This 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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Dank,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
01:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dank,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Hi Dank. I was looking forward to telling you and Brian that I had finished "perfecting" and updating the Mark Satin page (for its appearance as the FA article on the home page January 10), when I discovered that literally dozens of changes have just been made by a long-time Wikipedia editor calling himself "Colonies Chris."
Except for one change of a hyphen to a dash, ALL his edits involved removing my internal links from book publishers.
Since many of my updates (which occupied my last four days) involved updating internal links to book publishers, I felt it would be wise to confirm with you that it is now Wikipedia's policy to not provide internal links to book publishers.
A couple of things suggest to me that Colonies Chris's edits may be inappropriate. First, you may recall from 2011-2012, I was very careful to only link to book publishers on first mention - there was nothing random about my links. Second, Chris did a sloppy job - for all the dozens of internal links to publishers that he eliminated, he failed to eliminate at least 15 such links (see, e.g., footnotes 6, 17, 21, 37, and 93). Finally, Chris seems to be engaged in an edit war with someone else; see his talk page.
Obviously, with only nine days to go until the Satin page goes up on the home page, I cannot get into an edit war with a senior Wikipedia editor. Are his edits wise? If so, I will eliminate the 15+ remaining links to book publishers. (It will certainly make updating the Satin page easier in the future!) Are they unwise? If so, I would appreciate if you or Brian reverted his edits and communicated with him on his talk page. Thanks so much! - Babel41 ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? Another review would be really helpful in determining a consensus or what else needs improving or fixing. Dan56 ( talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that at the nominator's request I have changed TFA for 16 January to a new article, for which a blurb is required. Also, can you remove the protection from the USS Constitution article which is now no longer scheduled? Only admins can do this, and I ain't one. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Southern Europe is an introduced location. The only native range of the rainbow is the North Pacific in North American and Asia. I think what appears confusing is the line: outside their native range in the U.S. which is supposed to mean they've been introduced into non-native ranges in the US which is true. In other words, all the rainbow trout east of the rockies are introduced, not native. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I read it and I think most of the important information is preserved. I understand the need to shorten it and I think you've done a fine job. Thanks much! — Hun ter Ka hn 03:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was a different rule for years starting before 1000. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where to go with this, so I thought I'd throw a question at you to see if you had a suggestion...
I think I've stumbled across a user who has engaged and/or will be engaging in paid editing, who has also recently created an article about themselves. I don't think I have any hard proof - just a few pieces from various places that have my spidey sense tingling.
Any idea where I should take this? Mlaffs ( talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget a summary ("no consensus" or similar, when you're ready with the research) and your signature. Too bad that an admin had to close this beast. – Be..anyone ( talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For completing an awesome 33 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
I don't mind a few extra characters, but am used from article writing - taught by Tim riley - that you have to add "the musicologist" if their is no link, - I understood "only if there is no link". Also: who else would make such a statement about Bach's music but a musicologist? (And here we have The Authority, compared to Spitta in the 19th century.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dank—saw your message about wanting to do more VG stuff but having reservations about the learning curve. Let me know if you need to run something past someone, or if there's any way I can help. czar ⨹ 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
— {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
01:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, regarding this user, why do you think they should be autopatrolled, having never made a mainspace edit, much less actually created an article? — xaosflux Talk 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Just wanted to clarify that my concerns at AN (re:Griffin close) were in no way related to you, your abilities, or anything else related to you for that matter. Atsme☯ Consult 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm leaving this message to everyone who commented on the Murder of Leigh Leigh FAC nomination. As you showed interest in that nomination, it might interest you to know that the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder, Blackrock (film), is now also nominated for FAC, see here. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp ( talk) 07:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan, following Brian's comment, I've knocked up a rough draft blurb here. Do you want to have a play around with it there - the space is there as long as you need it. If you'd prefer I dropped it into TFAR for additional scrutiny, I'm happy to do that too. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Re the following discussion at a TFAR nomination:
