Jump to content

User talk:Dank/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Richard III

Thank you very much for your help in getting Exhumation of Richard III of England to Featured Article status! I thought you might like to know that I have nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 26 March 2015. The request is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Exhumation of Richard III of England. Please feel free to comment if you have any views. Prioryman (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. Brian and Crisco have responsibility for scheduling, so I try to tread lightly in the areas where they operate. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

re: SWIO

Thanks, I implemented some of those things you recommended. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hink, I'll have a look tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Brill railway station

I have scheduled this for 19 March, in place of the London and Manchester railway opening, which has been deferred until September (see User talk:Iridescent). Blurb required for Brill. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enthiran/archive1

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Impressive that a Tamil film was the highest grossing Indian film in 2010. I don't have any special skill in that area, but I'll keep an eye on the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

TFA for May

Which of youse guyz is the TFA leader for the May articles? I'm prepping one for May 2 if you can peek at the blurb and see if any need for a tweak jumps out at you? Montanabw(talk) 09:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Whoever schedules (it's Brian in May), Dank is The person for blurbs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I did the copyeditor thing. It's great writing (and a lively subject), and I wish we had more TFA paragraphs like that one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just checking in to see if I need to get more "support" votes for 'Chrome to be TFA on Derby Day. Article is updated to include his most recent race and future schedule. Open to any more suggestions on blurb or article. Montanabw(talk) 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The text looks good. May is Brian's month; so far, he has waited until Crisco finished scheduling the previous month before he gets started on his month. It won't be long. I don't see any problems with the nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Regarding your comment at WP:VPR

Hello, Dank! You can check the discussion here. The proposal worked as a simple poll, with each aspect of it receiving a "yes" (sim) or "no" (não) by the participants. The reasoning given was that "in cases of obvious vandalisms, current rollbackers need to open a request for unblock that needs to be analyzed by an online administrator for conclusion. Apart from the bureaucratic aspect (request, response, archiving) the responding taking too long creates extra work in reverting a vandal".

We do have a low number of sysops (only 35), and we do have to wait longer than in the English Wikipedia in order to have a user blocked, a page protected, a link whitelisted, etc. But I can't say that was the reason they approved such feature. It's more like they wanted to make bureaucratic procedures easier for trusted users. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much for the link, Google Translate gave me a sense of the discussion. I think the result followed from the small number of admins, and from what the community saw as the proper role of admins. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Dank,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for your efforts. I really appreciate what you do on TFA, and as a copy editor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well ... the role I play is relatively small, you're doing the heavy lifting. But thanks, I appreciate it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oom Paul

Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Baie dankie —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive2

I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC was withdrawn recently due to prose issues. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TFA 4 April

When you finalise the blurb for the 4 April TFA, could you address an important omission from the article's lead, which nowhere mentions that the crew of three all died in this accident?. This is surely a significant fact, and I'm very surprised that the ommission wasn't picked up when the article was at FAC. The main authors are long gone, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "fart"

Hi Dan. I am carrying out a review on the article Mind Meld as part of its featured article candidacy. This is a film made up entirely of Star Trek actors Shatner and Nimoy talking and at one point Shatner (allegedly) farts. Justifiably or not, the film is now more famous for the farting noise than for anything the two actors talk about. In our article, the terms "flatulate", "flatulation" and "flatulence" are collectively used at least a dozen times. I suggested substituting a few of these for the simpler "fart" or conjugations thereof (I had not been aware "flatulate" was even a word), but the nominator and main contributor Neelix contends that "fart" is vulgar and of an unencyclopedic tone. I am not sure and, having deferred to you on word usages in the past, it occurred to me to seek your opinion again on the correct way to approach this. I hope you're well and I apologise for asking you to devote your attention to this undignified topic (not to mention the farting). Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Already spoke up at the review, but I'll respond here too. The main problem is the word flatulate, which is very rare; I just gave the ngram on the review page. I found two other potential problems; I'll mention them here, and you can deal with them there or not as you like: flatulence and flatulate are used more than they're needed in the lead, to the point where they become a distraction, and the incident is attributed to someone else's opinion in the lead, but not attributed in the text below the lead. (I'd probably do without the attribution, if you're careful with what you're asserting.) I think if we're talking about mentioning the word once or twice, I'd go with the word used as the title of our article on the subject, flatulence. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, understood. And what word should we use for the verbal form? "Flatulate"? Or should there not be one? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that you need one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks Dan —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Page disappeared?

