![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You were mentioned in the October 2011 issue of The Right Stuff, available here. – Lionel ( talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dank, I am member of copy editors guild wikiproject, I want to learn copy editing skills. I chose you to teach me if you can. I think you'll help me. Yours' hopefully -- —Assassin'S Creed (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you hang out at FAC. Don't know if you've already seen it, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3 doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA on its anniversary, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hey Dan, I know you are short of time, so I'm getting this message to you with about two weeks to spare, but would you be interested in writing an op-ed on how to write better? I.e. common mistakes and the like? If you want to go a different direction, do something entirely different, or nothing at all, that's fine; I just thought I'd ask. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome—and I love the checklist! -- Laser brain (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, Dank! I noticed you give excellent prose reviews to FACs. I currently have one up myself, and I was wondering if you could spare some time to share your thoughts. Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated! Auree ★ 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimania, Dank, Ed, and Ealdgyth:
This is to thank you for providing useful critiques of my Mark Satin article at one point or another over the last four months. It is also to apologize - to the first two of you, anyway - for my being initially so resistant to your critiques. After I became more knowledgeable about what was going on, I changed the article in response to all your critiques, as you'll see if you look at the current article and its "history" page from 18 August to the present.
The article has just completed a peer review. Next week, right after Satin's 65th birthday (November 16), I'll want to put it up for another FA review. I hope you will look at it at that time - I'll remind you - and, if you like what I've done, I hope you will consider supporting it. If you'd like to communicate with me before then, please do so here or on my Babel talk page. - Babel41 ( talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Roosevelt asked Secretary of the Treasury Shaw, who handled it with Roosevelt looking over his shoulder. Roosevelt did not "ask" the Mint, he had the boss of the Mint (the secretary of the treasury) handle it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you are interested in history. I'm an American living in and writing about Lower Normandy( I live in Argentan, I can walk to the Falaise Pocket). I'm interested in writing on landscape history in the region, which includes WW II. I was briefly a professional writer after retiring from directing a history and science museum in San Antonio Texas. I don't need fast help, but I would like some guidance from a long-term editor of Wikipedia. I have been contributing here about six months and would like to be a little more efficient in the contributions; trial and error is slow. Help with editors page has you listed and available. May I ask for your help? Mlane ( talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally would not promote it based on the source material alone. Most of the information comes from Paul Preston's book, which, despite being one of the better books on the subject in the English language, still reeks of an overconcentration of opinion from a single source. I do not think that Beevor's book is a good one. Beevor is known for the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) expression of opinion in his work; Beevor, I think, comes off as biased against the Republic, because Beevor's is ideologically very anti-Communist. This is not true just of his work on Spain, but also of his books concerning the Soviet Union and the Second World War. Hugh's book is actually never cited, as far as I can tell, even though it is listed in the bibliography. All in all, either the author will have to dig into Spanish source material (of which there is plenty of), or if he cannot (due to a language barrier), he will have to start looking into more obscure English-language sources. JonCatalán (Talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I posted an article named "RedRevolution12" indication suggests that you were the individual who deleted my page based on the fact that it was an organization but i failed to indicate the importance or significance. When it was more than clear that the importance/significance was to organize and combine the individuals participating in various Occupy Movements world wide. So, please could you repost my page or i will have to notify an administrator of your false claims, and acts. Thanks RedRev12.
This is to let you know that my thoroughly revised Mark Satin biography has just gone up for a second FA review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive2. It would not be the article it is today without your help. I hope you will take another look at it. - Babel41 ( talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dank, do you think this would be a good candidate for A-class once it's moved to mainspace? Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I saw you on FAC very often, you mainly reviewed the prose. Could you help to improve the prose in Otis Redding, so that it meets at least the point one of the good article criteria? I want to bring it to FA status this month, but I don't think I can't manage it; but at least GA would be a nice achivement. Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dank. If it's not asking too much, could you close for me this? There is a clear lack of interest in the subject and I hardly believe someone will try to review it. In fact, I made a mistake, what I wanted was to have the article peer reviewed but I asked for an A assessment instead. I'm going to nominate it to FAC although I don't think anyone will try to take a look at it. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Dank. You removed "...units—the latter having allied with Brazil against Paraguay". Reader will think how odd it is that Brazil had invaded Uruguay and then, out of nowhere, Uruguayan troops were fighting on Brazilian soil against Paraguayan troops... not Brazilian troops. -- Lecen ( talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your brilliant copyediting of Jovan Vladimir and all your help to promote the article to FA status. Vladimir ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
It's probably a case of GMTA or just me coming up with common ideas that people like you are already working on, but I had a proposal to do exactly what you want. It is on page 90 of the presentation.
