User talk:Retrolord - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kudpung (talk | contribs) at 11:29, 21 June 2013 (→RfA: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:29, 21 June 2013 by Kudpung (talk | contribs) (→RfA: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talkback

Hello, Retrolord. You have new messages at User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed.
Message added 01:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I apologize for not noticing it in advance, but the offending material has been removed because I actually saw no value in keeping it. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Injection molding good article review

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review Injection molding for me.

Per your requests, I've made several changes to the article. I believe I've suitably addressed each of the issues you raised. For most of them it was just a matter of removing content; several sections were overly technical, and Misplaced Pages isn't a textbook or manual.

Thanks again, I look forward to a positive review. --Kierkkadon 02:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Robotic molding it is. --Kierkkadon 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That whole paragraph comes from the source given at the end of it, but I've added another in-line footnote at another important point to clarify this. --Kierkkadon 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Injection molding/GA1. It makes more sense to respond there, then there's a record of correspondence and consensus. Plus it just makes a lot more sense, to me at least. --Kierkkadon 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Hello. My name is Hahc21 and I have seen that you have an interest in reviewing good article nominations. I am very very glad that you have decided to go ahead and take some reviews pretty fast, and I appreciate all the help you can give to this part of the encyclopedia. If you ever need something, I don't mind if you bug me on my talk page; actually, I'd be delighted to help you on any questions you may have, related to the GAN assessment process, or in general. Having nothing else to say, welcome to Misplaced Pages, and have a nice day!. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ 02:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Retrolord. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Ṙ ΛΧΣ 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep Calm

Well done for knocking this article into shape - it was a delight to read on the train this morning! I've a couple of concerns about some material I feel is missing - two relatively minor gaps in the history section and one larger issue in the rediscovery one - which you might like to take a look at; I've left them on the talk page.

Good luck with the nomination! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Just wanted to say I was also sorry to see you insulted at WT:GAN and also hope you stick around. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you may have already seen it, but I found this essay to be the most helpful thing in sorting through what I should or shouldn't bring up in reviews--I wish I had found it sooner! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Birnbeck Pier/GA1

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Birnbeck Pier/GA1. Could you indicate which ones you think have been dealt with and which ones still need more work?— Rod 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Goliath

I have addressed all the comments on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate

Hi Retro. Do you think I could ask a quick favor? At the top of my user page I'm keeping a score-board of sorts, where I hope to move articles up from C to B and eventually GA class, but I need someone to score my work at RTI International so I can add it to the scoreboard.(note: I have a disclosed COI for the RTI article) Do you think I could get you to give it a C or B class? Any feedback on what it needs for GA is welcome too (I know the lead needs a bit more meat), but not required. Just hoping to post it on my scoreboard for now. CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:GA

Thanks so much for the review! If you ever need a reviewer, lemme know :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you like hurricanes and want to review another one, I'd be thrilled! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Batman

I don't know if you just didn't read my message (because it was so long) before you deleted it or you just ignored/forgot about it, but I have responsed to the all of the issues you made on the Batman review page. Also, may I suggest rather then just deleted old messages on your talk page, archive them, so other users have easy access to them if they want to see a previous discussion?--Dom497 (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am getting to the Batman review. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 13:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the review page as I have have addressed your additional comments.--Dom497 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, can you please explain to me why 'Also, unlike traditional steel roller coasters, Batman - The Dark Knight has no floor on its trains' needs a reference? It is common sense that a traditional roller coaster has a floor on the train's where the track is beneath.--Dom497 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I left another message on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You already know why I'm leaving this message... :P --Dom497 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you planning on looking at the review page anytime soon?--Dom497 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, please, please fill in the topic and page parameters when passing/failing an article. I've already told you how to do it so you should know what to do.--Dom497 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fusō

