User talk:Dank/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Requesting your review of the Wiki Education handbook on writing biography articles

Hi Dan! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. You've been recommended to me as someone who knows a lot about that topic. Would you be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on the Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. I did some light proofreading; the edit summaries describe the changes. I'm not signing off on the text, of course, that's above my pay grade. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For the brilliant idea of a "Today's Good Article" section on the front page and hope you see it through to fruition. LavaBaron (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Netherlandish

This is spillover from the current discussion at ERRORS (see this). An IP saw "by the Early Netherlandish artist Jan van Eyck" and complained loudly that "Netherlandish" isn't a word; presumably they thought we wanted "Dutch" but we didn't know any better. It's now changed to "by Jan van Eyck, an Early Netherlandish artist" (with links). There was discussion at ERRORS that I might be pandering to the IP ... that the proper solution isn't to rewrite it to lose the ambiguity, but to inform the IP that they're wrong and they need to learn what the word means. The problem with that is that, last I heard, we have around 10M hits on the Main Page per day, so we're going to get a wide range of casual readers. I hope most Wikipedians are aware that most readers don't click on most links most of the time ... links are handy if people want to click on them, but for most readers, they don't resolve ambiguities in the text. The link plus the capital "E" should have been a clue that "Early Netherlandish" meant something different from "early Netherlandish" ... but again, most people don't pick up clues from capitalization most of the time. In The Sense of Style (p. 36, hardcover), Steven Pinker says that good writing makes readers feel smart and bad writing makes them feel stupid. I'd prefer that as many readers of TFAs as possible catch our meaning on the first read-through. This philosophy is what propels many of the edits I make at TFA, so if I'm on the wrong track, I want to know. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You're fine; there's no need for us to insist on confusing the readers if there is a way of rewording it to make it clear; my pandering comment was directed, not at you, but at the indignant complainant who thought setting us straight was preferable to clicking the link. Also, I really would like it if more people pandered to my every whim. Belle (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do that, I've got lots of whim-pandering experience. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Send me a CV (and chocolates, champagne, a masseuse; you get the picture). Belle (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

They were earlier, and still in Dutch, the "Flemish primitives", but "Early Netherlandish" is the term in English for the school since the early 1900s; "primitives" was deemed a bit pejorative when translated. I can certainly see how it might be confusing. Your solution was a good call, Dan. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WPTC copyediting project

Hi Dank, I hope you're well. I'm quite late on this, but I just came across your post on the copyediting project over here. There's currently a sparsity of proficient copyeditors at WPTC; I'm one of the very few, and even my on-wiki activity is intermittent. As such, I'm very eager to help out (and, as you put it, "trade notes") if this is still something you're interested in doing in the near future. Let me know what you think!

Cheers, Auree ^★★ 08:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your timing couldn't be better. For people who are already participating at FAC (such as you), I'll be happy to help out in any way you like ... any ideas? Also, I see you're interested in neuropsychology. I recommend Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style (it's US$11 at Amazon, and lots of libraries have it) to anyone interested in copyediting, but I think neuropsychology students in particular will enjoy it. I mention a few of his talking points at WT:TFAC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Inserted in case anyone takes my advice: much of the specific advice he gives in the first chapter and half of the second chapter isn't particularly relevant to encyclopedic writing, but it's worth reading anyway. The rest is very relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! I really liked the script you were working on for common redundancies/misuses of terms. We could expand upon that, and maybe include notes for some of the exceedingly technical jargon that pervades the project. I will go through some popular articles later, and compile a list of the most frequent issues. And thank you for the recommendation! I did some brief researching and it is indeed very intriguing; it also coincides with a current course of mine on the neurocognitive aspects of language processing and organization. Auree ^★★ 12:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's another project i'm thinking about ... I'm running it by a few people via email, so if you like, send me an email via the link in the left column so we can get started. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I sent the email:) Auree ^★★ 16:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Auree, since you're specifically interested in WP:TROP, and since I've done some copyediting for them, and since every wikiproject's FAC needs are different, I'm going back through my notes and edits (and other stuff) to come up with a list of suggestions for a script to help TROP reviewers. It will take me a few days. If you want to post or email suggestions in the meantime, please feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

TFA 19 September

I have made a late change to the TFA for 19 September, following the discussion here. The request was made ungraciously, and their case was by no means self-evident, but I decided to go along with it. I'm sorry for the late notice; you will see that, to save you time, I have attempted the blurb, but if you get a chance you should perhaps look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your dedication. On it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 22, 2015

