User talk:Dank/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Dave Gallaher FAC

Hey Dank. I nominated the article Dave Gallaher at WP:FAC about ten days ago but haven't yet had a single comment (other than an image review). You did comment at the peer review (archived here), so I was hoping that if you had any time you'd mind commenting at the FAC nomination page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dave Gallaher/archive1). Your help at the PR was great, and I'd appreciate any further feedback (however brief) that you'd care to give. -- Shudde ^talk 08:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'm going to pass; I've got recurrent stomach problems, so I'm doing less reviewing. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem; your contributions at the PR were greatly appreciated and I completely understand why you can't help out. I'm sorry to hear about your health problem and hope it improves. -- Shudde ^talk 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

help with negative resistance GAN?

• Hey Dan this article has been languishing in GAN since December. Know anyone who can help? Tks (New username) • Lingzhi♦(talk) 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't, sorry. Also, see just above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts requested

If you have time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the legacy section of the Russian battleship Potemkin. I've added a bunch of new material in the section and I need some fresh eyes on how it all flows and fits together. I've added three nifty quotes on how the battleship was, at least partially, the hero of the movie, but I would strongly expect that that's two too many. So if you could give your opinions on which one needs to be kept and how the whole thing fits together, I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can help perhaps a week from now if Dan isn't feeling better (see two threads above) • Lingzhi♦(talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't catch that bit above. I'm in no rush and your thoughts would be welcome before I send it up to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd lose the last block quote. I made some tweaks. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks (arising from your sickbed, you dedicated Wikipedian!); I'll leave the last one up until Lingzhi has a chance to weigh in, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Some copy edits made on article but rl called me away so check for typos; also initial thoughts on talk page • Lingzhi♦(talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

		The WikiChevrons
		For completing 29 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! - Dank (push to talk) 10:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

TFA 24 July

I have altered this, after it was pointed out that my original choice was the third California highway this year. I have changed all the consequential pages, but not the protection, if any. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I'll remove the protection when I wake up. - Dank (push to talk) 09:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have received a request to change the TFA scheduled for 23 July, as the main editor had left a note on the article's talkpage requesting that this not be scheduled until October 2017. As I was at fault in not seeing the note, I will defer to his request. Again I'll do the consequential changes. The issue concerning 24 July will not be resolved before Sunday. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, on it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For 24 July, I've decided to replace the disputed nom of Interstate 96 with one of the alternatives that has been proffered. I'm doing this to avoid what might otherwise become a prolonged squabble, but at the same time I'm making it clear that unless the "road" people become more proactive in nominating for TFA, coordinators will make their own choices regardless of any anniversary preferences or other excuses – I don't recognise these anniversaries as having any real significance, anyway. I am a bit busy today, but I'll make the necessary changes later. Sorry for the extra work that has fallen on you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to support whatever you want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello Dank,

Not sure if you have gotten any more time on your hands since the Battle of Malvern Hill article was at FA, but it's now at ACR with WikiProject Military History. I'm going to try and take it to FAC again, perhaps in the coming weeks, and I was wondering if you could do a copyedit to the article. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hello Ceradon. Your username sounds like a color, "Celadon," which was also the name of one of the chars in an old love story... Dank hasn't been feeling well lately. I'll be happy to ce the article. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: Alright, thank you. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ling. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:TFA 7.23.15

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Axem Titanium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"did close to"?

