User talk:Dank

I'm taking a break from copyediting. Please leave a message, and I'll reply here.

Copyediting

GANs

Library

Links

Milhist Alerts

Policy update

RFA

Shiny things

My talk page is watched by friendly talk page stalkers. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

(2007-4/08), (5-7/08), (8-11/08)
(12/08-2/09), Mar, Apr, May, Jun
Jul/Aug 2009 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2010 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2010 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2011 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2011 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2012 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2012 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2013 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2013 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec

No. 38 Squadron RAAF FAC

Hi Dank, I know that you're taking a break from FAC, but would appreciate it if you could consider posting a review of this article (which you recently reviewed at ACR) in the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 38 Squadron RAAF/archive1. It's been open for a couple of weeks now and hasn't attracted many comments. Please post a critical review if you don't think that the article is up to scratch! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Prose standards at FAC, particularly for articles not in American or Canadian English, seem to be evolving, and I'd rather not join in the debates, sorry. I'd rather spend my time writing copyediting software, to help share what we've learned so far. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce FA Nomination

Hi Dank,

You were kind enough to help review Stanley Bruce's FA nomination last month. It's been through a fair few sweeps and revisions now, and all the issues seem to have been resolved, so I was hoping you'd be willing to give the nomination your support if you see fit now. Thanks! Unus Multorum (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Unus, welcome to FAC, and see above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes, where your name was mentioned in the discussion. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Admin related RFC

Given the time you spent on the last RFA related RFC I just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor userright. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kumioko. I don't know enough about the various uses of templates to know what I think of that one. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Torpedo...Los!

You seem to be comfortable with military art. I could have used your commentary at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Torpedo...Los!. Was the perception that that painting is more notable for its relationship to WP:CHICAGO than WP:MILHIST and thus people were not interested?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Most of my wiki-time these days is spent developing copyediting software. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your bag of tricks

Hello, Dank,

The most useful thing you did for the ACR was run that link-checker and other bots. Could you please do that again? They sure beat the heck out of the old Mark 1 eyeball.

And thank you for showing up again, especially given the fact you are on an assessment-free break just now.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi George, actually it was Anotherclown who ran those checks... The dab link, external link, and alt text checkers are part of the toolbox you'll see on the right-hand side of the Peer Review nomination page (it will also appear on a FAC nomination page). This is a dup link checker, which you install as a script and the trigger shows up as "Highlight duplicate links" under "Toolbox" to the left of any article page you read while logged in. Earwig I have to admit I don't use so perhaps Dan or Anotherclown can point you to that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi Dank, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review at WikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'll take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: the article is at FAC right now -- your input is welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'm on a break from copyediting, and that's had a lot of edits since the A-class review. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: coord elections

Dan, let's not go too far. You've been far more of a role model than any small things I've done for you. Thank you for the kind words. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's kind Ed, thanks, but I'm not sure why you think you aren't a role model, for me and a lot of people here (per [1], "a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others"). Like a lot of Wikipedians, I consciously and subconsciously adopt the style and methods of communication that seem to work best ... and you're one of the best-known communicators on Wikipedia (surely you know that), and I've been privileged to work with you for many years. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tribute book?

Hi Dank, Has anyone pointed this book out to you? - the first half of the title may be a tribute ;) [2]. I saw it being flogged off in a cheap bookshop yesterday. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(I'm not suggesting that this is your kind of thing at all BTW - it isn't mine). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to hear that, Nick, for a second I was wondering what sort of bookshops you frequent -- there's all sorts in Canberra (so I've heard, I mean)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah ... for stalkers who don't know, "dank" is one of the many synonyms for marijuana. The fact that "dank" had so many resonances was part of the appeal of the name, actually, but I'm Dan K. when I choose to inhabit real life :) Congratulations on your strong showing in the coord elections, both of you, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Hmm, can't help noticing the top five positions in the tally are occupied by Australians -- it's like Hollywood... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that ... I'm just glad you guys choose to use your powers for good (so far as I know). - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2013 – September 2014