Just a couple sentences written down so far, but would be glad to chat with you about how to actually go after it. I really don't have anything extra in reserve, but I have a little bit of experience with academia and would be glad to just be another thought partner in developing more of a real plan. And I think you can get funding for it. (It's not controversial...is right in line with the WMF strategy.) TCO ( reviews needed) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there is probably better, get more eyes. RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
Yes, it was. See here. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Dank and/or stalkers – is this worth an FAC do you think? What issues are likely to come up? Just a prelim check. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Job well done (while the rest of us were off spinning our wheels); the genius is in the brevity. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dank. I am concerned that my Mark Satin article has gotten no Supports, Opposes, or even Comments, since your own Support from 10 days ago (21 November). I genuinely think it's a unique and informative and well-crafted article (especialy now that you, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, and Ed have each had cracks at improving it) and it would be a shame if it fails its FAC review for lack of reviewers. (Very ironic, too, since in real life the subject of the article never lacked for supporters or detractors.) After reading SandyGeorgia's comments on the decline in standards at Wikipedia, I feel she would appreciatre what I (with help) have done here.
I am wondering what I can do to stir up interest. I am afraid I do not have the time to properly review other FA candidates' work. I have thought about putting a brief "open letter" on the FAC site, but I suppose that would be seen as special pleading not to mention somewhat weird. I have thought of asking colleagues of mine to post comments, but that feels unethical. Any advice you have would be appreciated. - Babel41 ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt#Move_page_to_yogurt
Somehow I stumbled on a RM for WikiProject Conservatism and voted, since it seemed reasonable. Then I noticed you were a member, so let me ask you, is there any reasonable basis for a move? Would you say the project represents an international worldview of conservative principles? (Does such a thing even exist? Heh.) Regardless, I would be interested in your viewpoint. - Kai445 ( talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Thanks again for being willing to guide me. I've added the references as you requested. The narrative style I know is inappropriate here but I need help converting it without losing all life; perhaps that is impossible. I've gutted a lot already. Thank you in advance for whatever guidance you have. Mlane ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Mlane78212/Enter your neRésistance Joué-du-Plain and the Assassination of Emile Buffonw article name here
Thank you again. I own you another. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you doublecheck your edit? Many thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:
Now it looks like this:
Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? -- Lecen ( talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I have recently noticed a discrepancy, which I hope you may be able to shine some light on, as a major contributor to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39). The photo in the info box is supposedly from 1930, but our article says that the ship was in Norfolk Navy yard from 1929 to 1931 for modernisation. The date of 1930 comes from the national archives, which is obviously reputable... but they could have made a mistake. I have started a conversation on the photos talk page on commons, if you want to add you thoughts.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, since you participated in the failed FAC of the AV-8B, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Thank you -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 23:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw my proposal, a follow up to my message on the Military History Project talk page. The project has to do with the future of WikiProject History. I have left similar notices on the talk pages of a few editors who might be interested in this, and I notified related WikiProjects that would be involved if the proposal is ever seriously considered. You can go to the proposal by clicking here. DCI talk 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
[Copied from Falconus's talk page:] Correct me if I'm wrong, Falconus, it looks like you started adding a big "stable version" template to some article talk pages yesterday. We used to identify "stable versions" for WP:1.0, an offline version of WP ... perhaps you're involved with that work, but we typically either didn't mention that information on Wikipedia, or added the version to one of the banners that already existed; your banner is huge, and displaces whatever banner was at the top of the page. The very top of the talk page is important "real estate", generally reflecting whatever Wikipedians consider most important, and any one person's preference for any particular version of the page probably isn't the most important thing we can say about an article. Has there been discussion on this yet? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Dank, - As you may have seen by now, I took my Mark Satin biography off the FAC page earlier today. This is just a big "Thank-you!" for believing in me. You tried to tell me what the FAC review would be like, but I persisted in feeling I could retain more of the individuality of my writing style and temperament than is, obviously, desired.