Sorry Dank, that's simply crap English, it needs fixing. And modifying a redirect while I'm at it is just fine. There's nothing at ERRORS that suggests these shouldn't be fixed. By all means let me know what you find so problematic with changing "did close to" to "caused", and why fixing an obvious redirect is an issue. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not worse than "cause a billion"; a billion isn't something that can be "caused" in AmEng or BritEng. See WP:ERRORS; I'll try to pull up some references for you in a minute. I very much respect (and depend on) your opinion and the opinion of other BritEng regulars on the Main Page, and I do want to avoid things that clash for you, regardless of whether the article is in AmEng or not (this one is), but that's not the fix I'm looking for. I'll reply on all points at ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Cause is far superior to "did" which is horrendous. I think that transcends whichever variation of English you use. Why you reverted the fixes to the redirects I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, claiming that "a billion isn't something that can be "caused" in AmEng or BritEng" is simply false. Google it... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you changed it twice, I can't fix this (or even respond, really) because I don't wheel-war. See ERRORS for suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You can at least state why you believe your version of "English" is correct, which it is not. You don't need to fix it, I already fixed it. Suggestions are ERRORS are not helpful or correct. It is not wheel warring, I think you've taken this the wrong way and are heading down a painful path. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Painful in what sense? Copyeditors should aim not to be ambiguous. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we're at cross-purposes now. All I did was fix the errors in the TFA blurb. There's no wheel warring, nothing more than just fixing poor grammar and redirects. It happens. If you have a problem with TFA at ERRORS, that's a different issue altogether. Blurbs, hooks etc are often flawed and need fixing once they receive attention at the main page. TFA is in no way different, and poor grammar/tone should be fixed as soon as possible. I hope that's explained the situation, if not, feel free to ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Would a third opinion help or hurt? Although this site objects to "do damage", the phrase is used by several authorities who don't call it "heinous", "appalling", "horrendous", or any other pejorative. Wiktionary:damage, for instance, uses the example "The storm did a lot of damage to the area." Anyway, the phrase was "did close to a billion dollars in damage", which can't be replaced with just "damaged". Google Books shows far more hits for "do/cause a million dollars' worth of damage" than for "do/cause a million dollars in damage", so if anything needed to be fixed, it was doing or causing dollars, as if the storm were the U.S. Mint.

As for fixing redirects versus WP:NOTBROKEN, I no longer raise this issue unless someone else does it first, because it causes an amazing amount of anger. But if you don't like a guideline, you should really be trying to fix it, not ignore it, no matter how many other Main Page editors have the same attitude. The problem will keep coming back until the contradiction is resolved one way or the other: either stop "fixing" redirects, or fix the guideline. Long ago I wrote User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much for the input, Art. I'm not actually up on Main Page practices, I tend to follow FAC and reliable sources (such as dictionaries), so that's very helpful. As it happened, I had done research on all the questions TRM brought up before he brought them up, but his changes weren't awful, and I have a standing rule that I start losing interest quickly in arguing over things in the last 4 hours that a TFA column will be on the Main Page. (I also back away slowly when there's wheel-warring going on ... don't want any part of that.) I just got an email off to Brian and Chris; my first obligation is not to saddle them with something they don't want to be saddled with. After they reply, if there's more to do, my next step will be to see what the TFA and FAC communities are expecting from me. I probably need to ask more questions about "wheel-warring" and WP:INVOLVED as well, to make sure I'm not crossing any bright lines. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Which ngram search were you using at Google Books? I got this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] Art LaPella (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBROKEN, it is not disallowed to fix spelling or other errors in redirects (such as incorrect capitalisation) and I didn't edit solely to fix the redirects, that was just a bonus as I was adjusting the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I admit I didn't research that issue very carefully, I don't see your point. Assuming that changing Mid-Atlantic States to Mid-Atlantic states is correcting the capitalization, which is debatable, that doesn't explain changing U.S. East Coast to [[East Coast of the U.S.|U.S. East Coast]]. To me the guideline says we're better off with the U.S. East Coast redirect, for the reasons listed under "Reasons not to bypass redirects", some of which apply here. In that case, no "bonus" is earned, no matter how many other reasons you have for an edit. But if you intend to go by your understanding of the guideline, then I have won my main point; WP:ERRORS often takes it for granted that redirects should be "fixed" when no other edits are involved. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You "won"? Well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that when we do get to the end of this, instead of deciding that someone was right and someone was wrong, we'll decide that FAC standards are different than ... some other standards (mine? TRM's? admins who hang out on the Main Page? As Groucho said ... Whom knows). Patience, please. I've heard from Chris; I need to hear from Brian. I'm pretty sure at this point the next step will be to solicit opinions at FAC and TFA, and we should know where this is going after that. - Dank (push to talk) 09:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[Copied from WP:ERRORS, since that page isn't archived]:

