User talk:Dank/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twelve FAC reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WT:FAC

Regarding the current discussion at WT:FAC: PLEASE don't stop doing prose reviews! If I could bribe you to do more, I would. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I can come up with some suitable form of payment. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sarastro1, I could do more prose reviews if other people would fix more stuff so that I didn't have so much to do. I've been working for a while on describing what I do in prose reviews; I'll speed up that work and try to make the instructions as easy and automatable as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc FAC

Thanks for the message. Was a little busy over the weekend, but figured I could have taken care of the last-minute comments earlier today, so was a little annoyed to see it archived before I had a chance. But with two weeks to wait I'll take my time going through it, as there's not urgency now, and try again, and hope nothing comes up this time. Will definitely consider your points though, and try an leave nothing out that can be questioned (also good to know for some other articles I've been working on; guess I'll need to take a more thorough look at them before nominating). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's probably best, yes. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I re-nominated the article; hopefully it goes through this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Many thanks for your review and support on the Morihei Ueshiba FA, and also for your improvements to the page. Very much obliged. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Any time. Thanks for all your work at WP:SPI. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am User Bigsplash1 Please review this article. Its not showing up on Google search.. Please help me. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Derick_Kobina_Bonney

Please Dank, help me review it.

FAC request

Hi. If you are available, could you give my FAC a prose review? One was already given, but the coordinator asked for someone more experienced to take a look. If you can't, please reply. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's too late in the process for me to get involved. I'll explain some day at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you be able to comment on this one instead? -- 1989 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, all my spare time is going into this project. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well when you are done with that, hopefully you'll be able to participate. -- 1989 19:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I really only have time to do the ones where I'm familiar with the style and comfortable with the subject matter, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Blurbs for second-time-around TFAs

Dan, when I schedule a TFA for the second time, as I've just done with Shackleton–Rowett Expedition, do you want me to load up the blurb with the blurb from the first time the article ran, or with the current article lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead please, since leads are likely to have been updated over the years. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I guessed; will do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

allcaps

That was a unnecessary bad BF tag you did put on me at talk:main_page. You could have won a point and make a clean finish, but instead some ALLCAPS friend was needed to help you out? Next time, why not start with an agf? -DePiep (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about ERRORS? That's a shorthand way of saying WP:ERRORS, it's not shouting. If I said "errors", you'd think I was talking about mistakes, rather than the page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Our discussion was prematurely deleted from the talkpage, full stop. But for details: prematurely, especially since I had not read your latest reply, and because you were casting aspersions about my behaviour (rightly or not: that was the discussion). Being Talk:Main_page or any other talkpage: WP:TALK applies. An extra note: curious that I need to point you to talkpage behaviour, while you work on the talk:main page. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry to bother you

If I may ask, does the new lede of the sandbox work? I stripped out lots and lots and lots of details. You earlier called it "more gripping" than average; I'm afraid I took out all the "gripping" stuff. If you read it and think "I regret the fact that x was deleted from the lede", please let me know. Thank you for your help!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the things removed from the lead since my last edit ... all that helps a lot I think. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean removing all that helps a lot, correct? Either way, a million thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

謝謝  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fightstar

Noticed you saw this at FAC. Do you have any further suggestions? Are you okay with giving any comment on the candidacy? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I probably don't know enough about the style and subject matter to get involved, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the sixteen FAC reviews you did during March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 16 TFA changed

Dan, I just switched April 16 from Knight Lore to Sino-Roman relations; the main editor of Knight Lore asked for it to be deferred to an anniversary date. Can you check and fix any protections or other tweaks necessary? I think the "recently featured" list will be fine as the bot hasn't gone through yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks. Johnboddie has offered to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not ever tell lies about me again

Still less tell lies about Featured Articles on the front page. I am sick and tired of the dishonesty that admins think is acceptable. You should resign the tools. DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