The experience was deflating. But I can understand why Wikipedia's editors want their biographies to have a uniform approach and tone of voice. I expect it will be a good and interesting exercise for me to try to adjust my writing to what you called Wikipedia house style, and I will do so in the weeks ahead, taking my cues from your suggestions and the other editors' suggestions. Most of my adjustments will be subtle. The article will still be recognizable.
If all goes well, I will be back on the FAC board in early January. All the help you've given me WILL NOT have been in vain! Best, - Babel41 ( talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take my comments about RAF Uxbridge and now Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias as any kind of criticism of your copyediting abilities or the quality of MilHist's reviews. I'm just a fresh pair of eyes, with no dog in the race. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dan, long time no talk :) Kirk raised a question at the Tirpitz FAC that neither one of us can answer definitively. He suggested you might have an opinion on it. No need to rush over there and look at it now, I just wanted to give you a poke so you wouldn't miss it if you look the article over. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dank, as someone who participated in the earlier A-class review of Boeing 767 (your past help with copy-editing and closing that review is much appreciated), you might be interested in contributing to its current FA nomination. Cheers, SynergyStar ( talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dank for your help thus far; the guidance and suggestions are deeply appreciated. With regards to the "See also" section, it appears that just as with the earlier WP:AIRCRAFT discussion, there is a local consensus in favor of its retention. The WP:ALSO clause "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment" has been cited as justification. That statement is rather ambiguous in my opinion, being open to interpretation.
I have since retitled the sections to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion: "Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era". I completely agree with your reasoning that the previous titles are ambiguous. There are also matching prose statements in the article which correspond with the retitled list; e.g. "X, Y, and Z are military derivatives' (lead); "X is a competitor" (subsections). The list has also been shortened by one link.
At this point, I hope the nomination isn't torpedoed over a few links. It seems like there may be a larger policy conflict between the project and FAR/Layout entities; this article may be turning into a test case. I'm left wondering how hard-line views on both sides (keep section, remove) can be bridged. Overall, I'm wondering what more can I as a single editor do; thanks for any suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dank, Should the first sentence of an article about someone who was a military officer include their rank? I removed "Captain" as the first word of the first sentence of the Robert Falcon Scott article, diff, based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) which says in part (under Titles and styles) Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien).
The article passed at FAC without Captain as the first word too.
However, the MOS does not explicitly mention military rank that I can find, and I figured you might know of something in the MOS I had missed. If it is not in the MOS, then I think it should be. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My name is Jivesh. I would like to know whether you do copy-edits if someone requests you on your talk-page itself? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello -
I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, just thought MILHIST ought to know that there's a discussion ongoing at WT:ROCKETRY concerning the abolition of the project, part of which is a suggestion that MILHIST take over part of the project's remit - we'd appreciate any thoughts you had on the matter! Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream ( talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! |
Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Bet you wish you were here! |
Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
Season's greetings! |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
Happy Holidays! |
Hope you are enjoying the holiday season! Thanks for all you do here; you don't know how many people appreciate your work. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page.
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dank
I sees that you are a member of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and a GOCE mentor. The reason I'm writing is because I need help of cleaning up the article of the Chinese TV serial Startling by Each Step. I've been doing proofreading and clean-up from contributions made by other users, but I am not confidant of my ability and hope you can help. PLEASE?! Thank you and have a Happy New Year. -- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with them... Brianboulton only had a couple issues that required going back to the sources. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
![]() |
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Peppage ಠ_ಠ 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Awarded to Dank, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their work copyediting articles throughout 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, thanks for the tip. That lede has bugged me for a long time, but every time I tried to tackle it, I ended up by thinking the rest of the article had to be fixed first. I'm not a fan of long ledes, but I think it leaves out points, like the fantastically promotional "pitchman" aspects to his character. And the fact that he was largely self-taught.
Later, after learning about nitrous oxide (laughing gas) from the factory chemist, Colt took a portable lab on the road and earned a living performing laughing gas demonstrations across the United States and Canada billing himself as "the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta". According to Colt historian Robert Lawrence Wilson, the "lectures launched Colt's celebrated career as a pioneer Madison Avenue-style pitchman".
