User talk:Dank/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dank. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks for joining WikiProject North Carolina. Hope you like the newsletters. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you asked if the links to Encyclopaedia Britannica from Web sites expire after a year. No, they don't expire at all. Thanks, Tom Panelas (@ britannica)75.3.149.51 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:R from Shortcut doesn't exist. Perhaps there's a similarly-named template that you intended to use? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, doh, meant {{R from shortcut}}, I'll go add it. Feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank! I think we have enough people to make a start with this initiative - are you available? I'm proposing that we get the detailed revamp done first, then distil out from that the core essentials for (your idea of) the simplified description. Does this sound reasonable? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I saw you removed the guideline-related material on the main article, but your edit summary simply said to look at the talk page. Given that I spoke to you regarding this, I don't understand the rationale for removal, when you yourself stated that "the current thinking on style guidelines is: anyone can create them, and they're as official as they need to be, until and unless we have reason to believe they're not," and I see nothing anywhere else suggesting that this has been declared non-guideline material. I really don't care whether it is or not (the Music projects seem to have adopted it, and they are the ones that ultimately matter to its usage/implementation), but that doesn't change my curiosity here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's completely up to you whether this is ready to be a guideline or not, because no one else has weighed in, and I'm not familiar enough with record charts to offer an opinion. You said "Feel free to add/propose it if you wish, but something tells me it would need to be discussed somewhere before it gains real inclusion." I think where we misconnected was, I wasn't clear that this was part of a sweep of all style guidelines with the goal of taking a clear stand on each one whether it's a style guideline or not. The ones that are now have the {{Style}} sidebar, and an infobox at the top, and they're in the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat; the ones that aren't have none of those things. I thought you were voting "not at this time". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I understand now. Well, I do think it could use a little more refining, but for the most part it has been stable for quite some time. I'd say that most people that edit in this field consider it to be a guideline in spirit and practice, if not "officially" or whatever. I keep meaning to come back to it and make some changes here and there, but find myself occupied with vandalism or other projects. As an involved party, I won't re-add the guideline template at this time, but it may be reviewed at a later date. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm in making it a style guideline; if someone thinks something is wrong, they'll either complain or fix it. Since it's stable and used informally as a style guideline, I'll go add it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55, I just want you to know that I was not trying to cause a problem for Wikipedia MoS, its just that we had so many editors who could not come to a decision on the capitalization issue and one FA reviewer voted to oppose our FA stating this as one of the reasons. I wanted to come to some kind of consensus so we could move forward. If Wikipedia MoS discussions on this issue ultimately result in the decision to lowercase, I will gladly change the article to comply with Wikipedia standards. Maybe you could put a note on my talk page after the coming discussion on the issue is resolved. Maybe there can be another straw poll on the MoS page for all the MoS gurus out there. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not causing any problem at all, you're arguing your case well. Best of luck with your FAC. If/when a decision is reached on capitalization, I'll leave a message on your talk page. Thanks for asking. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan, Thanks for chiming in on the lead discussion. You said you didn't understand the issue. In a nutshell, the article Interstate 70 in Utah passed FAC with the following lead:

Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly abbreviated I-70, that runs east–west for 232.15 miles (373.61 km) across the central part of the U.S. state of Utah.

Some editors are vehemently opposed to this wording as a violation of the MOS and have since reverted to the lead the article had when it passed GAC. So, is this a good lead, or a terrible lead? that's the question. Dave (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll respond on the same page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for pointing us/me to WP:PUNC, and in general I'm not great with little punctuation particularities, but I wanted to point out that in this case it wasn't "quotation marks" I put the period inside but italics. :). Best.PelleSmith (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all just thought you'd like to know, and of course you could easily catch me making a real mistake, in which case I'd only be happy to know I made it. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, I just used Auto Wiki Browser, and it did that automatically. Guess I didn't notice! Thanks for pointing that out and reverting it. I'll try to be a little more careful next time. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply. At FACs, such as this one, User:Tony1 often states that final punctuation in quotes should go after the closing marks where the quote starts within a WP sentence. I've never really understood what he means by this, but does it sound like it agrees with your interpretation of logical quotation? I'm hesitant to get Tony1 involved in this as he seems busy at the moment. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in this version of the article (last edit in November), "atrocity tale." is not right. Btw, many American writers who always put a period inside quotation marks at the end of a sentence (which is not what WP:MoS recommends) will put the period outside the quotation marks for a short phrase. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So going back to the example I gave at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Logical quotation, would the period belong outside, whether or not it was part of Arthur's original statement? Epbr123 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Arthur speaking or writing? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing. Epbr123 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The conversation seems to be continuing at WT:MOS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant the Websters definition was terrible; I'll clarify. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:MOS#University looks normal to me, if you want an example. Is that not the topic of your comment? Powers ^T 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone change indentation as a way of showing who they were responding to? Hesperian seems to always undent, regardless. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Try Wikipedia talk:MOS#Strong objection to the encouragement of gender-neutral language. Gimme danger (11:39 9 May 2008 (UTC)) used the correct level of indentation to respond to Liempt, as did Andrew c a bit farther down. The whole thread seems consistent to me. Powers ^T 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers, you are correct, I was responding to Liempt. I don't know if I did this correctly or not. Since other comments had been placed before mine, I used the outdent to indicate that I was responding to the comment one "level" in, so to speak.--Gimme danger (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How was Scavhunt? I think I see, Gimme, that was a good way of showing that you were changing focus. I'll keep asking around to see how many people do this, and whether they're consistent; many people who outdent to show they're responding to a particular message don't do it in messageboard style, the way that you did, they outdent to the same indentation they're responding to. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We won! A zeusaphone was built and it was fabulous. I find that threading is quite confusing on a lot of talk pages here; I have a tendency to "fix" them as the discussion happens if I'm watching. Probably bad form, but at least the discussion can be followed then. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The problem with fixing the threading is, if people didn't know what the threading meant in the first place, they probably still won't after you fix it, and if their preference is to respond to particular messages by inserting their response under the messages, then there's nothing to fix. When it's done carefully, as you did, then it's perfectly clear; but most people don't do it, and the ones who do it don't usually do it carefully. I'll continue to keep an eye on this issue; perhaps some kind of random sample would help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing them, It seems I'm too tired last several days, forgot to add dots. I'm overworked, didn't had enough time to sleep. Thanks again.--Lokyz (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I'm reviewing Cold fusion and Mechanical engineering and working on other style guidelines pages; I'll check in later. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited that sentence because it says "all forms of standard english" , and excludes british english from this, implying that the english spoken by the english is not standard ? I dont know what comment on greek roots has to do with that. I haven't just reverted it again because guides and MoS pags are the last place to start an Edit War.Machete97 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be looking for ? Machete97 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, we're talking past each other a bit. None of the style guidelines editors think that British English is substandard; we pay close attention. "-ize" is a common suffix in British English, but not where the suffix is derived from Greek; so, Brits write "analyse", but "recognize" is correct British English, although often misspelled. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I added that specific example to the guideline; feel free to respond here or on the guideline talk page if you'd like something different. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The "-ize" thing was not what I had a problem with, it was the categorizing of US english as "standard english" and UK english as non-standard.Machete97 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. I hope the current version is satisfactory. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks. thats what i was on about.Machete97 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

