User talk:Dank/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Thanks

Thanks, Dank.

The credit is all for the nominator, putting so much work into it. I don't think I did much more than change the brand name of a drug, add a picture of the Berlin Wall murals and link to the article of a murder that one song is based on.

But it's nice to receive thanks anyway. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Who condensed the text from the lead for TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of an outstanding 38 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks kindly AR. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

TFA 15 January

I'm worried that my choice for 15 January, Gateshead International Stadium, still has a large number of dead links, and I don't think these will be rescued in the next few days. So I intend to pull it and replace it with History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959). I have checked that all the links on the latter article are working. Sorry for the short notice, but I had earlier hopes that the situation on the Gateshead article was being resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it says a lot about the quality of your work that this is such a rare occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2016

Hi, it looks good to me, though I would simplify the sentence "A variety of downloadable content packs, released in 2010 and 2011, add new outfits and missions" to "The game features a variety of downloadable content packs that add new character outfits and missions." Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it going to be confusing if I say "A variety of downloadable content packs add new character outfits and missions."? It's fine to leave the years out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about "A variety of downloadable content packs extend the game's content with new character outfits and missions."? --

Done, but I'll leave out the repetition of "content". - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WTW tool

Are you doing this? SpinningSpark 18:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know any tool that would do that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

January 29, 2016

I've finished the summary for the January 29, 2016, TFA. I got it down to 1180 characters. I just wanted to explain why I changed "North America" to "western hemisphere". It has always been my understanding that North America included Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and that the countries south of Mexico were Central America. Or, one could include Mexico and the other countries of Central America as Mesoamerica. So, to describe a range from Costa Rica to the northern United States, I would either have to say "North America and Mesoamerica" or just "the western hemisphere". I used "the western hemisphere" because it's shorter. There was so much interesting detail in this summary that it was hard to have to remove it. Corinne (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's best. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

TFA 1/31/16

Thank you for helping out with the summary and it's great to see the article will appear on the main page! I made some minor tweaks, take a look and let me know if there's any issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you checked in. It looks good. I made one small tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerking RfC

I believe you said that you would be closing this RfC shortly. Just so you know, Legobot has removed the now-expired RfC template. Thanks. Biblio (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost done with the close, I'll stick a template on the page. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I'm displeased with the results, but of course that is not your fault; the result was clear and any closer would have inevitably closed it the same way. Just to clarify though, does the status quo of informal clerking still stand? You seemed to imply that it does not, with your sentence about 'crats being the only editors with sufficient support to deal with hostility issues. If so, we lost ground, as well as failing to gain it. (I personally don't see any firm consensus at all against the status quo; most people emphasized that they wanted to keep it.) In any case, I don't care about it much anymore, and I'm just glad the thing was finally put out of its misery. I haven't been active much on Wikipedia recently, partially because of technical computer issues but also because of my personal choice not to be. Maybe I'll come back to full activity someday, but right now this whole thing has drained almost all my patience here and I think it's best that I stay away for some time. I have better things to do. (On the bright side, I did just have an important history article that I worked really hard on promoted to GA.) Thanks. Biblio (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've found that I need to slash closing statements to the bone, or else people complain (or don't read them). So there's a lot I could have expanded on but didn't. I think I'd rather answer questions about the closing statement on the RfC's talk page than here, but the short answer is: no, I wasn't trying to shut down things that people are already doing at RfA ... as long as those things are uncontroversial and don't generate pushback. Identifying a comment as hostile to the candidate in some way is usually going to be controversial. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for doing so much heavy lifting on these three RfCs. As a closer, I can't say that they were good or bad, that's for these and future RfC voters to decide ... but they clearly introduced changes that people will be able to test and accept or reject, and that's more than any previous RfC was able to accomplish. You probably deserve several barnstars for that, even though I can't award them. - Dank (push to talk) 05:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Biblio, thanks for bringing this up ... I decided my third bullet point was unclear. I've tweaked it to: "I think the voters here are saying that there are some simple jobs at RFA that anyone acting in good faith is permitted to do; that, for those jobs that people have been doing all along that have proved to be uncontroversial, there's no reason to make restrictions on who can do the jobs; and, that it would be a terrible mistake to create a new bureaucracy of any kind devoted to jobs like these." That's about as specific as I can get. - Dank (push to talk) 06:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification and your very kind compliments. I would note that sometimes editors spot a comment or vote that is clearly out of line and say something about it, or even redact it themselves if they have to. If there is generally agreement that the substance of the action was good (no silly, childish bickering and name-calling about whether the person was "qualified" to do it, while being totally oblivious to what the person actually did), then it should stand. Per WP:BOLD, I don't think it's a good idea to refrain from enforcing even basic policies because someone might disagree; otherwise, our so-called "policies" are toothless. It has been established that the general consensus of the community concerning fundamental policies trumps consensus about a specific issue when the two disagree. For example, even if so-called "consensus" showed that people in effect did not want civility enforced at RfA, civility is still the policy and people still have every right to enforce it until it stops being a policy. Biblio (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dank. Is there any chance you can boil your close down to a TL;DR? It seems to be 'the community doesn't want formal clerking and there's some expectation for 'crats to take the lead on keeping RfA tidy and not hostile' I find it quite hard to pull out the primary takeaways from your, while interesting, long, closing statement. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As you say, it's long, and anything else I say adds to the length. If it's okay, I'd like to wait a few days to see if any other requests for explanation or expansion come in, so I can do everything in one edit. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Mail call