I'll study the changes you made so I can learn to write better. His brother's story John C. Colt is also unusual, to say the least. MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You were mentioned in the October 2011 issue of The Right Stuff, available here. – Lionel ( talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dank, I am member of copy editors guild wikiproject, I want to learn copy editing skills. I chose you to teach me if you can. I think you'll help me. Yours' hopefully -- —Assassin'S Creed (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you hang out at FAC. Don't know if you've already seen it, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3 doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA on its anniversary, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hey Dan, I know you are short of time, so I'm getting this message to you with about two weeks to spare, but would you be interested in writing an op-ed on how to write better? I.e. common mistakes and the like? If you want to go a different direction, do something entirely different, or nothing at all, that's fine; I just thought I'd ask. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome—and I love the checklist! -- Laser brain (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, Dank! I noticed you give excellent prose reviews to FACs. I currently have one up myself, and I was wondering if you could spare some time to share your thoughts. Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated! Auree ★ 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimania, Dank, Ed, and Ealdgyth:
This is to thank you for providing useful critiques of my Mark Satin article at one point or another over the last four months. It is also to apologize - to the first two of you, anyway - for my being initially so resistant to your critiques. After I became more knowledgeable about what was going on, I changed the article in response to all your critiques, as you'll see if you look at the current article and its "history" page from 18 August to the present.
The article has just completed a peer review. Next week, right after Satin's 65th birthday (November 16), I'll want to put it up for another FA review. I hope you will look at it at that time - I'll remind you - and, if you like what I've done, I hope you will consider supporting it. If you'd like to communicate with me before then, please do so here or on my Babel talk page. - Babel41 ( talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Roosevelt asked Secretary of the Treasury Shaw, who handled it with Roosevelt looking over his shoulder. Roosevelt did not "ask" the Mint, he had the boss of the Mint (the secretary of the treasury) handle it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you are interested in history. I'm an American living in and writing about Lower Normandy( I live in Argentan, I can walk to the Falaise Pocket). I'm interested in writing on landscape history in the region, which includes WW II. I was briefly a professional writer after retiring from directing a history and science museum in San Antonio Texas. I don't need fast help, but I would like some guidance from a long-term editor of Wikipedia. I have been contributing here about six months and would like to be a little more efficient in the contributions; trial and error is slow. Help with editors page has you listed and available. May I ask for your help? Mlane ( talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally would not promote it based on the source material alone. Most of the information comes from Paul Preston's book, which, despite being one of the better books on the subject in the English language, still reeks of an overconcentration of opinion from a single source. I do not think that Beevor's book is a good one. Beevor is known for the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) expression of opinion in his work; Beevor, I think, comes off as biased against the Republic, because Beevor's is ideologically very anti-Communist. This is not true just of his work on Spain, but also of his books concerning the Soviet Union and the Second World War. Hugh's book is actually never cited, as far as I can tell, even though it is listed in the bibliography. All in all, either the author will have to dig into Spanish source material (of which there is plenty of), or if he cannot (due to a language barrier), he will have to start looking into more obscure English-language sources. JonCatalán (Talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I posted an article named "RedRevolution12" indication suggests that you were the individual who deleted my page based on the fact that it was an organization but i failed to indicate the importance or significance. When it was more than clear that the importance/significance was to organize and combine the individuals participating in various Occupy Movements world wide. So, please could you repost my page or i will have to notify an administrator of your false claims, and acts. Thanks RedRev12.
This is to let you know that my thoroughly revised Mark Satin biography has just gone up for a second FA review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive2. It would not be the article it is today without your help. I hope you will take another look at it. - Babel41 ( talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dank, do you think this would be a good candidate for A-class once it's moved to mainspace? Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I saw you on FAC very often, you mainly reviewed the prose. Could you help to improve the prose in Otis Redding, so that it meets at least the point one of the good article criteria? I want to bring it to FA status this month, but I don't think I can't manage it; but at least GA would be a nice achivement. Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dank. If it's not asking too much, could you close for me this? There is a clear lack of interest in the subject and I hardly believe someone will try to review it. In fact, I made a mistake, what I wanted was to have the article peer reviewed but I asked for an A assessment instead. I'm going to nominate it to FAC although I don't think anyone will try to take a look at it. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Dank. You removed "...units—the latter having allied with Brazil against Paraguay". Reader will think how odd it is that Brazil had invaded Uruguay and then, out of nowhere, Uruguayan troops were fighting on Brazilian soil against Paraguayan troops... not Brazilian troops. -- Lecen ( talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your brilliant copyediting of Jovan Vladimir and all your help to promote the article to FA status. Vladimir ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
It's probably a case of GMTA or just me coming up with common ideas that people like you are already working on, but I had a proposal to do exactly what you want. It is on page 90 of the presentation.