for your support and vote of confidence in my RFA. Also for carefully reading the answers to the questions: they took a bit of time to write. Thanks again! --Slp1 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, it was a pleasure. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I could be wrong, but I'm betting people are a bit tired out by the mediation and the GA review and would like a little break, starting sometime soon"

Dan, I'm watching and I think you're doing a great job. StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Feel free to weigh in on any topic at any time on my talk page or the article's talk page. My understanding from reading many discussions at WT:V and listening to FA people (although I could be wrong) is that it's a very rare website that qualifies all by itself as a reliable source. That was why I had to remove the mention of the Arata talk yesterday, even though it was sourced to your website. We can put it back in as soon as we can get translations of what I assume are Japanese news stories based on the event. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This may sound funny, but I would have pulled that ref to my article from Wiki too! I just reported based on the scant amount of information I had which was just *barely* enough for me to write a story on. I'm very much in support of precision and caution with regard to Wiki, and of course my own work. I was nervous about the very loose journal citations Takahashi initially gave me and I have since been engaged in multiple emails with Arata and Takahashi following up with them to get the precise biblio on the papers. I'll run that in a follow up article in the next regular issue of NET. I'm not sure what you mean about translations of Japanese stories. Even though there was press presence in Osaka, Takahashi or perhaps someone else who is in Japan told me that most of the J-press didn't write stories on it. I think they were probably to afraid of the subject. The irony is that the three stories in the two Italian rags appear to have been written without either of the journalists going to Japan or quoting/citing an eye-witness. They appear to have been written with the "help" of another Italian "cf" researcher who got himself a bit of ink in the process. Delightful, eh?

-sk- —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dank55,

sorry to bring up an unpleasant issue, but I am finding User:Ilkali high-handed and unpleasant. Even comments that do not include put-downs express a kind of superior attitude. He uses wikilawyering, quoting a few different tangential guidelines and won't take reasonable or sourced replies that show him to be wrong. I'm no expert, but he seems to counter-attack when wrong to mask his rushing to judgement when he doesn't really understand issues or policies.

I've warned him for multiplying tangents, which is time-wasting trolling, and no longer argue with him past one or two replies. I'd be interested to know if you could prove me wrong about all this. I'd like to know he has been a constructive editor and been co-operative in other contexts.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I know anything abut Ilkali other than what I saw at WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and its talk page, which you're welcome to read, but if you're contacting me, you already know about that conflict. Even though it seems to some like a reasonable first step to ask around on talk pages if they have a problem with someone, people sometimes get in trouble for taking this approach; I would suggest Dispute resolution. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and your advice. I'm satisfied Ilkali is just forceful, not regularly rude. He has been rude to me, personally, but it is not a pattern of editing, that is what is important. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan, you wrote: "Researchers are not by themselves a reliable source, so we can't report on what they say about other people's studies, only their own)" I'm so glad to see your sensitivity to this. I have been witness to many of the researchers in the last few years, as attention has grown in the subject, where they write "reviews" of the field. Yeah, right. Well, I'd say about 50-70 percent of their reviews are NPOV, the rest is SELFPUB, for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't take credit here, that's the wisdom of the mob, I'm just following the rules. Imagine how the cold fusion controversy might have been different if Wikipedia had been around in 1989. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven, I read the item from May 10 I believe in NET about DARPA. If we don't have anything more in writing from them than that, I'm not comfortable saying in the Cold fusion article that DARPA is working on anything, at least based on DARPA as a source. Either McKubre or you could go on record about whatever support you're getting; do you want to do that, or do you think he does? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan. First thing: "support we're getting" ? From DARPA? I'm sure you didn't mean this. Second, please feel free to 86 any references to DARPA in the article independent of my comfort. My comfort is irrelevant and (no offense intended) I could really care less if DARPA was cited in the Wiki page or not. The only thing I really care about is that the Wiki page does not contain falsehoods, significant omissions or misrepresentations. Thirdly, it's not even in my self-interest to help the Wiki page with news information. Such is my bread and butter for my own organization! So by all means, please delete it.

Here's the situation. It might sound like stating the obvious, but DARPA is a defense organization. It's not in their self-interest to reveal publicly what they are working on. On top of that, they deal in advanced, future explorations of S&T. This is further reason why it is not in their self-interest to publicly share what they are working on. In fact, as an American, it is to my benefit that DARPA is tight-lipped.

McKubre is tight lipped too. I'm sure you understand. He has a relationship with these people. How kindly will they be to him if he blabs to news dogs like me? How eager will they be to renew his contracts? The only thing I can say so far with regard to a paper trail is that McKubre acknowledges DARPA funding in his paper that comes out in my ACS (Oxford Univ Press) book, due this Fall. If you want to see a copy of that acknowledgment page now, as it was submitted to the publisher, I'll be happy to upload it to NET.

Now if I really wanted hardcopy of the DARPA LENR contracts to SRI or Innoventek, or the DTRA LENR contracts or a transcript of a video of the "secret" DTRA LENR meeting which Bob Park attended on Dec. 12 and 13, 2006, I could probably get it if I wanted to go through the trouble of doing a FOIA. But I don't want to go through that much hassle, plus it really doesn't prove anything to my general audience that they don't already know.

On the other hand, if, let's just say, completely theoretically and hypothetically, a really big news organization gets wind of all this, they will have the clout, the resources and the interest to get this news out of DARPA.

If something like this happens, it will be really nice if people remember that they heard it first on the Web, that it was first reported by New Energy Times.

Good to talk with you Dan. Always happy to help folks like you who are working conscientiously and fairly.