Dropped you a line Worm^TT(talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Switch

Per [1], please switch back the image, someone replaced the approved one with a horribly-conformed, ugly animal, and I can't seem to fix it now. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

David and Chris (and Brian to some extent) deal with TFA image issues. I already pinged David Levy at WP:ERRORS, and I'm pinging Chris now. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My concern was that the horses were difficult to discern in the thumbnail. So I searched the relevant category at Commons for an image that would work well at that scale, educated myself on the definition of "Banker horse" and examined the original source's documentation to ensure that the photograph was labeled accurately, and losslessly cropped and mirrored the image to enhance its utility in this context.

Given its feral nature (i.e., the absence of deliberate breeding for a purpose, which typically underlies assessments of equine conformation), I was under the impression that factually being a Banker horse was a reasonable criterion in determining whether an animal was a valid example of a Banker horse. I didn't consider whether it was pretty. (My apologies if that'a an oversimplification of Montanabw's objection – and for any failure on my part to recognize the issue beforehand.) —David Levy 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Butting in, perhaps File:Branded Shackleford Pony.jpg from the article itself is a valid compromise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The original lead image was chosen in part because it puts the horses in context of their environment - a barrier island (this is a weird and unique thing, horses don't generally live on barrier islands, they head inland for better grass when they can -- but here, people put them there and they can't escape, yet they've managed to survive! But the bottom line is that the image inserted was not only "generic" in background, it was an animal that was both severely underweight and heavily pregnant, which may be true of some of the animals there (the skinny part, anyway), but the image was a PETA complaint waiting to happen. The other image is in the article, but given that the head isn't really visible, it really isn't suitable as a lead image. Whoever cropped the original photo to make it a bit bigger did a nice job, though. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Butting in: for the not even one hour left on the Main page, why not stay with the lead which shows them in their typical environment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2016

Thanks. I've had a first cut. I've assumed the 1100-character limit applies even though I think it will have to run without an image, and also that it's ok to use quotations. "An exhibition which marked Bacon's critical breakthrough" is sourced from the article text. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Quotations are in general fine (though I use fewer than FAC writers do, on average). I aim for around 1150 (though occasionally I can't scrape enough text together to get there), and 1200 is the maximum. Presence or absence of an image doesn't figure into the text length, since images tend to come and go (and I leave image decisions to others). I'll go have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. I added a brief description of two of the experts quoted. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- good idea. I wasn't sure why Gowing wasn't described/linked in the article's lead; he probably should be. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. The blurb reads very well, but agree about the use of quotations; might trim it a bit. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Trim the blurb? It's at 1159 chars and I aim for roughly 1150, so if you want to take something out, I'd want to add something. - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of swapping out some of the quotes with other material. I'd prefer, also, to stay around the 1150 mark. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Note the goal of FAC is not main page. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't do scheduling. February is Chris's month, I'll bring this to his attention on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Again with the the its nothing to do with me. I'm getting sick of the blowing hot and cold. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ceoil, may we ask the reason behind blanking the page? TFA may not be the final goal of FAC, but it is a risk of the process. Unless there's a solid reason not to run the article, I find it a bad precedent to set to allow FAC nominators and FA writers to unilaterally determine that articles should not be run (i.e. if there are issues with stability or whatnot, it's understandable, but "I don't like TFA" is not a strong rationale). Also pinging Brianboulton and Bencherlite, in case they have an opinion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris,this is not the first time, I relaise my edits in an isolated incident seem like a "huff" but frankly the curt "Feel free" and "I don't do scheduling" are dismissive and not exactly owning up. This is not isolated; and not that I care than much about main page anymore, but I humored here (to be frank), and just dont want to feel like a tool for doing so, and ganged up on. To bring an article to FA standard is "a comittment", and tom end it like this is pity. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that really what this is about, that "feel free" felt curt to you? I was inviting you to make any changes you want, and I wasn't feeling anything but warmly toward you. Of course I'll have to vet changes, as always. "I don't do scheduling" is nothing more than a fact; Brian schedules odd months, and Chris schedules even months, that's our arrangement. I'm not sure what's going on here, and I hope you guys can sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Again this logic. Dank I'm beginning to doubt you know what "really what this is about". Read again the conversation, and you attitude to me. Dismissive often? Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Kafka Liz, I'm at a complete loss here ... a little help? - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) As Dank said, we've divided up our labor with Brian scheduling odd months (Jan, Mar, May, etc.) and me scheduling even months (Feb, Apr, Jun, etc.). Dank himself handles the writing of the blurbs; Brian and I only add the leads of the article (with attribution, of course) for him to summarize. We still confer with each other, of course, if there are potential issues. This division of labor has worked quite effectively for the past year.