And gratz on your reelection as lead coord. We've got a fine team this year. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten FAC

Hi Dank, I've nominated the Operation Tungsten article which you posted an A-class review of for a FAC. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could post a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1. I appreciate that you're minimising your participation in FAC at the moment, so no worries at all if you don't have time. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether Milhist articles seem to have a hard time passing FAC during my break from FAC. It's too early to tell; I'll give it another look in a couple of weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they're having a hard time, and I'm back on the job. I checked the changes and added my support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss

Hello,

Your further contributions to the Peer Review of Voss would be most welcome. Your prior links to the link-checking tools, etc. were also highly appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 72 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great to see you on the team, Peacemaker :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle

I'm afraid I've wandered in milhist again. I've started working up Melbourne Castle with a view to eventual FAC. I think I'm OK on the history (not all added yet) and the archaeology, but the internal structure of the castle is unknown. Do you think it's appropriate to mention the likely layout of a 14th century castle? If so, where should I be looking? Thanks for any help you can give Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Jim, have you discussed with Hchc2009 or Ealdgyth? As an aside, you may want to put the article through MilHist A-Class Review before FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Double-stalking here... :) I'd suggest that you'd be on safe ground if you had a source talking about the likely layout and who mentioned Melbourne; I think you'd be into OR, probably, if you talked about the general layout of a 14th century castle, and then linked it to Melbourne. Looking through the Urban Survey report, the evidence looks thin for predicting the layout (p. 25 in particular). You could safely probably use Nigel Pounds (1994) "The Medieval Castle in England and Wales" to explain the importance of the bakehouse, chapel etc. (which are mentioned in the sources), which would give you a bit more context. The best single source of information on early 14th century castles more generally I can think of would be John Goodall's "The English Castle" (2011), who does this period very well. I haven't finished it off yet, but I've a draft article at User:Hchc2009/Sandbox4 on Edwardian castles. If you want a GA reviewer for the article at any point, let me know! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

NB: Total OR, but the pictures of Melbourne with all the chimneys remind me of those at Framlingham Castle - where many of them were fake, and just decided to look fashionable! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hchc. Jim, I'll be happy to help when it goes up for A-class review and at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all, that's very helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at User talk:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive3.
Message added 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have responded to some of the points you raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Japanese battleship Haruna

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese battleship Haruna know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Haruna was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II. Designed by the British naval engineer George Thurston, she was a battlecruiser of the Template:Sclass-, among the most heavily armed ships in any navy when built. Named after Mount Haruna, she was laid down in 1912 and commissioned in 1915. Beginning in 1926, she was rebuilt as a battleship, strengthening her armor and improving her speed and power. In 1933, her superstructure was completely rebuilt, her speed was increased, and she was equipped with launch catapults for floatplanes. Now fast enough to accompany Japan's growing carrier fleet, Haruna was reclassified as a fast battleship. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, Haruna transported Japanese troops to mainland China. On the eve of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, she sailed as part of the Southern Force in preparation for the Battle of Singapore. Haruna fought in almost every major naval action of the Pacific Theater, including the Battle of Midway, the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In 1945, Haruna was transferred to Kure Naval Base, where she was sunk by aircraft of Task Force 38. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B Harrier II prose question

Hi Dan. I've been going through AV-8B Harrier II, which Phil is going to nominate for its second FAC in a few days. At its previous FAC, concerns were raised that a sentence mentioning "close and deep air support missions" was unclear. This sentence (in the first paragraph of the Operational history section) has been modified for clarity, and in addition some text in parentheses has been added to explain what close air support and deep air support are.

However, the resulting sentence seems rather ungainly to me, and I wondered what you thought. Is this sentence now OK as it stands; or, does it need to be reworked in some way; or, would it be sufficient to wikilink close air support and then remove the section in parentheses? (There is no Wikipedia article deep air support, which the close air support article seems to regard as being "battlefield air interdiction").