Het, Dan, do you know what happened here? There's no deletion in the deletion log, and I don't see anything in your edit that could have caused it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sinking Creek Raid

DanK, thank you for you copyedit advice for the Sinking Creek Raid page—all have been incorporated. I will have another raid created in a few months, and a significant upgrade to an existing Civil War regiment page by the end of the year. It would be great if you could look over those too. Thanks again! TwoScars (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We really need help with American Civil War articles. Thanks for your work. I look at all the Milhist Peer Reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant

It finally passed! I'm happy to help out with the Main Page blurb, if you want. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's up at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2015. You're welcome to tackle it, but I'm getting finicky in my dotage so I might move things around after you're done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems very good to me. The only thing I'd change would be to reserve the order of the final two sentences in the third paragraph. But it's good either way, really. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we'll need to shorten it up a bit. It's been a while since I tried to get anything on the Main Page! --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep. My limit is 1250 characters ... give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a go. 1250 on the nose. Feel free to change, of course. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Very nice. I made some standard tweaks that dropped it to 1229, so you've got 31 more characters if you need them :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse

The article on Ulysses S. Grant was featured specifically today because this is the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War. Unfortunately, that fact is not noted under anniversaries; we have

April 9: Maundy Thursday (Eastern Christianity, 2015); Vimy Ridge Day in Canada; Day of National Unity in Georgia (1989); Bataan Day in the Philippines

  • 1918 – World War I: Aníbal Milhais's actions during the Battle of the Lys made him the only person to be awarded Portugal's highest military honour, the Order of the Tower and Sword, directly on the battlefield.
  • 1939 – After being denied permission to perform at Constitution Hall by the Daughters of the American Revolution, African American singer Marian Anderson (pictured) gave an open-air concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
  • 1940 – During the German invasion of Norway, Vidkun Quisling seized control of the government in a Nazi-backed coup d'état.
  • 1967 – The first Boeing 737 took its maiden flight, eventually becoming the most ordered and produced commercial passenger jet airliner in the world.
  • 2005 – Charles, Prince of Wales, married his long-time mistress Camilla Parker Bowles.

but nothing about Appomattox. Is it too late to fix that? YoPienso (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Gemini TFA

Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is about to be tomorrow's TFA. But there is one improvement needed in its TFA page: Kalabhavan Mani is not wiki linked, and is only mentioned by his last name. But can we just remove mention of him? I, as a non-admin cannot edit the TFA page. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bond TFA blurb

Hi Dan, could you put the italics back in please: it refers to a series, and so the italics are correct. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll change it if you can point me to a discussion somewhere that seems persuasive ... hopefully at the relevant guideline page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics). The closest thing there is "Books, multi-volume works (e.g. encyclopedias), and booklets". I know people have stretched that (appropriately) to cover multi-volume works of other sorts, such a series of films made by one producer. I've skimmed our related articles, including James Bond, and the problem is that the phrase isn't the title of any work or multi-volume work; instead, it seems to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean. That's fine, but that's the opposite of what italics mean: they denote the common name of a particular work or multi-volume work. We don't have that here. The lead of James Bond uses the term to refer collectively to books, TV, radio, comic strips, video games, and films ... basically, anyone who's used the name. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Also see discussion at WT:MOS#Italics on Bond. James Bond.. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Series and franchise names are italicised. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Small reversion): His Dark Materials, List of Star Wars books, The Railway Series, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight (series), The Hunger Games, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Vampire Chronicles... need I go on? Could you please change back the italics in the blurb to match the article title, and the use of the novel series name, and franchise name. The use of italics partly acts as an easy way of disambiguation the (unitalicised) character from the (italicised) series. – SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh joy, we get to work in one of the few places on Wikipedia where we've got a deadline. I don't want to steal the MOS guys' thunder, I'm going to wait for more comments before I make a call ... but every series you just mentioned is one kind of series with one publisher, exactly the opposite of the situation described in the lead of James Bond, so I'm not convinced. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Ian Fleming Publications – the Fleming estate which holds the rights and licences – describes them as the "James Bond books". You are confusing the lead of James Bond, which deals with the franchise etc, with the novel series, although both should be italicised. – ~~

Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion where it belongs. —sroc 💬 16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan, I'm going to pick up on a comment you made elsewhere that "There's an understanding at FAC that italics are the kind of fiddly little thing that good writers (such as SchroCat) usually don't care as much about as reviewers and copyeditors do." I think that's hugely unfair of most (all?) writers of quality work. Most of us have a very strong understanding of the MoS – probably more than those who try and pontificate and pass warped judgements on the MoS talk pages: our work would not reach the levels of GA/FA/FL if we didn't know the MoS in all its infinite variety. There are times when we may deliberately ignore a minor point of the MoS for very good reason (it's a US-based style guide, and some of the more minor points are plain wrong in British English), but otherwise we stick rigidly to it when writing articles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here, I was just about to come over to your talk page and say something like: you're upset, and I want to know why. This could be part of it; I'm sorry for any offense I gave. The standard way of doing business around here treats editors' feelings as unimportant; "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". I think this comes from at least four things:

  • We deal with a steady stream of people who feel little or no connection to whatever group of Wikipedians they're dealing with,
  • Some of the people who are strongly connected are also part of the problem ... the ones who have a habit of going off half-cocked just because it's Tuesday, or don't have good online social skills
  • We don't see each other in person very much, so we don't get the cues that would let us know we're going too far, it's time to back off, and
  • Even if we did get those cues, many of us (including me) are really geeky and focused and might not notice.

So, back to the present. It seems to me you weren't very happy with the way you were treated by anyone in that conversation. I'm hesitant to keep engaging with you on this ... I can't know of course because I've never met you, but I'm getting the sense that the more we talk, the angrier you get. Is there someone else that either you or I could talk with on the general and specific issues, maybe some Wikipedian you know locally, or from WP meetups? - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not unhappy with you at all, so please put your mind to rest on that point! I thought I would just try and point out that your comment isn't entirely fair. Pretty much all editors of quality content I have come across who stick extremely closely to the MoS – probably more closely than any other group of editors I have come across on Wiki. Without sticking closely to the MoS the articles we develop wouldn't get anywhere near GA or FA /FL standards, as there are always people involved in the process who are happy to pick apart work that falls outside the applicable standards, which is just as it should be.
I will add that I am unhappy with the two editors in the current thread who have both blithely stated that there is no italicisation of a series tile name, despite me quoting them the section of the MoS which says exactly the opposite. Even when this is pointed out, the tag-teaming and wikilawyering to try and avoid being shown wrong irks somewhat. It is this unconstructive attitude that I have sadly come across before by some who are happy to pass judgement, when they are lacking both in knowledge of the MoS itself, and the situation on which they are trying to comment. If they showed some level of AGF in these matters I may reciprocate, but not on the level of poor practice I've seen here. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm frustrated too on some of these points, and have been for over seven years. I'm in a position now where I can help in some new ways, including but not limited to: working as a TFA coord, ramping up my copyediting at FAC, starting up WP:TFAC (along the lines I mentioned at WT:FAC#Writing conflicts at WP:TFA), and probably closing WP:VPR#Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard". All of these things require me to summon every ounce of neutrality I can muster ... so I want to extract myself from this particular fight if I can, and please ignore everything I've said about italics so far. (I wasn't happy about the fact that I was forced to make this kind of call on a tight deadline.) I didn't mean that FAC people suck at MOS, far from it ... I'm saying that there's some divergence between the FAC and MOS cultures, and I don't think anyone's going to be shocked to hear that. So, bottom line: you're concerned about various bad behaviors by some people who argue style points. I think there's a chance that, over time, we can at least make a dent in similar problems at TFAC by improving the level of discussion and the outcomes, but I won't know until we try it. Would you like to try using TFAC to tackle this particular italics question? - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, I certainly agree that there is difference in culture (whether or not it is diverging, I don't know enough about the background to comment one way or the other). I'm not sure opening another thread would be the right way to go on this particular matter - it's a minor point, but it would affect a few thousand articles probably (certainly several hundred), and if some small degree of flexibility could be achieved by the MoS camp (indeed, if they even stuck to what the MoS bids us, as I have pointed out to them), then this matter could be closed in a couple of minutes. It's in their hands, but I will admit that I am not overly optimistic on the point about flexibility. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, this will be coming up again at TFA, probably soon, maybe for Live and Let Die (novel), which was just promoted at FAC a few days ago ... so some kind of discussion is needed, somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Could not whatever decision is reached in the current discussion be the base point? If no consensus is reached there, then yes, elsewhere may be the next step, but we're down to the nub of the matter at the moment I think. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are unanimous in the current discussion, so we probably need more than we've got. I'll issue an invitation at WT:FAC and see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not quite, ‎Dr. Blofeld has also agreed that it should be italicised. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Good, I'll give him an invitation too. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on the timing, I'm going to wait a couple of weeks ... Live and Let Die won't hit the Main Page in less than two weeks, so we can afford to wait that long. For the moment, I need to be focusing on FAC copyediting, and soon I'll need to deal with that RfC. I'll ask at the talk page if putting it off is acceptable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As Casino Royale was on the front page three days ago, I wouldn't expect LALD to be on the front page for at least a couple of months (possibly longer), so there's no rush. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm typing up something now to ask folks if they'll be willing to leave the styling alone for a while to allow lots of time for comments and rumination. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


