This is anarchive of past discussions withUser: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 thecurrent talk page.

Hi Dank, I know that you're taking a break from FAC, but would appreciate it if you could consider posting a review of this article (which you recently reviewed at ACR) in the FAC atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 38 Squadron RAAF/archive1. It's been open for a couple of weeks now and hasn't attracted many comments. Please post a critical review if you don't think that the article is up to scratch! Regards,Nick-D (talk)04:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Prose standards at FAC, particularly for articles not in American or Canadian English, seem to be evolving, and I'd rather not join in the debates, sorry. I'd rather spend my time writing copyediting software, to help share what we've learned so far. - Dank (push to talk)14:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank,

You were kind enough to help reviewStanley Bruce's FA nomination last month. It's been through a fair few sweeps and revisions now, and all the issues seem to have been resolved, so I was hoping you'd be willing to give the nomination your support if you see fit now. Thanks!Unus Multorum (talk)07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Unus, welcome to FAC, and see above. - Dank (push to talk)13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please consider commenting atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes, where your name was mentioned in the discussion. --Jreferee (talk)02:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk)02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the time you spent on the last RFA related RFC I just wanted to let you know aboutWikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor userright.Kumioko (talk)19:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kumioko. I don't know enough about the various uses of templates to know what I think of that one. - Dank (push to talk)23:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings fromWikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annualproject coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on theelection page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September!Kirill ^[talk]17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be comfortable with military art. I could have used your commentary atWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Torpedo...Los!. Was the perception that that painting is more notable for its relationship toWP:CHICAGO thanWP:MILHIST and thus people were not interested?--TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Most of my wiki-time these days is spent developing copyediting software. - Dank (push to talk)17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dank,

The most useful thing you did for the ACR was run that link-checker and other bots. Could you please do that again? They sure beat the heck out of the old Mark 1 eyeball.

And thank you for showing up again, especially given the fact you are on an assessment-free break just now.

Georgejdorner (talk)21:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi George, actually it wasAnotherclown who ran those checks... The dab link, external link, and alt text checkers are part of the toolbox you'll see on the right-hand side of the Peer Review nomination page (it will also appear on a FAC nomination page).This is a dup link checker, which you install as a script and the trigger shows up as "Highlight duplicate links" under "Toolbox" to the left of any article page you read while logged in. Earwig I have to admit I don't use so perhaps Dan or Anotherclown can point you to that. Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, the articleMcDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review atWikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'll take a look. - Dank (push to talk)05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: the article is atFAC right now -- your input is welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'm on a break from copyediting, and that's had a lot of edits since the A-class review. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk)12:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan, let's not go too far. You've been far more of a role model than any small things I've done for you. Thank you for the kind words.Ed ^{[talk][majestic titan]}05:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's kind Ed, thanks, but I'm not sure why you think you aren't a role model, for me and a lot of people here (per[1], "a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others"). Like a lot of Wikipedians, I consciously and subconsciously adopt the style and methods of communication that seem to work best ... and you're one of the best-known communicators on Wikipedia (surely you know that), and I've been privileged to work with you for many years. - Dank (push to talk)13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, Has anyone pointed this book out to you? - the first half of the title may be a tribute ;)[2]. I saw it being flogged off in a cheap bookshop yesterday.Nick-D (talk)08:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(I'm not suggesting that this is your kind of thing at all BTW - it isn't mine).Nick-D (talk)11:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to hear that, Nick, for a second I was wondering what sort of bookshops you frequent -- there's all sorts in Canberra (so I've heard, I mean)... ;-) Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)11:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah ... for stalkers who don't know, "dank" is one of the many synonyms for marijuana. The fact that "dank" had so many resonances was part of the appeal of the name, actually, but I'm Dan K. when I choose to inhabit real life :) Congratulations on your strong showing in the coord elections, both of you, btw. - Dank (push to talk)12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Hmm, can't help noticing the top five positions in the tally are occupied by Australians -- it's like Hollywood... ;-) Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)22:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that ... I'm just glad you guys choose to use your powers for good (so far as I know). - Dank (push to talk)00:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards,AustralianRupert (talk)06:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And gratz on your reelection as lead coord. We've got a fine team this year. - Dank (push to talk)16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I've nominated theOperation Tungsten article which you posted an A-class review of for a FAC. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could post a review atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1. I appreciate that you're minimising your participation in FAC at the moment, so no worries at all if you don't have time. Thanks,Nick-D (talk)11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether Milhist articles seem to have a hard time passing FAC during my break from FAC. It's too early to tell; I'll give it another look in a couple of weeks. - Dank (push to talk)15:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they're having a hard time, and I'm back on the job. I checked the changes and added my support. - Dank (push to talk)14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Your further contributions to the Peer Review of Voss would be most welcome. Your prior links to the link-checking tools, etc. were also highly appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk)19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

		TheWikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 72 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks,Peacemaker67 (send... over)05:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great to see you on the team, Peacemaker :) - Dank (push to talk)12:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've wandered in milhist again. I've started working upMelbourne Castle with a view to eventual FAC. I think I'm OK on the history (not all added yet) and the archaeology, but the internal structure of the castle is unknown. Do you think it's appropriate to mention thelikely layout of a 14th century castle? If so, where should I be looking? Thanks for any help you can giveJimfbleak - talk to me?07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Jim, have you discussed withHchc2009 orEaldgyth? As an aside, you may want to put the article through MilHist A-Class Review before FAC... Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)07:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Double-stalking here... :) I'd suggest that you'd be on safe ground if you had a source talking about the likely layout and who mentioned Melbourne; I think you'd be into OR, probably, if you talked about the general layout of a 14th century castle, and then linked it to Melbourne. Looking through theUrban Survey report, the evidence looks thin for predicting the layout (p. 25 in particular). You could safely probably use Nigel Pounds (1994) "The Medieval Castle in England and Wales" to explain the importance of the bakehouse, chapel etc. (which are mentioned in the sources), which would give you a bit more context. The best single source of information on early 14th century castles more generally I can think of would be John Goodall's "The English Castle" (2011), who does this period very well. I haven't finished it off yet, but I've a draft article atUser:Hchc2009/Sandbox4 on Edwardian castles. If you want a GA reviewer for the article at any point, let me know! :)Hchc2009 (talk)14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

NB: Total OR, but the pictures of Melbourne with all the chimneys remind me of those atFramlingham Castle - where many of them were fake, and just decided to look fashionable! :)Hchc2009 (talk)14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hchc. Jim, I'll be happy to help when it goes up for A-class review and at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all, that's very helpfulJimfbleak - talk to me?17:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages atUser talk:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive3.
Message added 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have responded to some of the points you raised.Darkness Shines (talk)14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw, thanks. - Dank (push to talk)14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors ofJapanese battleship Haruna know that the article will be appearing astoday's featured article on November 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please askBencherlite (talk ·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb atWikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions atWikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Haruna was a warship of theImperial Japanese Navy duringWorld War I andWorld War II. Designed by the British naval engineerGeorge Thurston, she was abattlecruiser of theKongō class, among the most heavily armed ships in any navy when built. Named afterMount Haruna, she waslaid down in 1912 andcommissioned in 1915. Beginning in 1926, she was rebuilt as abattleship, strengthening her armor and improving her speed and power. In 1933, her superstructure was completely rebuilt, her speed was increased, and she was equipped withlaunch catapults forfloatplanes. Now fast enough to accompany Japan's growing carrier fleet,Haruna was reclassified as afast battleship. During theSecond Sino-Japanese War,Haruna transportedJapanese troops to mainland China. On the eve of the Japanese attack onPearl Harbor, she sailed as part of the Southern Force in preparation for theBattle of Singapore.Haruna fought in almost every major naval action of thePacific Theater, including theBattle of Midway, theGuadalcanal Campaign, theBattle of the Philippine Sea and theBattle of Leyte Gulf. In 1945,Haruna was transferred to Kure Naval Base, where she was sunk by aircraft ofTask Force 38. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk)23:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I've been going throughAV-8B Harrier II, which Phil is going to nominate for its second FAC in a few days. Atits previous FAC, concerns were raised that a sentence mentioning "close and deep air support missions" was unclear. This sentence (in the first paragraph ofthe Operational history section) has been modified for clarity, and in addition some text in parentheses has been added to explain what close air support and deep air support are.

However, the resulting sentence seems rather ungainly to me, and I wondered what you thought. Is this sentence now OK as it stands; or, does it need to be reworked in some way; or, would it be sufficient to wikilinkclose air support and then remove the section in parentheses? (There is no Wikipedia articledeep air support, which the close air support article seems to regard as being "battlefield air interdiction").

Many thanks for any help you can provide. --Demiurge1000 (talk)18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think a link suffices for "close air support" (because most readers will assume that the support is intended to be "close" to friendly forces ... what else could it mean?), but not for "deep air support". The standard to be met is atWP:Checklist#clarity: if readers won't have a clue what it means, then something needs to be in the text to at least give them a clue. - Dank (push to talk)18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've shortened the sentence as follows:

The first phase of OPEVAL, running until 1 February 1985, required the AV-8B to fly both deep andclose air support missions (deep air support missions do not require coordination with friendly ground forces) in concert with other close air support aircraft, as well as flyingbattlefield interdiction and armed reconnaissance missions.

Does this seem to flow well or is it still a bit messy? --Demiurge1000 (talk)16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How does deep air support missions differ from battlefield air interdiction? As a former artilleryman, I've never heard of deep air support and would strongly question your source's use of the term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and a very good point. I too was wondering whether "deep air support" was in fact the same thing as "battlefield air interdiction", at least as far as Wikipedia's articles on the topic are concerned (close air support andair interdiction), and probably in the real military too.

I will ask the two main authors of the article what they think of this. Does the source say "deep air support"? Can the source reasonably be understood to mean "battlefield air interdiction"? --Demiurge1000 (talk)19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do. As far as I remember, BAI starts past the 30-km limit of the Fire Support Coordination Line; everything closer than that requires coordination with the ground forces and is thus CAS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the "deep air support" is really BAI. I'll have to check my Nordeen book (source for this article text) tonight to see what it actually states. -Fnlayson (talk)21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nordeen's book lists CAS and deep air support in phase 1 testing; BAI and others listed for phase 2 as stated in the article text. It implies DAS and BAI are different. I'm not sure what DAS actually covers. -Fnlayson (talk)17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since nobody knows just what Nordeen means, I'd just ignore it as it's not a doctrinal term. It's not a particularly important factoid anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)18:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)