Just a couple sentences written down so far, but would be glad to chat with you about how to actually go after it. I really don't have anything extra in reserve, but I have a little bit of experience with academia and would be glad to just be another thought partner in developing more of a real plan. And I think you can get funding for it. (It's not controversial...is right in line with the WMF strategy.) TCO ( reviews needed) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there is probably better, get more eyes. RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
Yes, it was. See here. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Dank and/or stalkers – is this worth an FAC do you think? What issues are likely to come up? Just a prelim check. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Job well done (while the rest of us were off spinning our wheels); the genius is in the brevity. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dank. I am concerned that my Mark Satin article has gotten no Supports, Opposes, or even Comments, since your own Support from 10 days ago (21 November). I genuinely think it's a unique and informative and well-crafted article (especialy now that you, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, and Ed have each had cracks at improving it) and it would be a shame if it fails its FAC review for lack of reviewers. (Very ironic, too, since in real life the subject of the article never lacked for supporters or detractors.) After reading SandyGeorgia's comments on the decline in standards at Wikipedia, I feel she would appreciatre what I (with help) have done here.
I am wondering what I can do to stir up interest. I am afraid I do not have the time to properly review other FA candidates' work. I have thought about putting a brief "open letter" on the FAC site, but I suppose that would be seen as special pleading not to mention somewhat weird. I have thought of asking colleagues of mine to post comments, but that feels unethical. Any advice you have would be appreciated. - Babel41 ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt#Move_page_to_yogurt
Somehow I stumbled on a RM for WikiProject Conservatism and voted, since it seemed reasonable. Then I noticed you were a member, so let me ask you, is there any reasonable basis for a move? Would you say the project represents an international worldview of conservative principles? (Does such a thing even exist? Heh.) Regardless, I would be interested in your viewpoint. - Kai445 ( talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Thanks again for being willing to guide me. I've added the references as you requested. The narrative style I know is inappropriate here but I need help converting it without losing all life; perhaps that is impossible. I've gutted a lot already. Thank you in advance for whatever guidance you have. Mlane ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Mlane78212/Enter your neRésistance Joué-du-Plain and the Assassination of Emile Buffonw article name here
Thank you again. I own you another. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you doublecheck your edit? Many thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:
Now it looks like this:
Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? -- Lecen ( talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I have recently noticed a discrepancy, which I hope you may be able to shine some light on, as a major contributor to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39). The photo in the info box is supposedly from 1930, but our article says that the ship was in Norfolk Navy yard from 1929 to 1931 for modernisation. The date of 1930 comes from the national archives, which is obviously reputable... but they could have made a mistake. I have started a conversation on the photos talk page on commons, if you want to add you thoughts.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, since you participated in the failed FAC of the AV-8B, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Thank you -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 23:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw my proposal, a follow up to my message on the Military History Project talk page. The project has to do with the future of WikiProject History. I have left similar notices on the talk pages of a few editors who might be interested in this, and I notified related WikiProjects that would be involved if the proposal is ever seriously considered. You can go to the proposal by clicking here. DCI talk 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
[Copied from Falconus's talk page:] Correct me if I'm wrong, Falconus, it looks like you started adding a big "stable version" template to some article talk pages yesterday. We used to identify "stable versions" for WP:1.0, an offline version of WP ... perhaps you're involved with that work, but we typically either didn't mention that information on Wikipedia, or added the version to one of the banners that already existed; your banner is huge, and displaces whatever banner was at the top of the page. The very top of the talk page is important "real estate", generally reflecting whatever Wikipedians consider most important, and any one person's preference for any particular version of the page probably isn't the most important thing we can say about an article. Has there been discussion on this yet? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Dank, - As you may have seen by now, I took my Mark Satin biography off the FAC page earlier today. This is just a big "Thank-you!" for believing in me. You tried to tell me what the FAC review would be like, but I persisted in feeling I could retain more of the individuality of my writing style and temperament than is, obviously, desired.