Many thanks for any help you can provide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think a link suffices for "close air support" (because most readers will assume that the support is intended to be "close" to friendly forces ... what else could it mean?), but not for "deep air support". The standard to be met is at WP:Checklist#clarity: if readers won't have a clue what it means, then something needs to be in the text to at least give them a clue. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've shortened the sentence as follows:

The first phase of OPEVAL, running until 1 February 1985, required the AV-8B to fly both deep and close air support missions (deep air support missions do not require coordination with friendly ground forces) in concert with other close air support aircraft, as well as flying battlefield interdiction and armed reconnaissance missions.

Does this seem to flow well or is it still a bit messy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How does deep air support missions differ from battlefield air interdiction? As a former artilleryman, I've never heard of deep air support and would strongly question your source's use of the term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and a very good point. I too was wondering whether "deep air support" was in fact the same thing as "battlefield air interdiction", at least as far as Wikipedia's articles on the topic are concerned (close air support and air interdiction), and probably in the real military too.

I will ask the two main authors of the article what they think of this. Does the source say "deep air support"? Can the source reasonably be understood to mean "battlefield air interdiction"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do. As far as I remember, BAI starts past the 30-km limit of the Fire Support Coordination Line; everything closer than that requires coordination with the ground forces and is thus CAS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the "deep air support" is really BAI. I'll have to check my Nordeen book (source for this article text) tonight to see what it actually states. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nordeen's book lists CAS and deep air support in phase 1 testing; BAI and others listed for phase 2 as stated in the article text. It implies DAS and BAI are different. I'm not sure what DAS actually covers. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since nobody knows just what Nordeen means, I'd just ignore it as it's not a doctrinal term. It's not a particularly important factoid anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle 2

The A-class review here currently has two supports, including yours, and Hchc2009 has reviewed, though not yet supported or opposed. This suggests that the article is at about the right standard after the suggested improvements. Things at A-class review have gone a bit quiet, and my last nom at FAC has just been promoted, so I could withdraw from A-class, thanks the reviewers and go straight for FAC. However, for all I know this may be an unspeakable breach of etiquette. I'd welcome your advice on how to proceed. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine. If you've got time to devote to FAC now, nom it and ask on the A-class page for the review to be closed. The only cost is: if for some reason it doesn't pass FAC, then you won't have an A-class article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I see the article is start class, so I wouldn't advise pulling it ... FAC reviewers usually want to see that some kind of review has already happened. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In practice, my FACs often go forward as start class, since GA is too backlogged to use unless I'm working in an unfamiliar area, and no previous articles have been proper milhist. European Storm Petrel, which was promoted this morning, is still marked as "start class" until the bot gets to work. I do a fair amount of reviewing at FAC, so I tend to get enough reviewers (famous last words). I'll sort it out in the morning. Thanks for your advice and the review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, it's now got four supports and I'm tempted to stick it out. Can you give me any idea of the level of support and timescale for A-class (I assume that, like FAC, there are guidelines rather than hard-and-fast criteria)? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Will probably be less than 24 hours, Anotherclown has already listed it for closure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you were spot-on.Thanks again for your help in getting Melbourne Castle to A-class. Just to let you know I've entered it at FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 3, the quarter-finals. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination

As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Military picture of Jimi Hendrix

Hey, Dank. I've been working on the Jimi Hendrix article for about a year now and I think it's almost ready for FAC. Hendrix served 13 months in the Army, with the 101st Airborne while stationed at Fort Campbell Kentucky (May 1961–June 1962). I know there are several pictures of him in uniform, but I cannot seem to locate one that I can be sure is a PD military image. Can you provide any assistance or advice? Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any suitable images; maybe a talk page stalker can help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of any Army archives in which I might find a PD image? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Commercial editing discussion