I finished up my copyediting at Japanese battleship Fusō. Thanks for reviewing! - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on the article for Fusō's sister ship, and making a few tweaks to Fusō ... done now. I believe we responded to your comments. This Wikicup round ends on Tuesday, so please let me know if there's anything else. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Thank you for your due diligence in your input as to whether or not I should receive Reviewer rights (this is meant seriously). I am always impressed when editors are strict before granting rights, as users should be subject to careful review before being accepted. While you and I had a difference of opinion, I still very much appreciate your efforts, and I look forward to learning and assisting Misplaced Pages more in the future, hopefully proving myself worthy in the process! Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why are my edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:We%27ll_Always_Have_Paris_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)/GA1 showing up as pending after I save them? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's odd ... that's a note from WP:Pending Changes, but the page isn't protected by Pending Changes protection (and has never been under any protection). Are you still getting that message? If so, I'll try protecting and then un-protecting the page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still showing up, i've had it happen a few times before aswell.Thanks for the help though ★★Retro Lord ★★ 11:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, those crazy software dev guys. Okay, I semi-protected and then un-protected the page ... if it's just a bug on that page, maybe that got it. None of your edits were marked in the history as actually pending, so you can probably safely ignore the buggy message. - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't mean they are showing up as pending in the page history, on the actual page itself they show up as pending And the only way for me to see what i have written is to go into the editing mode, otherwise it just says pending. Have you seen this before?

I haven't ... that's clearly a Pending Changes bug. You may or may not want to report it at WP:VPT ... they've probably been alerted already, but it can't hurt to report it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the help Dank, ill report it later aswell. Also, I think last time you replied to the review you may have missed some of things I mentioned further down, could you please check? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss that, I believe I've replied on all of them now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your latest comment. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll go have a look now, thanks ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Army

Would you kindly please justify this edit? What 'unsourced facts' do you see that are not supported by cites from books written by Nz professional historians, or common knowledge? And why did you remove the whole M113 replacement section citing nonexistent talkpage consensus? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Which specific part is the problem? There was consensus on the talk page for the removal, its actually the first section on the talk page.

As for the M113 removal, the NZ army is not defined by its M113's, nor will it ever be. Throughout the NZ armys entire existance they have used plenty of different forms of militray machinery, giving a whole section to their replacement program for their current apcs is WP:UNDUE and recentism.

The other edits are all fairly self explanatory, I made the page more neutral. The nz army played a minor (very) role in Korea, the article made it seem like the NZ army where the ones that pushed the enemies back over the 38th paralel.

Any other questions feel free to ask. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, if you continue to remove completely innocuous statements like the NZ Army deployed in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquake, while significant attention is on the article and fixes are being made, I will block you. There are squadrons of editors who can provide references, and I just did so, see now ref 2 in the intro. Place cite-neededs and I will fix them, in the next 24 hours.

Do not attempt, also, to claim talkpage consensus on the basis of two editors who agreed to something six years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sighs* The statement about the canterbruy earthquake was listed under CURRENT deployments. It is unreferenced. I doubt it is still true, therefore I removed it. Do you have any evidence that the army is still deployed in canterbury?

Second sigh* If something wasnt topical 6 years ago, why is it topical now? The replacement of the m113's does not need to be mentioned. Did you mention the replacement of the vehiceles the m113s replaced? Or the replacement of those vehicles? Its a violation of WP:UNDUE. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically you come accross as this:

