User talk:Dank/Archive 31

Request for your assistance

Hi Dank,

Thanks very much for your earlier help on the FAC review of Fortress of Mimoyecques and my other related FACs. I wonder if I could ask you to look at my most recent FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1? It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history involved) so it might be something that you would be interested in. If you have any comments, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Life is hectic right now, I don't think I'll have time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Hope things get a bit quieter for you soon! Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

USRD comment

Hi! Would you mind doing me a favor? So in short, a lot of our GAs and FAs say whether the road is a part of the National Highway System (United States) and briefly explain in a sentence what the NHS actually is to provide context to the reader.

However, someone, encouraged by the Help Desk, is concerned that this violates WP:SYNC as 1) the definition of the NHS could change and make all those articles invalid or 2) some of the articles say "a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense" versus "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility", the latter of which I purposefully rephrased to avoid any sort of attribution or plagiarism issues in my own articles. The editor does seem to take concern at "most" being missing from the second sentence.

As a prolific FA writer not associated with the U.S. Roads project, would you mind commenting at WT:USRD? The editor refuses to listen to "Road editors with some overarching agenda." Thanks! --Rschen7754 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're not objecting in any particular GAN or FAC review, then I'll answer here, if you want to point them here. If no one has suggested redefining what NHS means, then IMO a concern that the definition might change wouldn't be a reason not to promote an article being reviewed. I have no problem with omitting "most" in your second example. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that my comments have been misinterpreted and/or mischaracterized. My reply is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Boilerplate prose copied from another article. Please address any replies there. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data

Hi Dank, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese battleship Yamashiro

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: A-class

Hi! Thanks for the offer. I plan to submit the Operation Flash and Operation Winter '94 to the WP:MILHIST A-class review at some point, but I plan to wait until the Operation Storm A-class review is out of the way. Any help is most welcome, and I suspect prose will require copyediting since English is not my native language.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The prose looks pretty good, actually. Okay, glad to help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for volunteering. Having thought a bit more about the matter, I'll nominate the articles for A-class review as soon as they pass GA - they're probably bound to sit around in the nominations area there for a while anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading them again, I think whoever reviews these needs to have more perspective (and should be able to read Croatian or Serbian or both). Sorry, I'll help out when they get to A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'll nominate them at the A-class review as soon as they clear GAN, much like the Operation Storm that's already there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Dank, just trying to see if I can find a GAN reviewer for American Saddlebred, which has been languishing in the GAN queue for a while. I'm not in the wikicup, but my co-editor, Dana boomer, is, and I'd like to help her get this one in the can, so to speak. Any chance you could pop by there or get someone you respect to do so? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Montana, I'm sorry, my new job of writing copyediting software and my old job of covering military history articles take all the time I have, and more. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Perhaps you have a TPSer who is interested. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MiniHostels

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MiniHostels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Unforgettableid (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create this page; I deleted it in 2009. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination issue

Hi! I got a warning in the GAN template that "Warfare" is not a recognized topic when I tried to make a new nom - I pressed the "show preview" button (it might as well sit there in the queue). I'm not sure if something else should be used - I never got such a message before. What should I do? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Try "subtopic=War and military". - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Did that, no warning this time. I'll check later on if it appears in the list as expected.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You don't get nearly enough credit for the work you do on WP:UPDATE, and I just wanted to acknowledge that. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I remember you showing me a long time ago how you went about finding the collective diffs and such for changes to policy. Then letting me post a couple updates. I'm guessing that at the end of March there will be a LOT of changes to account for. OS stuff, Block/unblock stuff, Admin. stuff maybe. Anyway, if I have time, and you'd like a hand with a bit of it - please don't ever hesitate to ping me on it. Cheers to the guy who's more up to date on policy than all the Arbs, Crats, and Admins. combined. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, and consider yourself pinged ... anything you'd be willing to do with deletion or enforcement policy would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Old discussion

[1] The issue at my second RfA was not multiple accounts. It was that Deskana had found a few IP edits I had made while logged out. There were no other accounts. Enigma^msg 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and if you follow the link I gave there, I was clear that it was about IP edits ... sorry that I wasn't clear (3.5 yrs ago!) for people who didn't follow the link. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see a link, only to a new name RFA. I mention it now because I didn't see it way back then. I was looking through wt:rfa for a discussion about inactive admins losing the bit and came across that. No way for me to do anything now, but I wanted to clear it up that my case was rather different than the cases you were talking about (two editors who didn't want you to mention their names). Enigma^msg 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I said "Enigmaman had a similar issue with IP edits, and he passed the next time around" ... but if anyone didn't click on the RfA and got the wrong impression, I'm very sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2#Round_Three

I placed comments on the page, thanks for including me. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you made lots of sense, thanks for commenting :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuso

Hi Dank, I saw your featured article submission for the Fuso class so I thought i'd try and help as the non milhist person, let me know if you need anything else regarding your noms. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that will help, thanks much. You've been doing a lot of great reviewing at GAN; let me know if I can help. I've got another article at FAC at the moment, Japanese battleship Fusō, and plan to do more soon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Feller

Hi. Finally got the comments done there is you want to take a look. Wizardman 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looking at it now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Hardboiled

Hi! You were kind enough to look over my FAC of Dudley Clarke a little while ago, and I wondered if I could interest you in the FAC of Operation Hardboiled :) Your insight before was really helpful, so I thought I would be cheeky and solicit your comments :D --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but be aware that Ian and Graham require two people going over prose at FAC, and I might not be the first one. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Milhist question...