All this over a minor error in TFA text? Really? As one dramatic person to another, I recommend a nice long walk in the park, a sandwich, and... peaceful thoughts.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's over an Admin refusing to correct an error on the Main Page because he didn't check his facts, and then accusing me of doing something which I didn't. But hey, that's what admins do. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuck the main page.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

quotes

Hey Dank. Thanks for all your help on a million things... If you ever do c/e Bengal famine (and it's very much OK if you don't c/e it; I know you have tons of stuff on your plate), please do go at least a little bit easy on the direct quotes. I think some of them add a sense of "newsreel immediacy" and a personal touch. OTOH, Clarityfiend agreed w. you in part, saying (and I quote):

I recall you saying another editor [complained] about the number of direct quotes. I have to agree in part. There are some that don't really add anything simply by being quotes and can easily be paraphrased (and without requiring twisting to work grammatically): e.g. "a large proportion of the population [continually led] a quasi-famine existence", "[obtain] the land and occupancy rights of the [ryot] through both legal and coercive means.

Thanks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll let someone else run through it first at A-class, then I'll give it a whack. I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 11 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Carnotaurus

Dan, I just scheduled Carnotaurus for 25 April. A whole lotta sentences starting "Carnotaurus..." for you to take care of, but the reason I'm posting is that the TFAR image is a reconstruction. I dropped the full lead and another suggested image into the prior rev of the TFA page. It strikes me that a reconstruction isn't quite as desirable as a skull cast, but I don't have the TFA experience you do, so I'll defer to you David Levy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Superior stalwart

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		Superior stalwart: Hats off to the man with many hats! You are an irreplaceable stalwart of Wikipedia..   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty! Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA with a move request

Dan and Jim, see here and my comment there. Presumably this has happened before; do we just let the tag sit there? Tags for real problems are one thing, but having an RM tag on the article when it's on the main page seems unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, my natural inclination would be to remove the tag until tomorrow, but I don't know if that is acceptable, perhaps Dan's come across this before? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've commented out the move tag for today. I don't think we've had a page tagged for a requested move on its Main Page day during my tenure, before now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good solution, commenting out is gentler than removing the tag, even temporarily Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider to revert showing the move tag on the Crucifix. It's ugly, particularly disturbing in an article about art, and will not be needed, see discussion --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would go as far as requesting that no such tags be added to articles (art or not) as long as they are linked from the Main page, two more days in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be involved at this point; discussion should probably continue on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to be discussed, because the other crucifix by Cimabue has now an article. The move request - with no support anyway - should be closed, and we should think about not permitting such a thing (RM for a TFA) from the start, and should have a designer improve the ugly template-generated box which is a disgrace for any article it hits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WT:TFA thread

In light of the last comments in that thread about "articles staying a secret", I'm unwatching the thread—and everything else FA-related—and disabling Echo, since I can't imagine any discussion with people who hold that attitude that won't end up with my getting myself blocked for incivility. If you (or any of the other delegates) want or need anything from me specifically, feel free to ask on my talk. ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(watching) I am sorry, Iridescent, to have hit a nerve by an edit summary that I worded somewhat provocatively without thinking enough what might be implied. My attitude: I understand that an article should be not shown because a main editors wants it so. I understand that an article should not be shown because the topic may cause legal harm. I understand that an article should not be shown because the topic is a terrorist or a killer, to avoid the misinterpretation that terrorism or killing are highlighted. I'd just like to know that upfront, best in a FAC. Can we discuss that? - I am still glad that Amazing Grace appeared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for letting me know, Iri ... another editor had the same reaction. I've spent most of today thinking, researching and writing notes to myself about the TFAR conflict, and I've just shared my thoughts with Jim and Mike. I stand by my belief that the 3 TFA coords aren't driving the conflicts, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that there are conflicts, and that FAC is losing some participation because of it. I don't think we can afford any attrition, much less attrition over dumb things that are probably fixable. There's a separate problem that I've been concerned about since I started at TFA, that some of the implicit rules changed at some point at TFA, without notice, in a way that inconvenienced some of our most prolific contributors, including you. It really wasn't my place to do anything about it until I got on the rotation for regular scheduling. Now that I'm giving it a shot ... well, it's going to be a harder problem than I thought, but I'll do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2017

