This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
You deserve this for all the good work on the FP. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gavin! - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the second instance of "Seattle" could be replaced with "the city". I'd rather not have the implication that the light rail line serves the entire state or is part of the state government. SounderBruce 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There were two additional problems (it's not just in Seattle, and "Seattle, Washington, United States" hasn't completely entered the language yet, although I'm aware it has a lot of fans). The second sentence is specific about what part of the state it serves ... isn't it? Should it be more emphatic? I'm not seeing the state government connection ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to moving "16 stations in Seattle and its southern suburbs" into the first sentence, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That would also work. "Central Link is a light rail line serving 16 stations in Seattle and its southern suburbs in the U.S. state of Washington. It is managed by Sound Transit and travels 20 miles..." SounderBruce 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Done, with "Managed by ...". - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No slight meant. I notify one of the co-noms on the assumption that this will make the other co-noms aware. In this case, I'm certain they watch each other's talk page. Next time, I'll notify VE and let Ceoil get it from that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sarah, as you know, I don't schedule TFAs or make the initial notifications. I'm happy to follow Ealdgyth's, Wehwalt's and Jim's lead on this; they're quite good at their jobs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. Dank, thanks for the response too. Part of the problem was the invitation to Ceoil to check the blurb, then when Victoria said she hoped you didn't mind if she looked too, you invited her to jump in as though she wasn't the co-author. But she was the top author by number of edits and by added text, and she was prominent in steering the article through FAC. Perhaps in future when there are co-authors and co-noms, you could invite them both at the same time to contribute to the blurb; the editor whose talk page isn't being used for the notification could be pinged. SarahSV(talk) 18:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of respect for Victoriaearle's feelings, let's not prolong this, Sarah. If you see something in the future that's a concern, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Dank, there's nothing wrong with my feelings. I asked for something that's very reasonable. You all pointed me over to Ceoil's page instead of giving me the respect of leaving a notification. End of story. Please archive this or something, but please don't make me out as a weepy, whiny, I-want-the-shiny-star-too-without-putting-in-the-effort-editor, because that's beyond what happened with this article and beyond patronizing. Victoria (tk) 20:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Victoriaearle: no offense was intended. You're better at writing articles and taking them through FAC than I am, you're a valued member of the community, and I'm glad that you're around. You're obviously feeling bruised, and I'm sorry about that. You asked if I (and others) minded that you were peeking at the blurb, I said "I never mind, Victoria, please jump in!", you asked me (and others) to put a date reminder on your talk page, and I did that. If you need something more, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
What I'm giving some thought to doing is just leaving a note on the article talk page and pinging the FAC nominators. That will be fair to everyone and it will simplify the procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
All you have to do is notify the people (plural) who worked on the article. It's not a big deal and I regret saying anything. Apologies. Please carry on and this issue can now be closed. Victoria (tk) 20:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, an article talk page notice with pings for the FAC nominators should do just that. Thanks Victoria, sorry about any misunderstanding.=-Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It's with special pleasure that I write thanks for lasting helpfulness to you, in the year I made thanks my topic, to you who silently serves, and whose name means thanks when read German ;) - An article about faith, hope and love, by a living person who retired, was nominated for deletion, and I am unsure about that process. I'd prefer a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Seven years of these awards ... you're unstoppable, Gerda, and much loved and appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 10:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, will perhaps add that to the "blushing" section of my talk, - much needed encouragement when looking at T&S and arbcom in frustration, and in disbelief at a certain RfC which if I mention it will be regarded as canvassing. "Here I stand and sing" has been my answer for years, - hope it will help further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks also from me for all your hard work, Dank. You are a worthy recipient of the famous "Precious" award. — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
That's kind, Amakuru. Thanks for your essential work at ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RfA. Normally when the voting goes bad people become afraid to support. Your courage and support is appreciated, as is your work on TfA. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This means a lot coming from you, Hawkeye. I used to point people to User:Dank/Admins#Advice after close but failed RFAs back in the day, and I stand by the observation that getting over 50% is a good sign, although I admit that I don't follow RFA these days. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