Steve

StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, my goal here isn't to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't say, just to underline WP:SELFPUB. You can talk about what you're doing, if you like, and so can McKubre and so can DARPA, and there's a great likelihood that any brief statement from any of you on current work would survive in Cold fusion, but if no one has anything they'd like to say, then we're limited in what we can put in the article. Thanks for the kind words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true in the context Ilkali has in mind. "If there were a Creator God who made the world from nothing, He would..." seems quite modern; but insofar as it is true, it should be covered by our preference for lowercase in general; that's why I left the page saying nothing. See how it reads without. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer putting it back, do say so; one reason I took it out was to see if there were any consensus on the matter.

I for one didn't know what it meant. I believe there are a lot of people who don't know what it means either. I'm sure that experienced editors will know what it is, but for many people adding Full Stop is very helpful. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, will you do us a favour at FLC talk? I see no reason not to install auto-archiving there as you've done for MOS talk. Is it a quick thing to do for you?

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#automatic_archiving.3F

While you're at it, why not add for Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria, but there I'd go for not 10 days, but 20, since things happen over a longer time span than at candidates talk.

TONY (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PS FLC talk has just been manually archived, but was elephantine until then. TONY (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and MOSNUM talk, as chaotic and fractious as it now is, desperately needs the same facility. I'm just raising the issue now there. TONY (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll do all 3 when I get up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was "bends" put in italics? It's an English word, isn't it? Gary King (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I changed it to quotes because it's not a foreign word, and it doesn't fulfill the other requirements to require that it be italicized, per WP:MOS. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See WP:MOS, "use–mention distinction". That is, when a word is being used to point to the word itself, rather than to the thing, it goes either in italics or in quotes. Although we try in general only to put stuff in WP:MOS that is relatively easy to apply, there's really no way to make italics vs. quotes vs neither very intuitive, and copyeditors will always disagree, so you're welcome to run this by other folks. When I think of scientific articles on Wikipedia, what I'm aiming for is the copyediting style I'm used to in popularizing scientific magazines, and I think in this case, most of them would either use italics or quotes. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I generally try to keep italicized words to a minimum and stick with quotes; for one, because they transpose to different mediums more easily. Gary King (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we can't ditch italics for the use–mention distinction entirely, because quotes are "louder" than italics; sometimes you don't want to be louder. I don't think in that context it makes any difference whether we use quotes or italics; either is better than the way it was (with neither) IMO. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I chose to bug you since you happened to be around and were at least peripherally involved with WP:LEAD. Can you think of any reason not to remove this tag? The article is not active enough for a talk page discussion to resolve this in a reasonable time, and while I'm planning to improve this article (along with half the damn encyclopedia), I have no idea whatsoever of how to meet the tag's requirements without being completely redundant. --Kiz o r 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

--Kiz o r 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I hope you won't take my notes at cold fusion and Wikiproject Physics as being in any way critical of your efforts. I can see you've been working very hard to resolve things, so I hope I'm not stepping on your toes here, but rather just adding another voice. Regards, Gnixon (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, I didn't pick up anything critical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Dan. Re the whole "textbook physics" thing, it's not even clear to me what it means (or what significance it has) to say that CF is consistent with textbook physics. It seems to me that things would be taken care of pretty cleanly by putting it inside quotation marks (along with the rest of the sentence). In terms of general strategy, I think we should strictly focus on a fair interpretation of sources that doesn't lean on anyone's expert knowledge of the subject. We don't want to open the door to debating among ourselves whether or not cold fusion is likely to be real. Gnixon (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. My goal isn't that ambitious; as long as the lead says that some people say that it is, we need to mention somewhere, somehow, that most people say that it's not, and back that up with a reference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having made clear that most don't think cold fusion is real, maybe it's sufficient to be clear that the statement comes from a cold fusion proponent. I think the reader would understand that the mainstream isn't likely to agree with everything the proponent says. Gnixon (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also recognize the good faith and the good effects you are showing on the cold fusion article. Please keep it up. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Dan. I didn't mean to lecture you, but I think it's in our interest to avoid inflaming things. Gnixon (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not lecturing me at all. You're doing a great job, keep it up. Cold fusion could be an "AGF test" all by itself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, indeed. Gnixon (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I am still planning to change the cold fusion article to make it more chronological. My goal would be to change nothing about the POV and see if people will accept it, and address POV issues at another time. What do you think? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the other guys are happy with it, I'm happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. That would be nice of you. But there's no hurry. TONY (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it. Let's keep fingers crossed. TONY (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dank55/coaching. giggy _(:O) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi TONY (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, not at all: I think we all appreciate your input. Sandy's asking me to include the changes to the Layout guidelines in the monthly update. I think I did look at the diff, but decided the changes were either not significant enough to include (or perhaps I didn't understand them). Can you point me to the bits you think are substantive? No hurry; RL is more important. I can even include these as an addendum next month if you can't manage soon. TONY (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How's this? TONY (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great, and you may or may not want to include a few other items. I looked at the diff between April 1 and now (and you may have already listed some of these differences):

"Just as for paragraphs, any sections and subsections that are very short or disproportionally long will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow." (or disproportionally long was added).
The "References" (or "Notes and References") section is no longer optional.
"It is best not to change already-established article [end] section names [because this breaks links]" was deleted, on the grounds that no one could think of a case where someone linked to an end section in one article from a different article.
Quotations (deprecated) was removed; it didn't seem important enough to specifically mention.
On April 1, it still said "it is permissible to change the sequence of these ending sections", but the page is now back in line with what the guidance at WP:EL, WP:MOS and other pages has always been.
This is one I missed: "it is often desirable to place '(In alphabetical order)' under the heading" is now gone, and I don't recall when or why that happened; I don't remember anyone giving an opinion either way.
The last addition was this, and I complained on the talk page but didn't take any action:

When a separate "Reference" section is included, Short footnotes may be used, giving the author(s), year, and the page number, and perhaps the title, but without the full citation....If there are only a few cited sources in an article and all of the references are cited, then the sections "Notes" and "References" can be combined. If this is done then name the section "References" unless some of the footnotes are notes and not citations, in which case name the section "Notes and references".