The experience was deflating. But I can understand why Wikipedia's editors want their biographies to have a uniform approach and tone of voice. I expect it will be a good and interesting exercise for me to try to adjust my writing to what you called Wikipedia house style, and I will do so in the weeks ahead, taking my cues from your suggestions and the other editors' suggestions. Most of my adjustments will be subtle. The article will still be recognizable.
If all goes well, I will be back on the FAC board in early January. All the help you've given me WILL NOT have been in vain! Best, - Babel41 ( talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take my comments about RAF Uxbridge and now Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias as any kind of criticism of your copyediting abilities or the quality of MilHist's reviews. I'm just a fresh pair of eyes, with no dog in the race. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dan, long time no talk :) Kirk raised a question at the Tirpitz FAC that neither one of us can answer definitively. He suggested you might have an opinion on it. No need to rush over there and look at it now, I just wanted to give you a poke so you wouldn't miss it if you look the article over. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dank, as someone who participated in the earlier A-class review of Boeing 767 (your past help with copy-editing and closing that review is much appreciated), you might be interested in contributing to its current FA nomination. Cheers, SynergyStar ( talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dank for your help thus far; the guidance and suggestions are deeply appreciated. With regards to the "See also" section, it appears that just as with the earlier WP:AIRCRAFT discussion, there is a local consensus in favor of its retention. The WP:ALSO clause "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment" has been cited as justification. That statement is rather ambiguous in my opinion, being open to interpretation.
I have since retitled the sections to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion: "Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era". I completely agree with your reasoning that the previous titles are ambiguous. There are also matching prose statements in the article which correspond with the retitled list; e.g. "X, Y, and Z are military derivatives' (lead); "X is a competitor" (subsections). The list has also been shortened by one link.
At this point, I hope the nomination isn't torpedoed over a few links. It seems like there may be a larger policy conflict between the project and FAR/Layout entities; this article may be turning into a test case. I'm left wondering how hard-line views on both sides (keep section, remove) can be bridged. Overall, I'm wondering what more can I as a single editor do; thanks for any suggestions. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dank, Should the first sentence of an article about someone who was a military officer include their rank? I removed "Captain" as the first word of the first sentence of the Robert Falcon Scott article, diff, based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) which says in part (under Titles and styles) Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien).
The article passed at FAC without Captain as the first word too.
However, the MOS does not explicitly mention military rank that I can find, and I figured you might know of something in the MOS I had missed. If it is not in the MOS, then I think it should be. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My name is Jivesh. I would like to know whether you do copy-edits if someone requests you on your talk-page itself? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello -
I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, just thought MILHIST ought to know that there's a discussion ongoing at WT:ROCKETRY concerning the abolition of the project, part of which is a suggestion that MILHIST take over part of the project's remit - we'd appreciate any thoughts you had on the matter! Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream ( talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! |
Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Bet you wish you were here! |
Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
Season's greetings! |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
Happy Holidays! |
Hope you are enjoying the holiday season! Thanks for all you do here; you don't know how many people appreciate your work. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page.
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dank
I sees that you are a member of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and a GOCE mentor. The reason I'm writing is because I need help of cleaning up the article of the Chinese TV serial Startling by Each Step. I've been doing proofreading and clean-up from contributions made by other users, but I am not confidant of my ability and hope you can help. PLEASE?! Thank you and have a Happy New Year. -- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with them... Brianboulton only had a couple issues that required going back to the sources. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
![]() |
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Peppage ಠ_ಠ 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Awarded to Dank, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their work copyediting articles throughout 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, thanks for the tip. That lede has bugged me for a long time, but every time I tried to tackle it, I ended up by thinking the rest of the article had to be fixed first. I'm not a fan of long ledes, but I think it leaves out points, like the fantastically promotional "pitchman" aspects to his character. And the fact that he was largely self-taught.
Later, after learning about nitrous oxide (laughing gas) from the factory chemist, Colt took a portable lab on the road and earned a living performing laughing gas demonstrations across the United States and Canada billing himself as "the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta". According to Colt historian Robert Lawrence Wilson, the "lectures launched Colt's celebrated career as a pioneer Madison Avenue-style pitchman".
I'll study the changes you made so I can learn to write better. His brother's story John C. Colt is also unusual, to say the least. MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)