Think Middle Ages should be part of the project? I lean that way but am not sure. I'd love to take it through an A class review before I brave FAC with it... I think we're getting really close on FAC status for the thing. I just put it up for PR also... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey V. It's really up to you guys in WP:MA ... if you tag it and nominate it, I'll look at it. Just be aware that A-class and FAC are both running slower than usual these days, don't know what's up with that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. WP:MA is pretty much moribund. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who even bothers with assessing articles for it. Heck, I may be the only person seriously writing in it! I keep meaning to find time to review but honestly, I'm enjoying the article writing I'm doing way too much. And when I'm not writing, I'm busy with real life... so... I doubt that MA will hit FAC before summer - it's so big it'll need a good PR then A-class then Malleus and then FAC (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looking forward to seeing what you got. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really in our scope; it's too broad. If I remember right, though, we give a wide leeway to the articles we allow at ACR. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, per User_talk:Hchc2009#User talk:Dank#Milhist question..., Ealdgyth and Hchc prefer a Milhist tag for this one, and it does have a lot of military history. In general, I'm happy to review something if it has any military or warfare task force tag, whether it's tagged by Milhist or not. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive2

I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at the article again, and see if there's anything we can do to bring it to FA? At this point it's all ready is in copyediting, and several editors, including you, have spend quite a lot of time on that already. I think it would be a shame to forget your efforts and let it slide from the FA... it's so close. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 10:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look, and I'll repeat most of what I said there ... a few things were fixed, and I've removed those from these comments:

• Sigh. I finished copyediting about half of it, down to Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#The Great Sejm, but things get worse at that point, and I'm not going to be able to finish up. FAC and A-class aren't mandatory, of course; lots of wikiprojects get by without them just fine ... but if they're important to you, then please find someone who's reasonably familiar with either copyediting in general or FAC in particular; I'm willing to do a lot of the work myself, as long as there's someone who's taking responsibility for learning this stuff and doing their share of the work. As things stand ... well, in the first paragraph of the section where I stopped, there are problems with every sentence:
• "so as to avoid": I don't personally have a problem with this, but other FAC copy editors prefer "to avoid", so that's my recommendation.
• "In the words of the May 3 Constitution's preamble – from 1790 it met "in dual number" when": comma instead of dash. Also: why are the particular words important? The phrase isn't repeated here, and it's usually better just to translate into clear prose.
• "Russia and Austria were engaged in hostilities with the Ottoman Empire (the Russo-Turkish War, 1787-1792 and the Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791)), the Russians also found themselves simultaneously fighting Sweden).": Where do I start. One hyphen should be a dash. Sweden is an WP:EGG problem. Avoid "))". And there's a redundancy here that is better avoided; I'd probably go with: "The Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791), Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) and Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790) were keeping two of Poland's neighbors busy."
• Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer. I hope you can find some help, and I sympathize that help seems to be harder to find on Wikipedia than it used to be. I'd be very happy to see you and your wikiproject succeed here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

- Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the two issues above; I left "dual number" because I think it sounds good. Personal preference, de gustibus non est disputandum... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Impressive work on Fusō-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did enjoy the research on this ... thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

Hi, Dank. Could you, if possible, review Uruguayan War? If you're not interested, don't worry. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably switching over to reviewing at the end rather than the beginning, to help Ian and Graham. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:We'd like your opinion

Just returned from a wikibreak, I will look at it now... thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, strike commenting on the RFC2 discussion, I guess I'll just hop into RFC3 :) Tiggerjay (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for participating. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually brought up a concern/question over here before I jump into the RFC #3... I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

better late than never, I just got around to replying to your comments. Not sure the best way to bring this back up to the community. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Chubb illusion

Hi Dank– was wondering, could you take a quick look through this article? Need a pair of eyes on this one. If you're not interested don't worry. Mikecf10 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Aye there, 'Dank', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Great effort, I'll let you know if I come across anything that might be useful. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

help!

Can you figure out how to explain Template:Campaign to me so I can make a box about the Norman Conquest? I can figure out the parameters, but do I make a NEW page such as Campaignbox: Norman Conquest or do I just slap {{campaign}} on a page within to start or what? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It would follow the format at Template:Campaignbox American Civil War, so you'd make a new page (Template:Campaignbox Norman Conquest) and go from there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. I'll get to work on it tomorrow... I still can't believe someone hadn't already made one... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here .. what should I do with this diff? Not sure HOW to fix it... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted and left a message on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks .. you're a dear. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor

Does it need to be a crat to be the second closer of this proposal or can it be any regular user/administrator. I'm willing to be the second closer in that discussion as an independent administrator with no opinion on this and considering early May is when I got my two week break from school thus I could read the entire debate carefully with Wizardman. Secret ^account 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. My only thought so far is that both parts may be relatively easy to close ... and if it turns out that way, then no harm would be done ... and there might be some benefit ... if more than just two or three people offered their assessments at the end. Wizardman and Sven Mangard have both offered so far (at WP:BN). - Dank (push to talk) 09:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit for you or a TPS

Hi! If you have time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1 that needs a copyedit? If not, do you know of anyone who would be interested? (Out of the three articles I've sent to FAC the last few months this is the shortest ) --Rschen7754 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I only do history articles. I don't know of anyone who's currently offering to copyedit on request. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Petar Baćović/GA1

G'day Dan. Good to go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Great work, both of you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hello! I'm contacting you because you were one of the editors who reviewed Istanbul's FA candidacy. I just created a RFC concerning its lead (Talk:Istanbul#RFC). If you have time, we would appreciate your input. Thanks! Cavann (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)