My complaint was just that I had a queasy feeling about arguments that seemed to me to belong in WP:CITE being pulled into WP:LAYOUT; it sets a bad precedent and can lead to forum-shopping. Personally, I'd be inclined to move anything out of WP:LAYOUT that either is or should be covered in WP:CITE, but I don't feel strongly about that, and I understand that people expect to find certain things in WP:LAYOUT, whether they "should" be there or not.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent change: "normally" added to "external links are normally limited to the "External links" section". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. But I wonder whether you could mark the June changes, since that's the job at hand at the end of this month. I'm interested only in substantive changes, and not those that are reverted within the month. If something appears unstable (people disagree), it will need a case-by-case assessment as to inclusion at the update. Trying to keep it concise. And at this stage, I think I'll leave the April ones. TONY (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, since Sandy scares me a bit, I'd rather tell you everything that she even might care about, and let you figure out whether it's important or not and how concise to make it. I'll give you a summary of the changes to all 21 pages in CAT:GEN at the end of the month. MOSNUM isn't in CAT:GEN; what do you think of the Duke's idea to move or copy some of the information about dates and time somewhere? Perhaps some of that material could go into WP:MOS? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering for Mission 4 - Moni3 has helpfully constructed a "to do" list on our Mission 4! Let's start working! Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My review and copyedit are at WP:FAC for Draining and development of the Everglades. My preference is to work on articles at around the time they arrive at WP:FAC; I'll ask Moni3 if she needs more than that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55 - one of the articles within WP:WikiProject Robotics, the Da Vinci Surgical System, have recently been deleted - I'm trying to get it restored (see the deletion review), and would appreciate your input and expertise in robotics. Thanks!--Jiuguang Wang (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A clear overturn, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mrg3105‎#Warning on Layout, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Mrg3105 Layout as your contribution to Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Notes and references sections has become an issue, and clarification of your position would help. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, Philip. As it turned out, he was blocked anyway, but please do let me know when people quote me to say the opposite of what I said. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not argue with you there on the general point, but your latest post on WT:MOS is wrong from beginning to end. Much of MOS's language shows no evidence of being read by anybody (the boiler-plate sentence on ellipses is a good example);

If I remember right, Noetica inserted the "needs cleanup" tag on Feb 24. People probably didn't change it because they didn't know what cleanup he wanted (I didn't), and because people are generally very slow to make changes to WP:MOS, precisely because they think it has a certain weight of consensus.

other portions are contested every couple months or so by different editors, each acting independently.

Yes, now that's what I'm talking about. Independent edits, on WP:MOS and WT:MOS, are one kind of evidence that people are unhappy, and evidence of unhappiness should be weighed against the silent (and loud) happy people. I have no problem at all with someone making an edit to WP:MOS once or twice without presenting any evidence for why they think their version is consensus and the previous version is not, because (speaking of not reading things) people often don't read the infobox at the top, and if they do, they don't take into account how many people have shown by not changing it, and by how they edit their own articles, that they're okay with the current version. Of course, I'm not saying that they should be okay with it; that's another question. But WP:CONSENSUS is some of the most well-trodden land in all of Wikipedia, and I don't make the rules. If we want to change a page with 68,000 hits a month, like WP:MOS, we first have to get Wikipedians to agree.

In the second case the same two or three editors exclaim, with pained surprise, that nobody has ever contested that section before, and revert war to maintain their preferred text. (Much of my reputation as a contrarian results from noticing this pattern and pointing it out.)

Neither of these patterns is consensus of thousands; saying it is contributes to the POV nonsense that makes MOS a worthless page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the expert on the weight attributable to WP:SILENCE, and I hope we'll get some participation from the people I invited from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VPP. I'm interested in finding out myself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested, and I responded. The rules for how to pull in non-English sources in general, and especially how to leverage the work done in non-English wikis, are important to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, we are now at the point of writing succinct versions of the assessment criteria, which was your idea originally. Are you still able to participate, here? We now have to include C-Class, and the repercussions being discussed here. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, be right there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've written a first draft here, based on a combination of various existing tables (incl yours). Please take a look and copyedit as needed! Walkerma (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Draining and development of the Everglades, which in the end we decided not to rename "Complete land rape of South Florida", has achieved FA status! Congratulations and thanks all around! Two down and three to go - head for those copyediting and peer-reviewing parties at Restoration of the Everglades, Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Everglades have been saved! Just kidding! Seriously, though, big changes are afoot, as reported by our own Moni3 at Wikinews. These developments have prompted a dramatic increase in traffic to the articles, so let's do Wikipedia proud and spruce them up pronto! Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your email recently. I haven't seen any specific proposals either here or there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you did, should have checked my email :) Okay, I'll ponder it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess and your copyediting of the article, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level. Clearly without your help the result of the FA-review would have been severely in doubt! SyG (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I wish more people would be willing to play the role I played in that review, and I talk about that a little bit here: Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Courtroom drama. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it helps the article when someone already acustomed to the intricacies of FA review plays as a moderator somehow. Thanks again! SyG (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For his outstanding work copyediting First-move advantage in chess, immeasurably improving the article (which I frankly thought was already perfect!), enabling me to understand what needed to be done and why, and helping shepherd the article to Featured Article, I gratefully award Dank55 this richly-deserved Copyeditor's Barnstar. Many thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Let me know if you guys want help prepping an article for FA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I'll definitely recommend you next time we (the WikiProject Chess people) get an article up near FA-land. Krakatoa (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan; having followed you excellent contributions to First-move advantage in chess, I would like you to take a look at Roman-Persian Wars. It was written by Yannismarou, who is perhalps one of our strongest writers, but not a native English speaker. This is a very strong article that is primed for FAC, but is hindered by lack of a skilled copyeditor. You are a skilled copyeditor, so it would be great if you could give it a look. No worries if you are busy. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be happy to, I'll get back with you in a couple of days. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, thats great, but dont rush your self, sort out that other feckin' stuff and get back to us when you can ;). Ceoil ^{Non visto ... Provvedi} 00:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of kindness and comfort on my talk page. They help to give me strength in this terrible period. It is people like you who make me see that we are not only connected by the internet, but by the heart. With much love, Jeffpw (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We're all connected by the simple fact that it's something we all have to face, one day. Please feel free to talk about it any time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55, I posted my question because of this edit. I was wondering if adding the country is appropriate in this situation. This is a somewhat special situation as Abkhazia is independent but it's independence is unrecognized and most countries official recognize it as a province of Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha...that's really an NPOV question instead of a style question. Hm. WT:NPOV, and if they can't either answer your question or tell you who can, let me know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, where? Can you give me examples? Is this bot changing UNformatted to formatted? OMG. TONY (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Premier Election Solutions. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

In particular, I appreciate that you responded to my request for you to look through my contributions, and then wound up supporting me.