RAAAAAAAAAAWR IM A PATRIOTIC NEW ZEALANDER, HOW DARE YOU MAKE THIS ARTICLE MORE NEUTRAL AND IMPLY THAT NZ ONLY PLAYED A MINOR ROLE IN THE KOREAN WAR. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWR, HOW DARE YOU REMOVE AN INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL ABOUT A REPLACEMENT PROGRAM THATS CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF WP:UNDUE, RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWR I WILL BLOCK YOU IF YOU DONT AGREE, RAWR RAWR RAAWWWWWRRRRRR ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You do not appear to understand the purpose of the history sections in these articles. On my shelf, if it was sitting in the right place, would be Damien Marc Fenton's 'A False Sense of Security' (see the refs section at the bottom). That book details the replacement of the Valentines by the Walker Bulldogs, the Walker Bulldogs supercession by the Scorpions, the acquision of only three and later 10 Centurions, the debate over the medium guns versus the 105mms, and many other issues besides. All these issues are properly part of a fully-developed article covering the history of the NZ Army after 1945. Now, nobody's gotten around to that. But that does not mean that those issues are not part of a full accounting of the history of the NZ Army, and virtually all are covered by the corps history books by the professional historians; all meet the WP:GNG. In addition, the wheels-versus-tracks debate led partially to the most serious internal upheaval in the NZDF for decades, culminating in a one-star being promoted two leaps to take the CDF's job. So why should the material be removed?

Secondly, if I may come across as a patriotic New Zealander, I believe you've managed to come across as a person determined to write down NZ's reasonably noteworthy contribution to military history. I wouldn't quibble over 'minor', and I encourage you to restore 'minor' should you think it fit in regard to the Korean War. It was only one artillery regiment, compared to hundreds of thousands of Chinese infantry. But other things like writing us almost out of the LRDG etc are plain wrong..

Thirdly, the only thing I've asked you to do is wait 24 hours. Should you wish to start deleting material again wholesale if it doesn't have a reference, all you have to do is mark the places with cite needed tags, wait for 24 hours after my above timestamp, and then rampage to your heart's content removing material without cites. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(Adopts far more civilized attitude after posting at AIN about to look good infront of his admin buddies) I dont understand what you mean, you intend for a section on every piece of equipment the NZ army has ever had? Look at some other army pages, such as us army or aus army. Not how it does not list how in 1933 the us army purchased 27 m2723 tanks from lockheed martin corporation after a detailed review by the governer generals department of justice.(I made this up as an example) To list all of this would make the article bloated and would break some policy somewhere, i just dont know its name. I DO KNOW however, that good article criteria 3b would fail this article if you went ahead with that.★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Check my edit history timings mate, I made the above comment before I posted this link at AN/I. Secondly, I don't usually write GA articles. Take a look instead at Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Armed Forces of Liberia (A-class), or the now-delisted Russian Ground Forces. Those are featured, they're not 'breaking some policy'. If material is WP:UNDUE, it is summarised in the main article as a synopsis of subarticles, which in this case might be 60-90kB on the 'Major equipment history of the New Zealand Army.' Certainly there are enough books around to write about that (for example, check the reference on the history of the Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery that you removed). But my policy is to keep chipping away at WP:Systemic Bias, which is why I focus on places like Russia, Congo, or Liberia. I never would have *dreamed* that editors would remove relevant material that meets the GNG from a more established countries' army article; it's against the rationale for the site. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So you intentionally write articles below GA level? My point is, its WP:Undue, it may satisfy you to include a history of every weapon the nzarmy has ever used in its article, but it is an irrefutable violation of wp:undue and if we took this to wp:3o you would most certainly lose. Thanks mate ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Butting in ... User:Zawed has just recently been doing a great job on New Zealand army articles ... he might be helpful, and as always, I think the GAN and A-class processes are quite useful for relatively stable articles, and WT:MIL is helpful if there are ongoing disputes. - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(Not here to fight) Just a note to point out that Buckshot says "Those are featured ", and "(A Class)" which implies that he edits at higher than GA standard - If you are unclear, the link to class is here Misplaced Pages:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades. There is also 51st_Army_(Soviet_Union) (A class)

There is also the small matter that everyone writes articles intentionally below GA level, if we didn't nothing would ever get written. Stubs and start class are the largest groups of articles (chart of article numbers) at 75% of our total articles, and the most important - Not every topic can achieve a GA. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Retrolord. Not planning a long exposition on each piece of equipment; probably something on their entry into service and some circumstance details, and, possibly in the far future, the major equipment article. But there are better people to do it than me, and I'm more focused on Ukraine and Africa at the moment (as you'll see from my contribs). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Copperhead