I got a question at WP:ERRORS about whether "located" is redundant in today's TFA summary, in the sentence "Chetro Ketl is an Ancestral Puebloan great house and American archeological site located in Chaco Culture National Historical Park, New Mexico." Short answer: I think it's probably a good choice for some readers and a bad choice for others. If the reader has peripherally skimmed ahead and already knows by the time they get to "located" that there's only one prepositional phrase left (of eight words) in the sentence, then "located" adds very little; for this reader, I'd delete it. But most readers most of the time don't know when they're only eight words and one prepositional phrase away from the end of the sentence, and for these readers, at the moment when they reach "located", the word might help avoid two garden paths, that is, plausible but incorrect parses, parses that turn out to be wrong by the time you get to the end of the sentence. One bad parse would be to anticipate that "Ancestral Puebloan great house and American archeological site in Chaco Culture National Historical Park, New Mexico" is just the start of the sentence, that the real payload is coming after that; that's a reasonable expectation for the first sentence in an encyclopedia article. The second bad parse would be to assume that "in" refers to "American archeological site" rather than a compound subject. "located" effectly undercuts both of those bad parses. Another reason to favor "located" is the length of this sentence; although the human brain is a formidable computer in many respects, our working memory is pea-sized, with only three to five slots. So our puny reading brains can be overtaxed by intricate enyclopedia articles, such as one that starts out: "Chetro Ketl is an Ancestral Puebloan great house and American archeological site". The more demanding the text, the less likely it is that a copyeditor will object to signposting, words that don't add a lot of meaning but help to indicate what direction the sentence is headed in. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Another constraint is that I'm always trying to keep the original wording, all else being equal. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

wrestlers 404

hey, you have a customary "these are my edits" format, with a link. I've clicked it twice (two different articles, most recently wrestlers but I forget which one was first) and got a 404 error each time.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The macro I use gives the same link as you get under "history" for an article ... which also gives no result from time to time. I'll check to make sure I typed correctly. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, crap, you're right, they made a small change in the pagename again, with no redirect. I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 23 September 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2015 – September 2016

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Barnstar

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from September 2014 to September 2015, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Can substitute the animal of your choice. Still, you have earned it.

Kafka Liz (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, thanks Liz! - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hey there! I am one of the many Wikipedians who think you're a terrific copyeditor. Would you mind giving Sonam Kapoor, the article I want to make an FA, a slight copy-edit? Thanks in advance. -- Frankie _talk 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much. I can't take on any new copyediting requests now; see below. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for an awesome 29 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PM. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Italics

re: [1], is there something with using italics on the front page or was this changed for some other reason? TeamXbox is a creative news publication and should be italicized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" czar 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to italicize it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

czar, things have been crazy today, sorry. A better explanation: it's fine to italicize it, and MOS certainly allows it, but most websites aren't italicized on WP. I was just going by the non-italics in the relevant article, but as long as you're italicizing both, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RFA brainstorming

Anyone who wants to comment, jump in. When I closed WP:RFA2013, there were potential downsides to various proposals, and personally, I was neutral on the main questions. At this point, I don't think I'm neutral on the biggest question ... I think we need more admins. I'm open to suggestions, but I've been reading back through various RfCs, and I'm already close to favoring one approach, one that aims to take a more gentle approach after failed RFAs. But if anyone has any ideas they're really hot to try, lay it on me, and we'll talk about your ideas first. I don't want to step on anyone's toes if they've been working on filing an RfC. (Biblioworm has an RfC going currently at WT:RFA ... if my RfC has any effect at all on that one, I would think the effect would be positive.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead with your RfC. I wasn't planning on proposing any actual fixes until the first phase of my project (identifying the problem) was over. I'm interested to see what you're thinking. --Biblioworm 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm ready to roll, and there are no objections so far, so I'll go post over at WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Could I suggest posting it at VPP, and linking from RfA? I think that might get more fresh eyes in. Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to start the discussion at WT:RFA, then expand the discussion to VPP, then file the RfC at VPP. Reasoning: in the best of all possible worlds, I would like the RfA community to see this as a way of taking responsibility for a problem ... we're not the main architects of the problem, but we have a role to play in it, and I'd like to see us saying as a community "We have a responsibility to do something, so here's what we're doing, what do you think?" There's no chance of that happening if I start at VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

Hey Dank, I noticed that you are inviting only those editors to comment on your thread at WT:RfA who have recently failed their RfA by a close margin. Since your RfC is related to something about unsuccessful RfA candidates, I think it's possible canvassing as the editors you have invited will benefit from the proposal. I think you should either self-revert or send the same message to some of the others. Cheers! Jim Carter 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I disagree, and I'll explain why at WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unbundling