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

Frank | talk 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re "alleged", I got hold of some professional manuals of style and posted their recommendations at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Alleged, purported along with a new draft of the relevant para of the guideline. I was wondering if you'd had any more thoughts on this? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for everything. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Way to go team! Restoration of the Everglades has just become an FA! Three down and two to go! Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades could use your eagle eyes! Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I finished my copyedit of Geography and ecology of the Everglades, do you want me to give it another go? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to bring it up on the talk page again. But first we just need to get more members so there's someone there to talk with! I'd recommend joining the project and helping with the effort as you're able, as there are many other things like that regarding year articles that just aren't quite right. Wrad (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking a X000s (decade) approach would be good as opposed to X000s, which could lead to the century page. However, we would need a bot and a template expert to help us make the change. Wrad (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That would take care of the problems that I noticed (mainly, that most people who link to 1800s who don't know the jargon assume that it means 1800-1899, as you can see from checking WhatLinksHere). It would still have the problem that "1800s" doesn't mean 1800-1809 anywhere outside Wikipedia, and of course the number one rule for article titles is "Don't make stuff up". I have some urgent copyediting at FAC and today's my deadline for the monthly style summaries, but in a couple of days I'll transfer this to the talk page at WP:YRS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, the abbot's, for tone; but it depends: Have you called him Richard before? The primary rules are avoiding unclarity and excessive repetition. Elegant variation, however, is also to be eschewed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great answer, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see which edit it was. The abbot's is clearer; referring back to Richard of Wallingford as Richard, after one mention, risks losing the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I've been posting at your editor review for the past few days, but you haven't responded to any of my comments yet. I don't know whether or not it is standard procedure to have a lengthy discussion, but I'm certainly willing to discuss my points in greater detail with you. In any case, I don't really know if I'm giving you the kind of feedback you're looking for, so I'd appreciate some feedback... on my... feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points, and I'm waiting for more feedback. I generally don't try to defend myself against criticism, since I can't be objective about myself...I just stumble along and hope I don't cause too much trouble :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A user (Tony1) on the FA review for Uriel Sebree has suggested that I find a good copy-editor to help look over the prose. Malleus Fatuorum suggested that I contact you since you have a good reputation in this space. If I ask really nicely, do you think you could pop over and take a quick look at this article? Any suggestions or improvements you could make would be very appreciated. Is there anyone else that you would suggest that I talk to? I'm afraid that I'm too close to the prose to do a good job on this right now. Thanks in advance for any assistance that you can provide. JRP (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to. I'm always looking for good writers who can use my help, and your work is very good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Way back when, I created this account for you... Looks like you're doing great! :) Have you ever considered running the gauntlet at RFA? SQL ^{Query me!} 05:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's an offer to nom, then thanks! I have emailed some questions to you and Alex. Feel free to respond here or by email. I generally don't mind anything I put in an email being quoted on my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex thinks I'm ready. I need work on XfD and copyediting; please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see more of, SQL. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw this over at Pmanderson's talk page:

"Btw, good job at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Anglocentric. The page needed someone who knew the consensus on and concerning that page to say what the consensus was, without getting into a fistfight over it. It's really hard to deal with folks who are relatively new who engage in trying to change the rules for everyone else without asking around first. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"

I can only assume you were referring to me. Seeing as 1) Cameron is hardly new and it was his suggestion, and 2) I was absolutely and unequivocally seeking consensus before any changes were made--aka "asking around first"--I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack! No, you're right, that's the logical conclusion to draw, but you didn't see the email part of the conversation. I had been talking with Sept/Pmanderson about how he and I both wanted to most productively spend our time, and I was trying to mediate a conflict with someone else (which failed completely, btw). The first comment, that "The page needed someone who knew the consensus on and concerning that page to say what the consensus was, without getting into a fistfight over it", was about that page; I believe Sept was expressing the consensus (although I could be wrong), and I was praising him for remaining calm and sticking up for what he believed to be consensus. He and I have been talking about this. The second sentence wasn't about that page, it was part of the general problem that we had been discussing on style guidelines pages; see my essay (the link at the top of this page). It's the problem of what to do about the inevitable conflict on style guidelines pages, given that almost everyone's usual approach is to start from the position of "this looks right to me", which makes it hard to get consensus. What's the best use of time of people who are familiar with style guidelines pages? That's the only question I'm trying to answer; I don't and didn't have any position on how you're going about it. In fact, we need all the debate on style guidelines pages we can get; please feel free to participate on any or all of those pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. I nominated Everglades for GA. It's a very large article and I find myself exhausted thinking about it. It has an ongoing peer review here. Though I have to be honest. I've had to stop reading the comments because they bother me. However, I don't know how to say that to the editor who is giving the peer review. I don't know how to look the gift horse that keeps biting me, in the mouth. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of people can crank out 5 FAs solo in their spare time like you can, Moni, and I understand you've got a wedding to plan too :) Maybe you're just exhausted, and I don't blame you. Isn't peer review there to help you instead of depress you? Why not pull it from peer review, and focus on GA if you have the time, or pull it if you don't? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a huge amount of discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. I was recently pointed, by User:Doncram, to some previous discussions at WT:CITE, and I thought you made some good points there, so I thought you would want to know about this latest discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, forgive me for lurking. I saw you say something about making a ubx to make copyediting sexy. There are some relevant awards here: Commons:Ling.Nut. I don't have time to do a lot but I've made a few ubxes too... have we run into each other before? if not, glad to meet you. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first and third images are great, and I love the "resist hivethink" image, I'll steal that for my userpage :) Sure, we've cross-posted on G-Guy's userpage, the Great Green Dot debate, etc. I like your stuff. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh the GD (Green Dot). One of two recent things I'm trying to forget. :/ If I recall correctly, {{User WP3K}} has some conditionals that might be useful. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh PS thanks for the kind words :-P Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

{{UserCE}}. See the template's talk page for examples, syntax. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I have never played online diplomacy.

