User talk:Dank55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll reply to your message here; if I post at your talkpage, I'll watch for a reply there.
Admin stuff Article reviews Coaching Conversations Essays News Scratchpad Transclusions

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - German archive

Contents


[edit] RE: GA Survey

Question, it's sort of confusing on the survey note you left on Battle of Verrieres Ridge, so I'm just gonna ask: Where exactly are we supposed to reply to the survey? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone so far has been posting answers in the blank spaces in the survey, it will probably be easier to keep track of them there. Thanks for responding. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite get the questions.
"Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?"
There's been no feedback yet, so it's hard to know how what to specify in the way of additional feedback.
"Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?"
I am a participant in a pile of WikiProjects, but they don't have writing styles, so I don't get what to say about this one, either. Please advise. Lawikitejana (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (re: survey on the article Stanley Marcus)
There are guidelines that apply just to specific areas or wikiprojects, for instance, WP:Scientific citation guidelines. And people tend to write like their friends, and for their friends. This question is for the education of the people who work on style guidelines, so that we can find out if there are writing trends we didn't know about, either inside or outside Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS archiving

14 days better? It's far too long. TONY (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this days after last activity in a section? If so, His Grace and I think 10. TONY (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Same or whatever you think for MOSNUM, puhleasse! TONY (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are right, and I would also prefer 10. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Third of May 1808

Hullo. I think the c/e is largely done on this page; would appreciate if you could revisit and indicate one way or the other. We are not all that senisitve, so it doesn't really matter what you say, we'll still be here when the sun rises again. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be brutal. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, replied

I think I even went into BOLD CAPS range there for emphasis ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general thrust, as always, but I'm a bit confused on what you're saying, I replied there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Way cool. In other news, you have a pretty cool username. In Dutch and German, it means "thanks" or "gratitude". wiktionary:dank. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (unfortunately, the english is less fun, but you can't have 'em all :-P ).
I helped staff the #wikia-de channel until they didn't need me, Gott sei dank. ("I be god"). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] Black Mo thanks


Thanks for your comments and support - Black Moshannon State Park made featured article!
Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pennsylvania State Parks Groundhog Award, with Featured Article Star
This award is given with respect and admiration to Dank55 for assistance in helping Black Moshannon State Park become a Featured Article from Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] MOSNUM#Follow current literature

I’ve got an idea. Why not have a new show of hands on the proposal. If passed, this would declare that 1) Follow current literature as it now appears on MOSNUM is, for the moment, officially part of MOSNUM, and 2) that a green-div version of it shall be copied to Talk:MOSNUM and that all differences be hammered out there. This way, all differences must be worked out on Talk:MOSNUM before any changes are made to MOSNUM. If you like this, please run it by the others. Greg L (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered in the last section. I believe more work should be done at this point before another poll, there's significant opposition now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

[edit] WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject North Carolina

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

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

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)

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

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)

[edit] Revamp of the assessment scheme

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Record charts

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

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)

[edit] Thanks for opining

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)

[edit] Just to say hai

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)

[edit] Thanks, but ...

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)

[edit] My RfA

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)

[edit] WP:MoS

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)

[edit] Logical quotation

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)

[edit] Allegorical

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

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

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)

[edit] My toolbox

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)

[edit] RfA thanks!

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)

[edit] Complete rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox)

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)

[edit] my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re: How to copy-edit

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)

[edit] Thanks...

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)

[edit] cf page

"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)

[edit] User:Ilkali

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)

[edit] Researcher's as RS for "reviews"

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)

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

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)

[edit] Lowercase

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.

[edit] Period

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)

[edit] The FA-Team

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)

[edit] automatic archiving?

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)

[edit] Noble gas

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)

[edit] Sex in space

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. --Kizor 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:WikiThanks.png --Kizor 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion

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)

[edit] archiving

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

[edit] vision

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

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

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

[edit] Poke :)

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