User talk:Retrolord

Official User talk of King Retrolord: Please start new topics at the bottom of the page.

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 Wikipedia, and have a nice day!. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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 Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ^(chat!) 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)

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. ★★RetroLord★★ 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment in 'Requests for Permissions/Reviewer'

I didn't enjoy your comment here. Wikipedia does give all editors the right to request if they meet this criteria. I just exercised the right available to me. Its upto the Wikipedia:Administrators to accept or reject my request. Please don't make patronising remarks about editors. I think you should read Wikipedia: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. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you should still read Wikipedia: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. ★★RetroLord★★ 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. ★★RetroLord★★ 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. ★★RetroLord★★ 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 ★★RetroLord★★ 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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! ★★RetroLord★★ 05:06, 3 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!^(talk) 05:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Take another look here if you could, please. —Ed!^(talk) 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 ★★RetroLord★★ 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 ^(chat!) 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

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) 03:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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! ★★RetroLord★★ 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! ★★RetroLord★★ 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. ★★RetroLord★★ 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

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) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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 [1] 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

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) 12:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lin Biao

That might be the best option. I am not the primary contributor for this page, so I feel some time to bolster and adduce the article would be most auspicious. Thanks for your review! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Trones Wood

If TW gets a B class, will it automatically drop off the "incomplete" lists?Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure what lists you are referring to? ★★RetroLord★★ 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

These: Hidden categories:

   British military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
   German military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
   World War I articles needing attention to referencing and citation
   Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
   Military history articles needing attention only to referencing and citationKeith-264 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It might not happen automatically, but if it was B class then it shouldn't be on those lists, so it should be ok with removing it from them. ★★RetroLord★★ 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Move

Hi, how do I go about moving List of field marshals of the Third Reich to List of field marshals and grand admirals of the Third Reich? Much appreciated, ★★RetroLord★★ 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello there Retrolord, may I suggest reading up on MOVEing pages which gives a first time page movers guide to doing that? Good luck and if you need any further help, I'll be watching this talk page for a bit, feel free to just ask. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thankyou! ★★RetroLord★★ 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your Royal Highness, I present to you a trophy for creating the article/list List of field marshals and grand admirals of the Third Reich, keep up the good work! Prabash.Akmeemana 21:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh that is very nice. Thankyou very much! ★★RetroLord★★ 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio concern for Gallipoli Campaign

Gday. Not sure if you have seen the posts at Talk:Gallipoli_Campaign#Copyvio since you started the thread. Can you pls clarify if you think this is an issue and if so what parts? As I said on the talk page I'm hoping to take to GA and am holding off until this is resolved (as there would obviously be little point wasting my time if parts were a copyvio). Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Australian Greens. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh golly gosh. I reverted you twice, just as you reverted twice, and I've been called an edit warrior. Oh me. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read point 1. You don't need to do three reverts in one day, you've already added it twice today and at least twice in the past week or so. Bidgee (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please push your POV somewhere other than Wikipedia?★★RetroLord★★ 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Australian Greens. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being a Clown. I've already templated you with Don't template the regulars, is it that hard? Accusing you of having a POV is hardly a personal attack. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you just do a personal attack Retrolord? Yes. You did. In order to qualify as a regular, you'd have to know policy far better than you currently do - besides, "Don't template the regulars" is a mere essay that is usually outshot by DO template the regulars (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An accusation of POV pushing? A violation of WP:AGF maybe, but hardly a personal attack. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

First, accusing someone of having a POV with no basis other than that they disagree with you can be interpreted as a personal attack. Second, you also called Bidgee a clown. Finally, and probably most important, I've looked at the discussion here and at the article talk page, and your overall tone and attitude is disrespectful (perhaps obnoxious might be a blunter and more apt word).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If User:Bidgee takes offence at being called a Clown, he may post here and request an apology. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You know that it's offensive! As I've stated with the other uncivil attack, remove it. Bidgee (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Dearest Bidgee, I most solemnly declare my sincere regret at your being labelled a clown, and retract my improper, offensive and rude accusation that you were POV pushing at Australian Greens. I thank you for your resilience and courage in the face of such great adversity, and give you permission to remove any personal attacks that you may have incurred from me. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to JetGo Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Refimprove}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Retrolord. You have new messages at Talk:2011 Silk Way Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 crash/GA1.
Message added 20:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning a few of my articles of the queue, and for all the work you've been doing on reviewing generally. Much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well that's very nice. Thank you! ★★RetroLord★★ 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This shows again that you are unfamiliar with many, many aspects of Wikipedia:

1. The placement of the {{under-construction}} template at the top of any article informs any reader that the page in question is undergoinfg major changes. Given that a number of the references it includes are dead, I'm trying to find new sources to replace the link rots. It didn't take too long to anyone to figure this out, it's enough to look at the dead link tags in the "References" section;
2. Should there is inactivity in an any article the template is used at, a bot automatically removes it;
3. I'm not signing anything. The template puts the name of the last editor that modified the article.

Given that you are new here, please become more familiar with the guidelines before attempting to instruct the experienced editors.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well gosh. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you like a knighthood?★★RetroLord★★ 13:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Template:Archivebot