WRT FAC, I feel like there has been a sudden change in power and I am now in the minority party. I can not get a smile at FAC these days. I am on a streak of rejected FAs after a series of successful ones. You can see what I am talking about at User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews#Featured. Many of the reasons for rejection are not about policy. At Rush Street (Chicago) the problem was too many pictures. Here people are pointing to too many links and refs, but the link density is about the same as that at WP:OVERLINK#Link_density. There are people telling me to delink full dates, which I believe is against policy. There are very few other substantive other issues with the article, IMO. I always welcome help. The next push will come from WP:CHIFTD although I want to renominate Jack Kemp and Walter O'Malley. With respect to the linking, when I list my reasons for linking words, people do not contest them for the most part. I am going to take another look at the links, but would surely welcome some help/advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. reply at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you still editing. I have not seen any edits in the last half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I get passive sometimes. Help is appreciated. I do not know architecture well enough to respond to your query, but everything is well sourced if you have the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do. I hear "being constructed by X" all the time, but I don't recall hearing "X is constructing..."; any ideas on how to get that into active voice? Have you heard "X is constructing"? It's not in any of my style guides. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

X is building. I am going to be offline for about a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to make the first sentence in the second paragraph active? Do you have an opinion of the diagram image. Should I revert to the small letters that look more professional? I would bet that if this article were to make the main page, Apprentice would be relinked. I had it linked under WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are a captive audience, I will ask you to comment on the images on the talk page in the second to last section. I need an opinion on their prospective inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Half of the above copied to Antonio's page to keep everything in one place. Feel free to post on your talkpage, Antonio, I'm watchlisting.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Call me TonyTheTiger, TTT, T^3, T3, TripleT, ElTigre or anything similar. If you are a cute girl editing under male name you can call me Tiger, but there may be some confusion on this last one so probably even then one of the others is better. If worse comes to worse, I have been known to respond to Tony for the last 43 years.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom

The overseer of FACs has reformated the discussion. You may want to add your name as co-nominator at the top if you still would like to be involved. Her edit summary suggests this may go to a second restart soon. I left her (I assume Sandy is a her) a note on her talk page explaining my understanding of the progress. As a more neutral observer you may also want to comment there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K. There is nothing verifying the park as a proper name. Feel free to change as you feel is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a fair jury of content for the two sections (bar and spa) on my talk page. How do you propose that we present the debate? I would even allow the Trump kids section to be presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I got your response. Unfortunately, I have not seen a half dozen articles on laundry rooms for the Trump Tower. With the unfolding of events its seems the Gods don't want to try my fair jury before rendering a decision. If you are interested in discussing the content with the parties I mentioned feel free to continue the dialogue. A co-nom still is on the table. We can discuss exactly what is to be put to them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan, thanks so much for looking at this, as usual your work was outstanding. Best. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Shall we round up the usual suspects (Yanismarou for instance) and take it to FAC? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you are interested in collaborating towards FAC co-noms? Well, I'll be building up She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways in the next week or two. Its roughly half written (I gave up about 6 months ago), and I expect it will take two-three weeks to finish. The thing is, because its a lit article, and on a poem no less, the prose will have to be just so. Given that; who better to have on board than your good self! Don't worry too much if you are caught up with other things, I just though there was no harm in asking. Ceoil 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55. The top of Wikipedia:Build the web/MOSLINK merge is tagged with proposal, but the page itself previously was tagged at the bottom with Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. If you have some time, please resolve whether it is a proposal or an actual Wikipedia style guideline. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it; it's a little of both. On the one hand, the page has had a lot of work but isn't done yet, so that makes it a proposal. On the other hand, it's an attempt to merge 3 different pages that are guidelines, so it's highly likely it will become an actual guideline and not just a proposal, because if it doesn't reflect the material it's merging, we'll change it. However, my feeling is that it's really more of an editing guideline than a style guideline. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) also has a similar conflict. Please review if you have the time. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, it will be later today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:General style guidelines has been nominated for deletion to allow for additional categorization. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. Bebestbe (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I listed some MoS issues at Some MoS issues. Your category tag was removed, so perhaps we can figure out what to do with that page. However, it may be more difficult given USRD members advised. Bebestbe (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Before the month is out we will begin proposing WP:CHIFTD. You could co-nom Crown Fountain and then eventually Millennium Park, and BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan, Sorry I have been out all day. Today the Association of Volleyball Professionals was in Chicago at one of my favorite beaches. I spent the day at the beach. First off let me tell you. I think current slate of FAC powers that be will be pretty tough on anything associated with me. Getting mixed up with any of my articles may be an invitation for failure. However, I think we have a fair slate of people to trust. We have a support, an oppose and an abstain for people who care about Chicago articles. You could not ask for a fairer set of eyes. Basically, I would like to send them something along the lines of the following.

Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago) recently failed at WP:FAC. Since you have significant past service at WP:CHICAGO and participated in the debate, I am requesting your opinion. The substantive issues of debate seemed to focus on the following issues:

Should the article contain a section on the spa. My argument has been that the current plans call for it to be a business consuming two floors of the hotel and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it. Some say the spa is a trivial part of the business and its inclusion represents a form of advertising. I argue that describing a business operation is not per se advertising, but the perception on WP is that it is, which is why a project like WP:APARKS has no WP:GA or WP:FA articles. With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
Should the article contain a section on the bar. Although the case is not as strong for the inclusion of the bar, my argument has been that the easily found WP:RS have described it and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it. I concede the sources are less important sources than for the spa and most of the rest of the article. With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
There are three well-sourced (3 New York Times and 2 Chicago Tribune refs) sentences describing the role of Trump's Children. Should they be in the article? Should these sentences 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
There was debate over the need to have links to both List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in the United States in the article and further debate on whether to have these same links in the See also section. Please state your opinion on both issues.
There seems to be an issue on whether the second setback lines up with Marina City. Do you know of any WP:RS on the issue? If not do you think this should be mentioned in the text?
There are numerous words that I have linked that remain contentious with my rationales.

- see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - geography: London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India, United States
- see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - relevant connections to other articles to help reader understand this article:
  - Many readers will be looking for information on the restaurant and they should understand the terms: cocktails, sushi (I have mentioned before that I did not know what the term meant when I was in high school), cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers,
  - I want readers to understand the features of the building: VIP room, pool, saunas, health club, spa, antennas, parking garage, hotel, swizzle sticks
- see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information: gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, billboard, standing room only
- see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - technical terms: wine racks, wine rooms, architect (I link professions when relevant as technical terms. This particular link has been hotly contested yet I don't believe most people actually know exactly what an architect does), hedge fund, floors (links to storey), business district, interior design, divers (although this goes to disambig page it is difficult for me to say whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving)
- see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker: course, union

Please list all of the words above (and any others you may see in the article) that you feel should be delinked.

