like, you can take them to AfD to discuss whether they're actually notable. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio vs. spam?

Copyright violation is an absolute taboo, and pretty easy to identify; so if both are present, I always put it first, with the spam warning in the second box. If both tags apply, though, put both tags on; some people monitor one category or the other more assiduously. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and good point, I'll pass that along to the taggers. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I never trust the bots entirely on something like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dank you

DeDeK - thanks for the speedy delete - she was obviously having fun with it - I hope to god every teenager in Java with access to a computer does not think the same or we have a serious flood :( Satu Suro 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Macromonkey

The article was deleted, so an admin obviously agrees with me, so you must be criticising their use of deletion etc too :) Macromonkey (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a long string of admins on your talk page saying that you're not following our CSD policy. Are you saying that if someone proposes blocking you, your defense is going to be that it doesn't matter what our speedy policy page says, because one admin agrees with you? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD in RfA

I would like to work with some other admins in constructing a "like to see" CSD background for RfA's - call it a CSD cabal, with as much power as all the cabals. :-) There are probably some other regulars in CSD-land, some more deletionist, some more inclusionist that we could get to put together a neutral as possible assessment of each candidate's CSD experience. Any interest? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm in, thanks for asking. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Speedy tagging

I apologize for this as I did not know that I needed to have an edit summary. Thanks for letting me know that I need to do this. See you around! Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers

I'm working on compiling publications & references that demonstrate notability. Thanks for your help! --FWLB (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it, I'm sorry we couldn't accept the article in its original state. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)