You may be aware of the current discussions regarding conflicts of interest with paid editors. (See Template:Paid Editing Parallel Proposals for a list of the current proposals under discussion.) One of the proposals, WP:Paid editing policy proposal, has been refined a couple of times, but unfortunately in a way that split the conversation across multiple talk pages, which has caused dissension, as can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing#We are going about this the wrong way.. Would you be interested in leading a discussion, similar to how you led the discussion in WP:RFA2013, to build a consensus view on any new guidelines or policies that the community would like to enact on this topic? isaacl (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I appreciate it. I voted in one of those polls, and gave a rationale, so I can't serve in any kind of "neutral" capacity. What would you like to see happen with those discussions? - Dank (push to talk)

I didn't recall your previous participation... I believe someone needs to guide the discussion, devise a format for collecting feedback, line up closers to analyze the feedback and possible options, set up followup discussions on specific options, and line up closers to analyze those discussions. Basically, I think someone needs to take on the same type of role you fulfilled for WP:RFA2013. It will mean patience from all involved, but hopefully it will be realized that this is always required when building a consensus within a large group. Personally, as you have not been highly involved, I think you may still be a good candidate to help move things forward. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks so much for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know things were getting out of hand. I've removed my one vote ("oppose with the possibility of supporting"). I'm going to invite a discussion over at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just closed one vote, and I'll close another tomorrow unless there are objections. I'll ask where people want to go from here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, but I appreciate your willingness to be involved in trying to build a consensus view regarding conflicts of interest with paid editors. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

They are generally clueful and I trust them. - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Copying the post I just made to WP:AN: This is just a heads-up that I closed the fifth of five simultaneous open vote/discussions on paid editing (six if you count the one above!), despite the fact that I entered a vote (now removed) in the first one. My excuse is that I'm actually neutral on the larger question that's been spread out among several pages, and I've said as much. I was only in opposition to having a vote before a discussion had taken place on all the relevant issues. As always, feedback is welcome ... and additional closers would be even more welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank, In order to make progress, I think we need to close some of the proposals. Having 5 articles open is diverting reviewing resources. I suggest that we close the following three proposals. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Sock puppetry/Employees - This one has almost no supporters.

WP:Commercial editing - This one is similar to wp:paid editing policy proposal, and has caused a lot of confusion. It has 14 supporters and 35 opponents.

WP:No paid advocacy - This one has been open for almost a month, and has 81 supporters, and 164 opponents.

In the first two, I have already posted an "intention to close"; if there are no responses in, say, two days, I'll close them. For WP:No paid advocacy, I'd like to see what response I get to my post at WP:AN (quoted above). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisan

Hi Dank! Recently, I've been working on the article Mladen Stojanović. It has turned out to be quite a big one, though mostly based on Serbian-language sources. If you think that it is a material for a quality status, I would appreciate if you copy-edited it (smooth running, summary style, etc). Vladimir (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please submit it for peer review in the "history" subcategory (see WP:PRH). - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Vladimir (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a Milhist tag and added it to our announcements page (see above). I'll have a look before it's done at PR. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Vladimir (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects for paid editing

Regarding this edit, just in case you aren't already aware, note there are two existing WikiProjects based on the stick and carrot approach: WP:WikiProject Integrity and WP:WikiProject Cooperation. I'm not sure if there is a need for more WikiProjects on this topic. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Marcus flopped FAC nomination

Gave it a shot, but boy, did they shoot back. :) When you get a chance, could you take a look and see what you can suggest as far as fixes for some of the more complex problems? (e.g., lead paragraphs apparently need major reworking) Simpler fixes such as adding requested citations, I think I can do on my own. Particularly bummed that the whole thing came and went without my ever knowing it was going on (and that they took that to indicate loss of interest, when in fact I had been checking my page quite regularly and the SM page fairly often but didn't know they don't put anything there!). Lawikitejana (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be able to help, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Building consensus for COI policy decision