As for "feel free", I don't consider it dismissive. We keep a more-or-less open door policy with blurbs themselves. If the article writers (or other editors) want to refine a blurb (keeping it at our target length, and without violating our copyright policies), they are entirely within their prerogative to do so. We might push a bit if the blurb is running long, and we'll definitely remove non-free media, but that's been about it over the past year. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, Chris, but that's a conversation for another day. We seem to have our hands full at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, things seem to have calmed down now. Chris, I think it depends on what you mean by "refine" ... I understand the word to mean "change a little for the better", and yes, I've been open to that all year long. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, I'm sorry you had to see all this, particularly since it's your first time doing the TFA summary! Yikes, what an introduction to TFA. This hasn't happened before on my watch. It certainly wasn't anything you did. Chris has just removed Ceoil's FA on this date and substituted ... more British artwork. Iridescent is the nom this time, and he's a joy to work with. I almost hate to ask, under the circumstances, but ... are you interested in this one? - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, Iridescent got this one. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's cheap on two counts that I can count count Dan. You invoke Liz, and yet then that you all move in mysterious ways, in a manner that plebs like us could care less about and cannot decipher or understand. Note; dont care; you might have noticed I was humouring from the start. You were surprisingly crass; "Ceoil's FA day" means nothing in reality; you all are welcome to a bubble FP mentality. Ceoil (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: what are you trying to say here? Dank's one of the nicest editors I know, so I imagine that there's some sort of misunderstanding—probably on both sides as I certainly can't make heads or tails of several of your messages. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Hi Dan, I've popped Isabella Beeton up at TFAR. Could you work your magic on the prose, and any other issues? I think it's the right sort of length and along the right lines, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Give me a shout if you need my input. Much obliged. – SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Dank, Rosas is a FA now. Again, you were of great help with one of my articles. I'm truly grateful for your kindness and all the help you gave me these years. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought of you today when I was listening to João and Astrud Gilberto. Glad I could help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: TFA for James Russell Lowell

I'll give it a go this evening -- let's hope second time lucky -- but be warned I might not be able to save it, as my internet connection is suffering from the ongoing storms. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done a first cut. The dates might need eliding (I'm not sure whether you are still doing that?) and you might want to remove "Russell", although there are several other James Lowells to distinguish between. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, that's brilliant work. That was a hard one, too. On your two questions: although the TFA instructions say not to use full names, what they really mean is to go with the common name (in this case, the page title). What you've got (1819–1891) is the right format for birth and death dates (but other types of dates are elided, as you say ... go figure). - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing. I removed "popular" because I think it can be read as now-popular, then-popular, or appealing to popular tastes, and I'm allergic to ambiguity. Thoughts? We're at around 1120 chars so we've got some wiggle-room ... we could import some of the text from the relevant sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt "who were among the first American poets who rivaled the popularity of British poets" was rather vague (which British poets? Did they rival their popularity in Europe or just in the US?) and if one were to try to unpack it would take up disproportionate space. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

All good points. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm clearly jinxed! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Next time for sure! - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

All heat and no light

Surely, though in mainspace that should be less of a problem because of WP:CCPOL. I certainly hope so!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rethinking, I was a little too negative, I've removed that part. I'll keep my powder dry until actual issues arise. Thanks for getting this started. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2016

Upon noticing that the image was labeled "Guadeloupe" (as of this edit), I removed the notation. Both the photograph originally uploaded under that file name and the one with which I replaced it at Commons were taken in West Palm Beach, Florida. —David Levy 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

McCain

I started a discussion about the blurb, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In the process of replying. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just stopping by...

... to say hello. How is everything in your end of the world?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ling, good to see you. I stay busy writing up copyediting quizzes. What are you up to? - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting quizzes? <blink, blink> I assume you mean for WP; if so, please send links my way... I'm working on a catastrophe. Glad to hear things are going well. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, this is just a note that I haven't forgotten you, I'm just not finished yet. Soon. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Everything comes in its own season (to paraphrase The Byrds, who shamelessly ripped off The Bible) Hope all is well.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A little like buses...

None for ages, and now two come along! I've added Hitler Diaries to the TFAR page, and I'd be obliged if you could work your usual magic on the prose, if you could? It it within the allowed range, but has some space for additional words if you want. I've tentitively dropped it into the 1 April slot, but if that's already tied up—although I looked round, but couldn't see any sub-pages anywhere discussing or agreeing an article for that date—I've left some alternative dates that would also suit. Still, All Fools Day would suit an article like this, where so many clever people people caught a dose of collected foolishness! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Schro. I removed a comma, otherwise alles gut. Brian and Chris will be happy to help with the scheduling. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: TFA

Charley's summary looks great! You're getting the hang of TC article blurbs :P I'll make sure the main article is up to snuff before it's on the main page, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Very kind, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)