User talk:Dank55/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] summary updates

Ah, you were offering to help, I see now ... I didn't presume that. Let me see how it goes preparing Sandy's requested three-month list (Jan–Mar). If you're willing, I'd be most grateful if you were able to—say—identify styleguides you think are important enough to include. At the moment, my list is:

MOS main; MOSNUM; Layout; UE; NFC; FA Criteria (and instructions); FAR/C instructions.

I'm hoping that most will present nothing or little to note in the summary. Your feelings? TONY (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it; I responded at WT:MOS#Monthly update of substantive styleguide and policy changes. It would be nice if all the people currently active in WT:MoS could agree on which guidelines we're most interested in; it would be great if we could get some kind of Wikipedia-wide consensus on the subject, too; I'm thinking notices at WP:COUNCIL#Current notices and WP:VPM would be necessary and sufficient, but we could do more. But even if none of that happens, I understand you and Sandy need to be kept up to date on changes on at least a few pages, and I'm happy to do it; I already keep up with MOS main, MOSNUM, Layout, UE, and quite a few other style pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for this; as someone told me lately, my talk page is like Village Pump Central, and I don't need more content there that is already being discussed elsewhere (same for the post just ahead of yours ... ) Sigh, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar!

I hardly think anything is permanent, though. And I don't really intend to "diligently" pursue this if the community decides to keep it. It's only the (possibly temporary) removal of two words, that i only commented 2 or 3 times on, not a major policy change, but thanks anyway. Ameriquedialectics 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right that nothing is permanent around here, we'll see. The "diligent" wasn't just for your contribution to the language change, it was because you've been making similar comments in a similarly gentle but effective way for a long time, the best I can tell from your userpage. Also ... we're not done yet. This does seem like a significant change to the "tilt" of a core content policy page, and that doesn't happen often, but I think most of the point isn't the change itself, but that it enables wider discussion about when and which cites are needed. When we're done with changing the language, I'll suggest a survey. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this enables further discussion on that page to focus on sourcing matters, rather than rehash the "not truth" debate, that would be a definite improvement. Thanks again for the barnstar. I do appreciate it. It was just just kind of humorous from my perspective, you see, I must have put thousands of edits into getting University of California, Riverside to FA, and nary a barnstar, and then make a total of 6 edits to a policy talk page and get one. Relativism in action. Ameriquedialectics 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Think of it as a lifetime achievement award :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robotics

Hi Dan, sorry that no-one answered your query in the aircraft project, perhaps they did not know what to say. I would disagree that airliners or indeed most aircraft are robots, from quickly reading the robot and robotics articles the definition seems to require artificial intelligence. Modern aircraft are highly mechanised, computerised and complicated but almost always controlled by a human being either onboard or on the ground. Perhaps the nearest thing to a robot in the aircraft world is a cruise missile which guides itself to a target once fired. Robot or robotics are not terms used in the field of aviation (at least not in my experience). Hope that helps. Nimbus (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for thinking about it and reading the articles. You guys do a fine job with your WikiProject. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wunderground.com

My blog is WeatherBoyKris. I don't update very often this time of year, mostly during the hurricane season. What is your's, if you have one? TheNobleSith (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a blog there, but I keep up with Jeff Masters during hurricane season, and use wunderground to check on local personal weather stations. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] feet vs. meter! (Talk:Geyser)

so what do you want! shall we use reversal of units. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your justification! would you anyway suggest something. :) Sushant gupta (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
okay! Sushant gupta (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA...

Thank you...
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerenetalk 17:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)