You say you try to be consistent with how you apply MOS:LQ, but it clearly states, "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material [emphasis mine], and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." In this case, the terminal period ends not only the sentence, but the paragraph. Consistency must cede to correctness, would you not agree? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're misquoting, let me check. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You quoted right, you just didn't read far enough. "If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." It hangs on what a "fragment" is. I've been copyediting at FAC for almost 10 years now; I'm aware of where the reviewers like to put the period, and most of them will put it outside if the fragment doesn't have a main verb. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "meant" (as in, past tense of the verb "mean") within "flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths", is the "main verb" in a "fragment" that would work as a complete sentence with the noun subject in parentheses ("[The building featured] flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths."). With respect, I remain 100% convinced that your edit is 100% incorrect. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Main verb" in grammar means the head of the predicate. In the sentence you're quoting, "featured" is the main verb, not "meant". - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree; you're picking apart my example, not the "fragment" itself—and certainly not its presentation within the blurb. If presented as "[The building's] flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines [were] meant to attract ...", my argument stands.

The entire paragraph reads:

Beyond the sadness of local bowlers, preservationists are lamenting the loss of another example of Southern California's postwar Googie architecture, a mix of Space Age optimism, flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths.

The main verb in the first half of this sentence is "lamenting"; the second half departs from the lament to be specifically explanatory of "Googie architecture" itself. Indeed, this fragment features two verbs: "meant", the main, and "attract", the effect of the main. Were one to separate the sentences, it would read:

Beyond the sadness of local bowlers, preservationists are lamenting the loss of another example of Southern California's postwar Googie architecture. This style was a mix of Space Age optimism, flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths.

In this example, and as presented within the blurb, "meant" is incontrovertibly the "main verb". —ATS 🖖 talk 02:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm really busy and don't have time for this discussion. Feel free to continue the discussion at WT:MOS, WP:ERRORS, or anywhere else you like. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(watching one of my favourite pages, and probably not the right person to talk about English grammar:) to my understanding, "meant" in that sentence is derived from the verb "to mean", but is not used as a verb (the verb in your split sentence is "is"), - it's an explaining appendix (or however that is called properly) to "rooflines". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, is/was is right. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin etc.

Dan, I think I've finished with the rescheduling around Lenin (see Talk:Vladimir Lenin if you haven't already). Can you do the page protection for George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore? I think Carnotaurus should be OK, since it would already have been protected, and is still scheduled; unless the move protection has an expiry date set by the bot? I moved up Carnotaurus to give you a bit more time on the blurb for the Calvert, since you'd already done the blurb for Carnotaurus. There's one uncited sentence in Calvert which could just be removed if necessary, but I think it might be OK to leave it. Please also look around and see if I missed anything -- I think I got all the "recently featured" lists, and I'm about to go re-add Lenin to the unfeatured list. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had the blurb done already for Calvert, it's been copied in now. I'll check on the page protection. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On how to save article from misinterpreted talks

The article @ The Mother's International School, Upleta is being prosecuted for wrong reasons, it wasn't entirely the idea of the nominee to make the article lie in the Afd pages. I beg thee to give your insight on the article​. Sorry for no links.. I am not sure how it works! ZealD (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question AotD

Yes, that's more like what I understood you to really mean in the first place. You're closed to considering these inconvenient facts. Proximity1 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You should raise this argument at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question; an issue that fundamental to the featured article can't be settled at WP:ERRORS. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with FAC

Hello! I apologize for the random message, but I would greatly appreciate your help/feedback on my current FAC as I have noticed that you are a very strong contributor/reviewer to the FAC process. I have fortunately been able to receive a lot of commentary/feedback on my nomination, but it has been noted that there may still be some prose issues to work out. I would greatly appreciate your help with this if possible. I understand if you do not have the time or energy for this as it is a busy time of the year. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Thank you either way! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• No worries, thank you for your response! Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)