A question

Would you mind looking at this and see if there is anything to fix since I am not a expert copyeditor, and if you have any comments please put them at the A-class review page. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing more at FAC and PR, so I only have time these days to cover a little more than half the A-class articles. I generally pick the ones that have already been copyedited to some extent. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Dank, sorry but I forgot this in the original comment, I was about to state that Anotherclown checked this earlier in the review, and again thanks for your comment.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean, copyedited (to some extent, or co-written) before they get to A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics for series titles

Given the recent discussion, I thought it would be worth seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion and deal with some anomalous inconsistencies. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles and feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
How can an inconsistency be anomalous? Eric Corbett 20:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Eric. While you're here ... I'm looking at AmEng text that says "In 1866, "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar ...". I don't think we can drop that comma every time in AmEng ... rarely, that gives a garden path ... but we could drop it here. Has the comma after "In 1866" become rare enough in BritEng that it stands out awkwardly? I want to improve readability for all readers when possible, regardless of whether an article is officially in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm very much against the AmEng style of "In 1869, she did this ... In 1872, she did that". It's my impression that American elementary school teachers drill their pupils to always precede a subordinate clause with a comma, for no logical or grammatical reason whatsoever. In your specific example however, I'd say that the comma interrupts that otherwise awkward "In ... In", so I'd be inclined to keep it. That's a bit of an outlier though, as I'm usually the first in line to delete those introductory commas. Eric Corbett 21:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
... and looking at that example again, I'd be inclined to recast it as "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar in 1866...", thus avoiding the problem altogether. Eric Corbett 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA blurb

Great writeup for 2002 Pacific typhoon season - [1]. I added an image of Typhoon Rusa, which was mentioned in the blurb and was one of the most photogenic storms of the season. I wasn't sure whether I should put pictured when the storm was mentioned, so I figured I'd ask you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much. The picture appears to be Higos; I added (pictured), as we do whenever the thing pictured isn't the main subject of the article. While you're here ... I considered reviewing Maria at FAC, but was turned off by the first paragraph. I'll tackle it again tomorrow and see if I can get farther. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Satin

I forgot to thank you for all your help on that article ... much appreciated. We had a lot of people working on that, and we all wanted to get it right. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Dank, I wasn't very helpful at all on the Mark Satin article. I was more of a nuisance by insisting that the word "coward" be placed in the article due to Satin's draft evasion! The Satin piece was one of the very first articles I ever edited, and being a rank beginner, I came on like a bull in a china closet not knowing the rules of engagement for editing, and certainly was not aware of the protocol for editing Featured Articles. Since my early days on Wiki I have calmed down to doing constructive editing and article creation. I came very close to being kicked off Wiki due to my editing on Satin. I think I accumulated "3 strikes" and somehow wasn't banned from editing. I am glad they (NeilN and others) allowed me to continue as an editor. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Without checking for duplicate links, this series of edits you made to Satin looks very helpful. Regarding threats to kick people out: sometimes it's a lot of noise. I see you've been really productive since Satin; glad you've settled in. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, I guess I did help out that article in some ways. The thing I remember the most about that article was that almost any change I did, and changes that others attempted, we almost always reverted. Essentially it was an almost uneditable article with regard to changing or adding prose. Most of the links I added were taken out eventually. I am glad the people, admins and others, who are watching the submarine article allowed me to do my thing without reverting everything I edited.

I liked your edits on the submarine article--very constructive indeed! Take care, and thanks again for taking the time to chat with me. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Main page error

Hi Dank,

I wanted to let you know that you seem to have misread my comment on the Main Page talk. I said that it should be changed to "who worked in Victoria"; not "who was working in Victoria", which would not make sense. Thanks, --Biblioworm 19:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Inviting some Milhist Australians here to comment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
One reply so far; see WT:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Help with a minor AusEng-ish prose issue. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, Biblioworm, I want to apologize for the "it's just obvious" tone I was taking on WT:MAIN, that wasn't helpful. Part of the problem is, I think, that the TFA process is missing something it needs. I'll work on that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank/Archive_43&oldid=1257484429"