It's nice when a GA review (and past ones have sometimes been hit and miss in my experience!) really delves into the article :) Thanks again! --Errant 10:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review of Distinguished Warfare Medal

Thanks for the review of the Distinguished Warfare Medal. I came to the page in hopes of building a GA grade article and in my opinion one was already here, at least in my opinion. I do hope to continue to improve the article. Rather it passes or fails, I look forward to your review.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

German Army

I think this is a very inconclusive discussion and the outcome depends on who you ask. I am a big fan of semantically correctness versus best representation in the English language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke

I meant "I'd prefer it if you'd review my article", I see now it could have meant the opposite :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll get started on it soon then, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Peacemaker got it. Feel free to take the next one, we'll be doing more of these. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahwell, i'll see about the next one then maybe, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Retrolord. You have new messages at Talk:University of Cambridge/GA2.
Message added 23:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mark91it's my world 23:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hess

The sentence that got my attention was "Hess joined the Thule Society, an antisemitic right-wing Völkisch group, and the Freikorps, a volunteer paramilitary organisation." Thing is, I thought Freikorps was a phenomenon of a bunch of right-wing paramilitaries rather than just one group. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks for that, i'll look into it then. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploading Images

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi! How do I go about uploading an image for use in an article?

Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:UPIMAGE. Let me know if you have any questions after reading it. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 09:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment in 'Requests for Permissions/Reviewer'

I didn't enjoy your comment here. Misplaced Pages does give all editors the right to request if they meet this criteria. I just exercised the right available to me. Its upto the Misplaced Pages:Administrators to accept or reject my request. Please don't make patronising remarks about editors. I think you should read Misplaced Pages:point. Cheers. JK (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And wikipedia gives all editors the eight to comment on such decisions. If you only have 130 mainspace edits I would advise you to hold off a bit on the request. If you get rejected you might have to wait a while before another request gets accepted. I was just excersising the rights available to me. As you say, its up to the admins to decide, but I'm not confident. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you should still read Misplaced Pages:point. I only wanted to bring to your attention that you are not the jury. cheers, JK (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The community IS the jury. Admins make decisions on behalf of the community, they are not some independant arbitrary body that decides things on a whim. Every member has the right to comment on these decisions, and you should not be making such requests if you plan on having an outburst everytime someone disagrees with you. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an outburst. This is expressing my displeasure at your rather patronising remark. JK (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you behave in such a manner for much longer and continue to not assume good faith with your remarks you may have difficulty getting along with other users. This is also a piece of advice, just like my comment on the request page was. You are not above criticism. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you. JK (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting on my talkpage about this issue. If you wish to contribute to the project in a constructive manner please do so. Also please try to follow WP:Goodfaith and be civil in your dealings with other users. Thankyou. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for my impolite/rude comments here and in the RFP page. Thank you. JK (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Manta ray GA

Thanks for reviewing. I hope you'll treat it as a potential FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you contacted another user? LittleJerry (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still reviewing the article, but it is likely I will have to get a second opinion on the review. Sorry ★★Retro Lord ★★ 21:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Retrolord, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Information about STiki, including:
- Using STiki and its hotkeys
- Comparison to other tools
Information about vandalism on Misplaced Pages

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Misplaced Pages with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How to request a file

Hi! Is there any function on Misplaced Pages to request a file? I'm thinking of something similar to articles for creation, except where you can describe a file/link it and request someone upload it. Does such a page exist? Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is, you can request files to be uploaded at Misplaced Pages:Files for upload. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Retrolord. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 09:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 09:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On

I would really hate to fail this GA for a minor issue - see the nomination page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Manta ray/GA1

Not sure if you've seen my comments here. Could you please expand on the areas you feel are over-technical? J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Retrolord; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Shoup GA