While I am generally against mass unbundling on the whole, what about combining file (and file revision) deletion with Filemover. The file namespace is grossly undeserved, I am thinking particularly of the Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old, which can sit upwards of 1500 revision deletions required every few days. It would also allow filemovers to take action in FFD. Not sure if this is technically feasible, but it would be a way to get some backlogs out of an often ignored namespace. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll pass this on to the people who might be interested. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

TFA 4 November

I've scheduled Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria for 4 November. This was one which Gerda nominated in January, but I deferred it (it needed an overhaul and I didn't have time then). I've since updated it, and I think it can run now. I've done the blurb, and had a shot at the image caption, but please look at it and tell me if you think it's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I already made a few tweaks, it looks good to me. Levy is getting the captions, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging some RfA candidates

Pinging: @Thine Antique Pen, Montanabw, APerson, Cyberpower678, Rich Farmbrough, and EuroCarGT:. (Guys, I might ping you a couple more times ... please let me know if you'd like for me to "unsubscribe" you.) So, I'm still working on this problem of how to help people pass RfA. My suggestions at WT:RFA aren't going anywhere. Here's another idea: look over the long list of academic researchers interested in Wikipedia at Meta:Research:People ... do any of those projects sound interesting to you guys? Academic researchers are always looking for Wikipedians they can trust to answer basic questions about how the community works. We might look into getting a special userright for you guys that would make it easier for you to access certain kinds of information. I have some general ideas, but first I need to know which projects you're interested in (if any) so I can get an idea what permissions would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a "Researcher" user-right, which allows better visibility of deleted stuff (edit history, but not actual revisions IIRC). As an Edit filter manager I can see the content of private edit filters. OTRS might suit some of the other candidates - I can't remember the requirements, apart from self-declaring to the WMF. It's a role (or a number of roles, considering the different queues) that requires trustworthiness and delivers community/process benefits, like the stereotypical admin.

That may be bye-the-bye, or it may be useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

Right, that's the idea, all good suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's OK to continue "pinging" me, I find the topic interesting. That Meta list, by the way, is rather outdated... ;-) What I am interested is primarily the wikignoming tools that allow me to do the things that I trip over on a frequent basis. If I had to prioritize, this would be my list

1. Article moving is probably #1 - both moving article titles over redirects and the stuff like moving prep sets into DYK queues.
2. Almost of parallel importance, though, is that I'd also like to be able to protect articles; BLP violations need to b addressed quickly, as does stuff like "outing" editors and such. Revdel would be nice as part of the toolset, but if that's a higher level function, I could live with one without the other
3. Viewing deleted content for the purpose of restoring certain things might be helpful, but my interest is primarily in the area of being able to userfy AfDs and such.
4. Farther down the queue would be stuff like closing debates, deleting articles after AfD, etc.

Hope that helps. FWIW Blocking vandals isn't really high on my list of tools I wish I had, though on occasion it would be nice. But at my RfA, the big panic seemed to be if I could be trusted with the block tool. You see, over the years, I've had (horror of horrors!) opinions, and because I had opinions some feared I might use the mop to go after someone in a vindictive fashion. (which is utter nonsense to anyone who actually knows me, but once the dogpile started there was no stopping it). So userrights that exclude the block tool might be a good way to minimize the drama surrounding RfA. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the Meta list is outdated ... still, if a professor wrote a paper several years ago (or gave up on it), they might have students interested in getting help from an experienced Wikipedian. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's some minor userright, such as "researcher", that would be broadly useful in various ways for many of you guys. What I'm hearing is that that's not likely. This also seems to be the wrong time for a push for it. We might want to hang on until some kind of backlog crisis hits ... I don't like the "legislating by crisis" strategy, but sometimes that's all you're left with. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

PR request

Hey Dank, this isn't a copy-edit request. I had to withdraw this candidate last time as there were some reservations about the prose. Since then the article has had a thorough copy-edit by a couple of users. Any chance you could give a review here? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not qualified to review Indian English. I'm taking a guess here on some InEng terms because I've seen them used in our InEng film articles:

INEng: she determined to be, BrEng: she wanted to be, or decided to be, or dedicated herself to becoming (I'm not sure)

InEng: at the St. Xavier's College, BrEng: at St. Xavier's College

InEng: well received from critics, BrEng: well received by critics

I'm not sure who's the right person for this job, but it's not me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Leave the variations. I think you must be definitely having an idea about other aspects of the prose—punctuation, MOS fixes, etc., I would be really grateful if you could have another look and point out those. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks —Vensatry _(ping) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dank:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Thanks, NA1000. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)