I completely disagree with this. The blurb reflects the article. If you change "Futball" back to "Football" in the blurb, but don't make the same change in the article, what will happen? Someone else will come along at TFA day to WP:ERRORS and say that the blurb ought to say "Futball" like it does in the article. A passing admin then makes the change to the blurb and your edit is lost. If you make the correction in both places it will stick. Saying that it requires (yet more) volunteers to do this is excessive and extra bureaucracy all-round. Saying that it requires lots of extra work is not correct. I can say from long experience that I never found that making minor corrections or improvements to the leads of articles was a big job or one that required significant engagement with other editors to debate the rights and wrongs, and I was doing everything at TFA single-handed. If you needed to be asked to do this (and that's a surprising attitude for a coordinator to take), you have now been asked. Yours, Bencherlite Talk 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The word in question here was the non-word "futball". For me, if I came across a TFA paragraph that said "footblal", I would fix that both at TFA and in the article (and I have been doing that, all along). "futball" falls in a gray area; I don't know anything about Peruvian sports journalism, so no, I don't think I'd make a snap decision that it was a misspelling and correct it both places without asking anyone. (I changed it in this case only because you implied that you wanted us to, when you said "which has been changed, without good reason".) You mentioned WP:ERRORS above (errors reported about the TFA paragraph), and I thought that's what you were talking about at first ... the most common ERROR reports lately have been comma errors, so the question is how far I should go in transferring changes like these in the TFA paragraph to the article. The last two things I mentioned weren't personal attacks, they were the meat of the argument of how to make this call. The best guide to what I should do is what you were doing during your tenure; that's most likely to reflect a consensus on what's expected, and that's why I looked at your edits. As it turns out, you took roughly the same approach as I'm taking, so I don't see a conflict. On the subject of delegating (which is usually only accomplished on Wikipedia by not doing stuff that other people can do), Milhist in general has had a more relaxed attitude on who's responsible for what than FAC/FAR/TFA have had, and your preferences seem to be more in line with the latter and mine with the former ... no surprise there. I will try to be more diligent in making sure that important changes get made to article leads, at least before Main Page day. I hope I'm being reasonably clear here; if not, let me know. Thanks for your help at TFAR. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you know, the signpost wrote a special report on the service I was referring to. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether anyone here is heavily involved at .pt (I barely grasp how administrative things work here). You might want to see if Lecen, Paulista01, Cristiano Tomás or Felipe Menegaz can offer more of an insight into how .pt operates at that level. • Astynax talk 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I never counted "Full article..." as part of the character count, and my experience at TFAR over the years is that nobody else did either, so you needn't worry on that front. Have there been comments/questions somewhere to say that people don't understand what it means? For I can't say that I've seen any in the time since the discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#Featured article link that led to the current wording, including the dots, back in October 2012. Bencherlite Talk 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, At one stage I had Air raids on Japan flagged as a possible TFA for either 9 or 10 March 2015 (the 70th anniversary of the largest attack on Tokyo) ...but didn't do much with it. Would it be OK for it to replace Ronnie Lee Gardner as the 10 March TFA, and if so what do I need to do to replace the blurb? The Gardner article doesn't seem to have a connection with the date that I can see. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Dank,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
01:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dank,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Hi Dank. I was looking forward to telling you and Brian that I had finished "perfecting" and updating the Mark Satin page (for its appearance as the FA article on the home page January 10), when I discovered that literally dozens of changes have just been made by a long-time Wikipedia editor calling himself "Colonies Chris."
Except for one change of a hyphen to a dash, ALL his edits involved removing my internal links from book publishers.
Since many of my updates (which occupied my last four days) involved updating internal links to book publishers, I felt it would be wise to confirm with you that it is now Wikipedia's policy to not provide internal links to book publishers.
A couple of things suggest to me that Colonies Chris's edits may be inappropriate. First, you may recall from 2011-2012, I was very careful to only link to book publishers on first mention - there was nothing random about my links. Second, Chris did a sloppy job - for all the dozens of internal links to publishers that he eliminated, he failed to eliminate at least 15 such links (see, e.g., footnotes 6, 17, 21, 37, and 93). Finally, Chris seems to be engaged in an edit war with someone else; see his talk page.
Obviously, with only nine days to go until the Satin page goes up on the home page, I cannot get into an edit war with a senior Wikipedia editor. Are his edits wise? If so, I will eliminate the 15+ remaining links to book publishers. (It will certainly make updating the Satin page easier in the future!) Are they unwise? If so, I would appreciate if you or Brian reverted his edits and communicated with him on his talk page. Thanks so much! - Babel41 ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? Another review would be really helpful in determining a consensus or what else needs improving or fixing. Dan56 ( talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that at the nominator's request I have changed TFA for 16 January to a new article, for which a blurb is required. Also, can you remove the protection from the USS Constitution article which is now no longer scheduled? Only admins can do this, and I ain't one. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Southern Europe is an introduced location. The only native range of the rainbow is the North Pacific in North American and Asia. I think what appears confusing is the line: outside their native range in the U.S. which is supposed to mean they've been introduced into non-native ranges in the US which is true. In other words, all the rainbow trout east of the rockies are introduced, not native. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I read it and I think most of the important information is preserved. I understand the need to shorten it and I think you've done a fine job. Thanks much! — Hun ter Ka hn 03:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was a different rule for years starting before 1000. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where to go with this, so I thought I'd throw a question at you to see if you had a suggestion...
I think I've stumbled across a user who has engaged and/or will be engaging in paid editing, who has also recently created an article about themselves. I don't think I have any hard proof - just a few pieces from various places that have my spidey sense tingling.