HI Dank. There are a lot of claims and arguments being made in the course of the many many discussions around a COI policy, and very little of it, is based on data. It is hard to come to agreement on policy if we are not looking at the same set of facts. I opened a thread at Jimbo's talk page asking who knows if there is any data about the extent of the paid advocacy on Wikipedia. Seems like there is not much. But the discussion turned up two articles, this one - a survey of PR professionals which is super illuminating; and this one by a Danish business-communications group, valuable mostly for the review of the literature in the intro. Do you think it would be useful and or possible to open a discussion or project trying to understand the extent of paid advocacy (heck maybe including tendentious editing of all kinds) in WIkipedia, and possibly also how the public perceives the "purity"/"corruption" of Wikipedia (what is at stake), and once we have gathered some facts, see if we can build a policy around them? In other words, start from the ground up instead of working top down? Sorry if this is crazy or something. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and your work. Since I've talked about my intention to be a closer for the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit, I shouldn't say anything that might guide that discussion (apart from what I already said). I'll have a few suggestions after that RfC and the two related RfCs are closed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured content

Hey Dank, I know you're busy but I'm a bit on the desperate side. Can you help out with this week's featured content? As you saw on WT:MHCOORD, Ctdew is going to be busy with real life. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look first thing in the morning. I'm not comfortable doing the Featured Pictures. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm sure I or someone else can help out with those. Thanks, Dank. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank, lovely. Do you have a template for FC? I don't know whether one has been in use, but it would be mighty handy. Tony (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any templates, but I see Cdtew has started on this. I'll ask him which parts he'd like help with. Thanks for the encouragement, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, did two, back later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Did the other FAs. Good news: since we seem to be short on volunteers, I can keep doing the FAs weekly for a while. Bad news: I'm only comfortable doing the FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries! As an fyi, I posted here after getting this message, so I don't think Cdtew will be mad. :-) For a template, you can use User:Hahc21/FCS, which is used like so. Thanks, Dank! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for the copyedit of Spanish conquest of Petén for the Milhist ACR; the article is certainly better as a result, and thanks for the support at FAC - it just made FA. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Simon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Behavioral guideline not a policy...I agree

But then I am a worthless piece of crap on Wikipedia that rapes animals according to some. So...whatever.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha. This inspired me to write this; I'll beef it up and try to get some feedback tomorrow. Personally, I'd rather not go the Arbcom route yet, as you suggested, because it's just as important to me that Nyttend (and others who identify as social conservatives) not feel attacked as that gays not feel attacked. If we go straight to Arbcom, I think we can throw any chance of a negotiated solution right out the window. - Dank (push to talk) 05:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend (note my statement). --Rschen7754 05:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that ... I see he's got bigger things to worry about, so I won't press him to respond on the WP:AN thread. - Dank (push to talk) 05:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is actually bigger since it was closed three years ago. They don't deserve the break. [3].--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now, I struck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will wait before going to arb com myself at Dank's suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it. I've rewritten my essay as a request to close any upcoming RfC on the subject of "sensitivity training" inflammatory speech. I can see how Nyttend, and you, and lots of other people might feel attacked by discussions like these ... and if it's possible to deal with the big problem before we start handing out blame, we're probably going to get better outcomes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

I confess I'm a bit disappointed with the closing sentences of your recent statement in the conflict of interest discussion, as I had hoped (in accordance with my request) that you'd take a role in leading a structured discussion, as you had for Wikipedia:PC2012. All the same, I still appreciate your willingness to be involved and contribute to the discussion! isaacl (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Isaac, I appreciate that, I replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Chevron with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank, and Saberwyn are hereby awarded this Chevron with Oak Leaves award for the roles that each played in assisting with the creation of the 63-article Featured Topic Battlecruisers of the World. Since each of you have an equal claim to an award for the years long effort that they put into the total project by working on their corner of it and each of you has made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history, culminating in the completing the single largest FT to date on Wikipedia and passing a milestone by bringing an entire classification of ships - battlecruisers in this case - up to GA-Class, A-Class, or FA-Class. As Majestic Titan editors, you are collectively being recognized for this outstanding accomplishment with this shared WikiChevron with Oak Leaves Award, the first of its kind to be award to a group of editors. Congratulations to each of you for your outstanding achievements, and keep up the good work! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)