Also, please state whether you think full dates should be linked in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, it's where you draw the boundary, and the general trend in WP is to draw it higher nowadays than we did a few years ago. It's to do with a realisation that disciplined linking (by that I guess I mean strategically rationed linking) is very good for the high-value links. I ask you to think more about the psychology of reading a long, involved WP article—perhaps by an eight-year-old grade student, a first-year undergraduate, and a generalist adult. Clearly, it would take a week to get through an article if they followed every single link, so they must apply their own rationing system, yes? I put it to you that we should do more of that rationing in the first place, as a service to readers. Above all, the "sea of blue" has other disadvantages beyond dilution: it looks messy and makes the text a little harder to read.

I can only express what are well-established arguments for disciplined linking. I'm keen to convince you of the merit of not linking "wine rack". TONY (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are the other FACs delinking full dates. I have not looked at WP:FAL on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to add some explanatory verbiage to the date delinking query above?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, of course, you can respond! Casliber treats mainly prose issues, and you are much more qualified than me on this issue. I'll try to check the sources at the same time.

Thank you in advance for all your help!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My hope was that instead of you and I first hashing out line by line specifics that we get general feedback from people who we can trust to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. Why don't we agree on the above survey; wait for feedback; and then pending responses go at things line-by-line. I first want to get a feel from a fair jury whether I am being yanked around at FAC. Can you comment on the above survey?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any comments/critiques of the survey. I think I have incorporated most of the general issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one will explain to me the policy on linking dates without double speak. Maybe I should follow User:Tony1's advice and delink dates on every WP:TFA until I can get a clear understanding of what should be linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TTT, if I'm copyediting your articles, it takes up more time than I have to spend to deal with POINTy things. Why care about this issue? Check with me before you submit an article to FAC, and I'll tell you whether it will help or hurt your chances to delink the dates. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try one more time to understand why I am not suppose to link dates, although it seems all other articles do? What do user preferences have to do with the propriety of linking dates? Also, why would you direct me to WP:POINT and then not explain the policy. You shouldn't tell me discussion is the preferable way to resolve issues and then tell me don't discuss its use, just do what I say.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Directing people to WP:POINT is the most helpful response when they threaten to make disruptive edits to articles on the main page. I have already explained that the date-autoformatting guideline is evolving, people are actively pushing in both directions, and that's why I can't tell you what the guideline is; the best answer is to wait until your next article comes up at FAC, and I'll let you know the state of the argument at that time. On another point, you asked for my advice on the survey, and then did the opposite of what I advised, demanding an answer to all the questions. Bottom line: I'm finished working on Trump Tower Chicago. If you like, you can let me know when you're ready to submit it or any other article to FAC again, and I'll be happy to look at it then. Per conversations at WT:FAC, I'm now charging an in-wiki "price" of some kind for copyediting, and I'm trying to figure out what the right price is; probably something like asking the writers to write a paragraph telling me if they think I got anything wrong in my copyediting, telling me what they learned, and showing me they're learning by demonstrating that their FAC articles are improving over time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to TTT on his talk page. TONY (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now confused. Delinking dates is disruptive. I thought you were saying it is part of an evolving policy. I will be talking with Tony1 until I understand or he runs out of patience. I don't think I did the opposite of what you suggested. You just said a survey was not exactly how you would go about it. So far only one of the three has responded. The other two are slower respondents and it may takes days or weeks to hear back from them. Chupper in particular takes a while to respond.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, we don't seem to be connecting, you've either misunderstood or not responded to most of what I've said. Lots of people don't understand what I say, so I don't think that reflects badly on you. Give it your best shot, get your articles as ready for FAC as you can, and let me know just before you bring them to FAC, and I'll give you my honest opinion on how FAC is going to go, and then you can do what you want with the information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion at User_talk:Tony1#Linking_dates]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. I have a problem with the way Dank55 "played" Tony the Tiger over Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), making the co-nom essentially contingent on Dank55 working on another FAC attempt. To read all the posts is an uncomfortable foray into emotional manipulation. Tony, who obviously has a deep investment in his article, grew desperate enough to finally agree to the co-nom. I will not copy edit as a quid pro quo for a co-nom. I have no interest in that sort of business deal. If it becomes that, I will opt out. It is against what I consider the "spirit" of Wikipedia which is that we all pitch in without the expectation of concrete reward. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This and some of the comments at WT:FAC are indicative of how and why the writer-copyeditor relationships that all professional writers are used to are in short supply on Wikipedia. Accusations that style guidelines and copyeditors are "evil" in one way or another are not hard to find, and there may be some connection between this and the fact that most of the articles arriving at FAC haven't been sufficiently copyedited to pass. We're continuing to pursue solutions to this problem at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I see Mattisse posted the same paragraph at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree. It's above my pay-grade to figure out at what point this becomes harrassment...seriously, it's not my job to figure this out and I don't know. I'm just keeping the information together in one place in case it becomes relevant at WP:ANI. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You have copied this out of context from another page. You are misrepresenting the content. I have nothing bad to say about copy editors, being one myself, only those who extract a quid pro quo from the article editors they copy edit for. I agree with Malleus, whose comments you have not copied here. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping everything in one place, I just noticed "blackmail" in Mattisse's edit summary. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It upsets me to see Dan's motives construed in this way: I know him too well to suspect that he's engaging in some kind of bargaining tactic. I have to support him against these accusations, even though I respect the people making them. Please can we move on and be generous in giving everyone a bit of slack on the rope? TONY (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, this is much appreciated. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I must intervene as well. Dan's idea, as far as I can see, is about motivation, not barnstar competitions. I can fully understand how many editors who mostly do gnome work must feel, acknowledging the usefulness of such work that usually passes uncredited. Although I have no opinion on the nominations matter (as I am quite inexperienced in this area), I do find the userbox resulting from the WT:FAC discussion a splendid idea, and one which will contribute to the correction of a great injustice. Yes, an article is nothing without facts and sources. Fine presentation and good writing, however, are crucial for the success of an article; without them, the ideas lack clarity and coherency, and cannot reach the reader properly. I fully understand, therefore, why Dan would want to bring this up at said talk page, and I shall support him in his continued effort to improve the relations between writers and copy-editors. It is this lack of co-operation that often makes things so awkward, and I do not consider remarks such as those made here today constructive in any way. I have three words to say: "Assume good faith". A lot of wisdom hides therein. Waltham, The Duke of 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eloquent as always, Your Grace, and much appreciated. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan—I just recorded a sequence of keystrokes and mouse-clicks that find the next [[1 or [[2, then delete the square brackets that start the year, then arrow forward four times, then delete the closing brackets, then opt-left arrow, etc. It works in a flash; if you know how to record a macro—surprisingly easy—I can send you the sequence of commands. But u gotta have one for years starting with 1, one for 2, for US, for British, (US without comma as well), then one for month-day/day-month. I have to paste the whole text of an article into Word, then paste back again when processed. Quite a business, hey!