I just undid a couple of edits that look like they were meant as copyediting. I want to be clear that I don't insist that the writer(s) of the article express things just the way I would; I try to give writers a lot of latitude. I'm pushing back against copyediting in cases where the sources I use disagree with those choices, because bad copyediting can feel burdensome to writers. I'm also pushing back against making undiscussed changes on TFA articles on the day they're on the Main Page; I'm much less likely to revert, and more likely to be broad-minded, if the changes are made when the page isn't protected. So, give me a minute and I'll give you some references to support my choices. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"did ... damage" is woeful and needed to be fixed. The other fix was simply to correct redirects and incorrect capitalisation. If the redirects and incorrect capitalisation are inappropriate then the target articles need to be moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that this stuff should be fixed before it hits the main page, but honestly, just fixing redirects and English grammar shouldn't be a major trauma. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's not a lot on Wikipedia that I care a lot about, but wheel-warring on a TFA column on its Main Page day is one of those things. Since I practice what I preach, I'll have to leave it alone for now. What I like to do in situations like this is to try to find small groups of Wikipedians who are willing to talk through the copyediting issues. After I've done that, I'll come back to WT:MAIN, give our results, and ask for feedback. Also, this might or might not be a good opportunity to get clarity on how Brian, Chris and I are expected to handle problems like these in our roles as TFA coords, and what does and doesn't constitute wheel-warring. As luck would have it, I recently asked about just this on User talk:Floquenbeam. I'll keep an eye out for other relevant discussions or Arbcom cases. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly wheel warring when it's down to writing in grammatically correct and encyclopaedically toned English. It seems that you're making a mountain of a molehill here in this case, I fixed an appalling colloquialism and some redirects while I was at it. I'm not sure what all the debate is about, it's a simple case of fixing errors at TFA. If you believe we shouldn't be fixing errors (such as heinous tone and grammar issues, and as a sideline, redirects) then why would we have an ERRORS page which includes TFA? You query how you should handle " problems like these ", well just let it go and allow the errors to be fixed. It's not a big deal, although it seems likely to become one right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you changed it twice, I can't fix this (or even respond, really) because I don't wheel-war. I hope what I said above was reasonably clear. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, I think what you're saying is that we shouldn't fix errors on TFA blurbs? I don't really get your point, your position with regard to fixing grammatically incorrect English, fixing redirects and poor capitalisation while I'm at it. You can respond to that with absolute impunity, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[end of text copied from ERRORS]

Footnote: Brian and Chris would prefer not to pursue any of this for the moment, and I have no problem with that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

PLs delete

• Hey Dan I just put this archive button on yesterday and it's in the spot where "Edit" should be. Would you pls delete my error at Wikipedia:Main Page/Archive 1 ... thanks. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 00:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, and I'm tight for time. Talk page stalkers ... to the rescue! - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I put up a Db template so it's probably OK. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 01:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping

I'm shortly going to launch an RfC. If possible I would prefer it to be a teamwork. I would very much value your input. Would you please review the first very basic draft and let me have your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! It's possible I'll be a closer on that one ... and if not, I'll probably be a closer on a related RfC at some point. Best would be for me not to say anything until 3 weeks into the RfC, at the earliest. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Good to know that there will be an experienced closer ready to step in at 30 days. better wouold be an experienced team of two closers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, "a closer" not "the closer". Not a guarantee, I'll have to read it and see if I think I can help by closing. If I do close, I sometimes start making noises at the point where the trends are obvious, sometimes at the 3 week point. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl FAC

Hi Dank. I note you had some health problems earlier this month; I hope you're feeling better now, though if not, maybe one of your talk page stalkers can help me :). I nominated Tank Girl (film) for FAC a month ago (see here). One of my two major reviewers says the article needs a copy edit before he can support it. If you could have a look at the article, I would very much appreciate it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll look. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 23:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thx much Ling. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Diane TFA