See: Talk:David M. Shoup/GA1 —Ed! 05:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See: Talk:David M. Shoup/GA1 again. —Ed! 02:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Made the latest fixes. —Ed! 22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Take another look here if you could, please. —Ed! 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fusō-class battleship

Hi ... you wanted to know when I had an article to review, and this one is now at FAC ... and half the content overlaps two articles you've already reviewed. It may look like we already have the 3 supports we need to pass ... but there's an understanding at FAC that one review is needed from outside the wikiproject "regulars", and articles often sit at FAC for a month waiting for that 4th support. It's considered perfectly acceptable for a reviewer at FAC to say that they only covered the things they personally feel comfortable with, unlike at GAN. Okay, that's the FAC basics, I hope that helps ... this isn't a request for a support, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Street Fighter X Tekken Review - Character List cannot be removed.

In your review for Street Fighter X Tekken, you said that the character list has to be removed. This cannot be done because it would be inconsistant with all the other fighting game articles we have here, the majority of which have character lists. 85.210.178.116 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Hello, I've made the alterations you originally suggested to Belgium in World War II - would you be interested in re-reviewing it? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be able to do it on the weekend. Let me know when your ready for me to start, Thanks ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. If you could give a look over again, that'd be great! --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again. Could you officially close your review? On the list, it appears as though you're still in the course of reviewing it, even though I've changed it several times. Best wishes ---22:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Manta ray GA again

All the problems so far have been resolved. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello?

Operation Graffham

Hey, after your ace review of my last deception article for GA, do you fancy taking a look at the next one? :) I'd like to try and get it passed as GA before it makes DYK, just for fun! --Errant 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France
Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia
Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in dealing with this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Halo 4 Original Soundtrack/GA1

Will you be returning to this review soon? It's been almost two weeks since the nominator posted that all the issues you noted should have been addressed. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 23:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, your most recent article review request was completed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta ray GA

Hi, you asked for a 2nd opinion on this. It seems the issues have been carefully addressed; I've checked all the GA criteria and I'd pass it now, but for the lead which is a bit short. Let me know if you are happy to proceed from here on, or if you'd like me to take over -- happy to help either way. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 23:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So what's the verdict? LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord's been away from his desk since 3 April... not sure the protocol in this situation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware anyone had changed the review page. I'll look now. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War
Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

Gallipoli Campaign

Hello Retrolord. Myself and a few other editors have recently been working on Gallipoli Campaign in the view of getting it to B class and possibly GA (by way of a peer review first). I noticed on the talk page that you had expressed some interest in doing this back in Jan 13. Are you still interested? If you are there is a discussion here of things that still need to be done so pls feel free to stop by. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history
Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Australian Greens

Please stop edit warring. You were bold, you were reverted, and there's currently no support for your position on the article's talk page, so this is really unhelpful. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to that, if you wish to improve Misplaced Pages, please stay WP:CIVIL and avoid escalating disputes. --ELEKHH 11:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).

Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Retrolord. You are relatively new here and I see you have voted and/or commented on just 6 RfA. I noticed that your contribution to this one is practically a lone opposition to what is certainly to become one of the most successful RfAs in Misplaced Pages history. During the last two years or so, especially at WP:RFA2011 and through many subsequent attempts and reports, the community has been trying hard to make RfA a nicer, more drama-free environment in order to attract more candidates of the right calibre who are staying away from the process which has generally become an ordeal of fire. Not a complaint, just an observation. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What you just wrote was disgusting. You are seriously trying to bully me out of voting no? Claiming you want RfA to be a nicer, drama-free environment and you are trying to BULLY away the opposition? Take your schemes elsewhere and don't try to silence the opinions of others on Misplaced Pages. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't block you myself for PA, or for blatantly disregarding a request not to post on my talk page - because I'm involved - but be careful someone else doesn't. At the moment we've been generous, you haven't even receive a template warning - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)d