Very willing to send the instructions to you, or we can wait and see whether this monobook thing Lightmouse talks about can do the same thing. TONY (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I can follow that. I have various macro programs. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see it till today -- haven't been following my watchlist much, I only notice when I have new messages -- but I've now replied to your questions about the Marcus article. Thanks! Lawikitejana (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I'll be happy to give it another copyedit before it hits FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Torsodog and myself will be co-nominating Cloud Gate in the next few days if you don't see major problems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If I can get a co-nominator (either you or Torsodog) for BP Pedestrian Bridge, I would also like to nominate it promptly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the offer, but there was such a strong reaction at WT:FAC to the idea of my copyediting and co-nominating the same article that I better just copyedit. I'll give it a run-through after Cloud Gate. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WRT Cloud Gate, I have beefed up the WP:LEAD and blocked one of the two problematic IPs. I gave the other the WP:3RR warning. You mentioned you needed more in the lead to get an understanding of what is important about the sculpture. You may want to view the brief video at citation 22 regarding cleaning the bean. You will get a better understanding of the sculpture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan—I want it, probably seven days. Can you point me to someone's talk that already has one? TONY (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy the top two lines from User talk:Werdna, that should do it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.

All the best, Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you to look at the above, or to post it where someone with compatible skills to your own can have a look. Once again an excellent article well research but the language and prose leave a bit to be desired. Yannismarou has done an brilliant review, some of which I think upon first reading the editors have not acted upon. The editors do not know it is you I have "talked" to so will have no expectations. With Thanks - and I will not make a habit of it I hope. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question and a request for you. Another editor nominated the article M-28 (Michigan highway) for FAC without consulting me. I've been in the middle of moving and setting up my first solo apartment here. I still don't have Internet access at my apartment, but my daily trips to the bookstore down the street are working out nicely for now. The article needed a copy edit before nomination since my writing style seems a little bit incompatible with FAC criteria. User:WackyMacs started some minor editing. I was wondering if you'd be interested in editing the article or could nominate a good editor in your place? Whn my laptop is not online, my phone can access AIM, e-mail and the web. (Although I hesitate to do much editing by phone... the junction table on the M-22 article took forever on the phone.) Any assistance is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked one IP and semi-protected the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the direct pointer (re roman republic), enjoy your break. Take Care Edmund Patrick – confer 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank! I saw Tony has made a series of remarks regarding the article's prose in FAC. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Thanks and cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you get a chance you may want to vote for our WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM candidates at User:TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/voting/200808#Voting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions, copy-editing, support, and comments - Roman–Persian Wars made featured article today! --Yannismarou (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You have archived your talk page. Are you going to be copyediting Cloud Gate and BP Pedestrian Bridge or should we go ahead and nominate them without you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead without me, Tony, I'm having some weird bug where I can't log in on my usual connection. Also, I'm not going to have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to. I'm sorry. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Everglades Barnstar
		"It's curious that the ignorance about the Everglades has persisted all these years"—Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 1987. Thank you, Dank55, for helping in our small wiki-corner, to right that wrong. Your constant support through copy edits, intelligent questions, and general cheerleading were invaluable. I know this limited-edition barnstar is not as much love as a copy editor as thorough and conscientious as you deserves, and I wish I could do more. I would love to work with you again in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What a beautiful barnstar, and thanks for being a great collaborator. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine wasn't limited edition! *sad* --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No whining. Prudence calls for me to wait until certain processes are completed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan, in my sandbox here are two versions of the history section. One cut by 10% and one cut by 50%. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you, again. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How curious. There was agreement to reduce the present long text to a summary; I proposed one; Tony proposed changes; I did another draft, adopting some of them, and he did not comment.

I put it in; he reverted, and has raised objections which assume the reader does not know the meaning of quantity and which apply equally well to his version. If you can see good faith in this, please comment; since he is actually being polite, I would really like to believe it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you close your editor review? I didn't see it on the current list, but it's not in the archive, either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your assistance with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). I see you already contribute to Solar energy, so I hope this mission will interest you. Please sign up on the mission page and watchlist the mission page and articles if it does. Thanks, Geometry guy 15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan, Thanks for your help with the page. Sorry if I came off like a jerk. I've had to repeat some basic arguments dozens of times and I've probably rewritten the intro just as many times. I've put a lot of work into the page but there's a steady sort of deterioration to keep up with. I've gotten tired of the upkeep and I feel like a break myself. Mrshaba (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom

Co-nom

Welcome to WikiProject North Carolina

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

Re: Regarding your "fix redirect" edit at WP:MOS-FR

Revamp of the assessment scheme

Wikipedia:Record charts

Roman Catholic Church

Thanks for opining

Just to say hai

Thanks, but ...

My RfA

WP:MoS

Logical quotation

Allegorical

Re: I'm not sure what you mean by standard threading

My toolbox

RfA thanks!

Complete rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox)

my RfA - Ta!

Re: How to copy-edit

Thanks...

cf page

User:Ilkali

Researcher's as RS for "reviews"

Moved from Krivit's talk page and his reply on my userpage

Lowercase

Period

The FA-Team

automatic archiving?

Noble gas

Sex in space

Cold fusion

archiving

vision

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Poke&nbsp;:)

message from Sandy

FA-Team Mission 4

Da Vinci Surgical System

Notes and references sections

WP:MOS

WP:RSUE

Rewrite of assessment descriptions

FA-Team Mission 4 success!

Proposals

Review of First-move advantage in chess

Barnstar

Request

Thank you

Administrative Divisions

the auto-lemon

RfA thanks

Words to avoid

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices.

Third FA for the Everglades project!

FA-Team Proposals

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

FA-Team successes!

Abbot Richard

Editor Review

Uriel Sebree

Hey!

Naming conventions

Everglades review

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

adding sex appeal to copyediting

here's your template

Issues

Roman–Persian Wars at FAC

Wikipedia:Build the web/MOSLINK merge

Category:General style guidelines

Other co-noms

Trump survey and reworking

Delinking dates

Thank you!

Specifics

Linking dates

Accusation moved from my copyediting page

it's a macro

Poke :)