Hey, thanks! I checked out the article, updating it for something that came out earlier this year. I suppose it'll be the opposite problem as Brenda 60, too much info in lead :P Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[This is the August 7 TFA]. I was thinking the same thing ... it's going to be a hard call figuring out what to prune. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

How long are TFA's usually? Two paragraphs? I'd gut everything related to the meteorological history. No one really cares about that but weather nerds, hah. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

BARC RfC

Regarding your request: I thought I would reply in what is hopefully a quieter place. Yes, I think many people looking for a new process to remove administrative privileges from an editor are viewing this as something that enables changes to the Request for Adminship process. Personally, I don't think that this necessarily disqualifies someone who has been involved in past discussions regarding RfA from evaluating consensus in this one. Community members who have shown interest in understanding, interpreting, and developing policies and procedures bring a degree of engagement to the closure process that can be effective. For better or worse, though, there are some editors who value a lack of any linkage to the area of discussion as being a stronger consideration over other qualifications.

On a digression: the demands on volunteers evaluating consensus seem to have crept up steadily. Calls for open deliberation just result in the community continuing the conversation after it has supposedly closed, and a lot of back-seat driving taking place. Coupling this with a desire for fixed deadlines, I feel it will be increasingly difficult to find anyone to close contentious discussions. Evaluators need space to bounce ideas off each other without having to continually respond to a dozen people questioning each nuance. There can be checkpoints where feedback is solicited, but if the group is required to justify each sentence it utters, the process bogs down. If the community wants to have persons with tested track records in interpreting discussions in an even-handed manner, perhaps it should be open to using professional mediators, who are evaluated on this basis and can only continue to be employed if they indeed demonstrate this ability. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. It won't be a problem at all for me if people don't want me to close this one, I've got a lot on my plate. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I had drafted a paragraph similar to what Risker had said regarding letting others step up to close RfCs, but after thinking further about the difficulty in getting closers, and the unfortunate (but understandable) tendency of some volunteers perhaps overestimating their ability to evaluate contentious discussion, I deleted it. But I will echo that I think for the community's sake, it would be good if some others would gain experience in this aspect, both to reduce reliance on a single person, and to increase diversity in how these discussions are evaluated. Unfortunately, at this point in time it's not a very attractive role for anyone to fill, as I described above. isaacl (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with all of that. Replied below. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Badge icon for work other than articles

Hey Dank. Our discussion on the talk page of the BARC proposal, combined with the Liz RfA, and then combined with seeing a user's page today with badge icons that I've seen before on other user pages got me thinking. Well, my first thought is that as a copy editor I'm sure you want to rip my fingers off for that run-on sentence :) I digress...

The user page I saw was this one. Nothing extraordinary, but like many user pages it has badge icons for work done on the project. In this case, for DYK noms and GA status stuff. Liz has done a lot of non-article work, and she's been criticized for a lack of content creation. I noted in my comments on her RfA that a considerable amount of work occurs outside of article creation that is pivotal to the functioning of this project. Seeing your comments about being a closer on the BARC proposal, I sensed you felt you were criticized, put down, what have you; a negative feeling.

Those three disparate facts came together in my brain today and it dawned on me that we do no have badge icons (that I'm aware of) for work outside of mainspace. Well, we do have them for various user rights. But, we don't have them for work. For people that like badge icons, that seems wrong to me. We should give credit where credit is due. To that end, I created File:Symbol rfc.gif, which can be used as a badge icon to highlight closure of RfCs. (note: it's in gif format rather than svg; I didn't bother putting it into Illustrator to get an svg out of it)