Any idea where I should take this? Mlaffs ( talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget a summary ("no consensus" or similar, when you're ready with the research) and your signature. Too bad that an admin had to close this beast. – Be..anyone ( talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For completing an awesome 33 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
I don't mind a few extra characters, but am used from article writing - taught by Tim riley - that you have to add "the musicologist" if their is no link, - I understood "only if there is no link". Also: who else would make such a statement about Bach's music but a musicologist? (And here we have The Authority, compared to Spitta in the 19th century.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dank—saw your message about wanting to do more VG stuff but having reservations about the learning curve. Let me know if you need to run something past someone, or if there's any way I can help. czar ⨹ 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
— {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
01:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, regarding this user, why do you think they should be autopatrolled, having never made a mainspace edit, much less actually created an article? — xaosflux Talk 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Just wanted to clarify that my concerns at AN (re:Griffin close) were in no way related to you, your abilities, or anything else related to you for that matter. Atsme☯ Consult 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm leaving this message to everyone who commented on the Murder of Leigh Leigh FAC nomination. As you showed interest in that nomination, it might interest you to know that the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder, Blackrock (film), is now also nominated for FAC, see here. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp ( talk) 07:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan, following Brian's comment, I've knocked up a rough draft blurb here. Do you want to have a play around with it there - the space is there as long as you need it. If you'd prefer I dropped it into TFAR for additional scrutiny, I'm happy to do that too. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Re the following discussion at a TFAR nomination:
I completely disagree with this. The blurb reflects the article. If you change "Futball" back to "Football" in the blurb, but don't make the same change in the article, what will happen? Someone else will come along at TFA day to WP:ERRORS and say that the blurb ought to say "Futball" like it does in the article. A passing admin then makes the change to the blurb and your edit is lost. If you make the correction in both places it will stick. Saying that it requires (yet more) volunteers to do this is excessive and extra bureaucracy all-round. Saying that it requires lots of extra work is not correct. I can say from long experience that I never found that making minor corrections or improvements to the leads of articles was a big job or one that required significant engagement with other editors to debate the rights and wrongs, and I was doing everything at TFA single-handed. If you needed to be asked to do this (and that's a surprising attitude for a coordinator to take), you have now been asked. Yours, Bencherlite Talk 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The word in question here was the non-word "futball". For me, if I came across a TFA paragraph that said "footblal", I would fix that both at TFA and in the article (and I have been doing that, all along). "futball" falls in a gray area; I don't know anything about Peruvian sports journalism, so no, I don't think I'd make a snap decision that it was a misspelling and correct it both places without asking anyone. (I changed it in this case only because you implied that you wanted us to, when you said "which has been changed, without good reason".) You mentioned WP:ERRORS above (errors reported about the TFA paragraph), and I thought that's what you were talking about at first ... the most common ERROR reports lately have been comma errors, so the question is how far I should go in transferring changes like these in the TFA paragraph to the article. The last two things I mentioned weren't personal attacks, they were the meat of the argument of how to make this call. The best guide to what I should do is what you were doing during your tenure; that's most likely to reflect a consensus on what's expected, and that's why I looked at your edits. As it turns out, you took roughly the same approach as I'm taking, so I don't see a conflict. On the subject of delegating (which is usually only accomplished on Wikipedia by not doing stuff that other people can do), Milhist in general has had a more relaxed attitude on who's responsible for what than FAC/FAR/TFA have had, and your preferences seem to be more in line with the latter and mine with the former ... no surprise there. I will try to be more diligent in making sure that important changes get made to article leads, at least before Main Page day. I hope I'm being reasonably clear here; if not, let me know. Thanks for your help at TFAR. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you know, the signpost wrote a special report on the service I was referring to. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether anyone here is heavily involved at .pt (I barely grasp how administrative things work here). You might want to see if Lecen, Paulista01, Cristiano Tomás or Felipe Menegaz can offer more of an insight into how .pt operates at that level. • Astynax talk 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I never counted "Full article..." as part of the character count, and my experience at TFAR over the years is that nobody else did either, so you needn't worry on that front. Have there been comments/questions somewhere to say that people don't understand what it means? For I can't say that I've seen any in the time since the discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#Featured article link that led to the current wording, including the dots, back in October 2012. Bencherlite Talk 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, At one stage I had Air raids on Japan flagged as a possible TFA for either 9 or 10 March 2015 (the 70th anniversary of the largest attack on Tokyo) ...but didn't do much with it. Would it be OK for it to replace Ronnie Lee Gardner as the 10 March TFA, and if so what do I need to do to replace the blurb? The Gardner article doesn't seem to have a connection with the date that I can see. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)