You deserve credit for the contentious RfCs you have closed over the years. That sort of thing is lost in history for everyone. Nobody really knows, unless they happen to be well aware of your excellent work in this arena. So, there you go. Enjoy! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit that I'm not feeling great, but that's coming from a bunch of unrelated things. This was really kind; thanks. Is it okay with you if I put the symbol and text on my Shinies page, as if it were a barnstar? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Contentious RfC Closer Award
		To you Dank, I award the The Contentious RfC Closer Award for your incredible work over the years in closing contentious RfCs where angels fear to tread. Yea, though you walk through the shadow valley of RfC, you have feared no evil: for thou art brave and capable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There. How's that? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I saw what you did here :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Isaac and Hammer, I don't think I'm feeling criticized (I can't be sure, I'm a geek) so much as sad that my days as a closer are probably over. I'm not sure that I have it in me, emotionally or mentally, to keep at it, and maybe someone else will be more successful than I've been ... I hope so. Besides, I need to make more brain space available for my language work, and focus more on my own problems and less on Wikipedia's. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind about big, messy RfCs after a day of thinking about it; I think I'm done. I may do smaller RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not closing messy RfCs any more, but as promised, now that the RfC is over, I want to mention why I thought I was in a position to be a neutral closer on this one: it's because I haven't been involved with this question before, and I don't think my work with RfA was relevant to the question, because I don't think that the existence or non-existence of BARC, by itself, would have a noticeable impact on RFA votes. A substantial majority of rationales expressed in opposition at RfAs don't seem like the kind of opinions that would be swayed by slightly increasing the probability of a desysopping down the road. I don't think I had a bias problem on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A bit surprised

I was a bit surprised to see your comment here, and I'm finding it a bit confusing that you felt you were well placed to close the discussion but not in a position to participate in it. Nonetheless, I respect your decision not to express your opinions. Risker (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a good day for me to respond, I may have something tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've still got nothing, other than what I already said above. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assisting with TFA

Hi Dank, hope you are well. I'd be happy to volunteer to help you prepare TFAs for the main page. (I saw your notice last month and have been meaning to get back to you ever since; your second notice today reminded me.) I still have WP:TFA/R on my watchlist from my own TFAs but I really should return to once again help support the nominated candidates. Other than that, how best can I help you? Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure! You can do up to two per month. Best is to watchlist all the individual blank TFA pages, starting with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 29, 2015, and as soon as Chris (for August) or Brian (for September) schedules a TFA that you would like to work on, you should jump on it before I get to it. It's fine to pick something that's been through TFAR, if you see things you'd like to copyedit. The easiest way to learn the job is to compare articles leads with the TFA text for past TFAs ... or, just ask. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't started yet, Dank. I am doing some real life and also working on an FAC (which you are welcome to comment on). To be continued. Prhartcom (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan: in case you haven't noticed, the TFA for 31 August has changed to Carrow Road (see my talk for discussion). A blurb is needed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I invited Dweller and TRM to make some edits. TRM did, and I followed with this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other changes you'd like? - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TFA blurb for 12 September

Hello, Dank! I've condensed the text and posted beneath the original here. I hope this is what you had in mind. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks Tim. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi Dan, pinging you beaceuse Brian is off for a day or two; but have a rather troublesom reqest - want to cancel the scheduling of Madonna in the Church on September 8, in favour of suggesting Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) for October 31st - Halloween. I realise that I'm going back on my word and didnt speak up soon after Brians's - very fair- comment at the nom about the vol of art articles going through at the moment. Pinging van Eyck co-noms Victoriaearle & Johnbod with aoplogies, and User:Iridescent because she is VA, wise, tall and guidant. Victoria, I apologies to you espically :( Ceoil (talk)

PS: With this one you are going to really earn all those extra dollars WMF are paying you for the extra responsibilities. No good intentions go unpunished! Ceoil (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Brian, Chris and I have a division of labor/labour going ... since Brian scheduled that, he's in charge of handling requests to do or undo things, and we've got plenty of time before its TFA day. Still, I'm glad you let me know because I re-read TFAs from time to time looking for things to fix ... I'll stop working on Madonna. Btw, the art TFAs are exquisite ... more, please! - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, as always you are a being a gentleman. Ceoil (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I know my limitations, so can you [5] tighten. This is not a ploy; need help!! Ceoil (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Wrong link ... it's Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)‎‎. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)