User talk:Retrolord

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL TALK PAGE OF THE LORD BARON SIR RETROLORD, KING IN WIKIPEDIA, 1st BARON WIKIPEDIA, LORD OF THE REALM

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia isn't a textbook or manual.

Thanks again, I look forward to a positive review. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 02:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic molding it is. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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^{talk/contribs} 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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^{talk/contribs} 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

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:

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! — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Goliath

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

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)[reply]

Re:GA

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Fusō

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia more in the future, hopefully proving myself worthy in the process! Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are my edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Apologies

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

Manta ray GA

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

How to request a file

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! Is there any function on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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.[reply]

Yunshui 雲‍水 09:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shoup GA

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further to that, if you wish to improve Wikipedia, please stay WP:CIVIL and avoid escalating disputes. --ELEKHH^T 11:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfA

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.

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Kudpung your blatant attempts at censorship have not gone unnoticed. It has been decided that you overstepped a line. Please do not do so in future. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me where it was decided that this is the case? PantherLeapord (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Retrolord, how you perceive the opening post as "bullying" I have no idea, and the edit summary at the RFA where you just placed your question [2] poisons the well (at best - it's a borderline personal attack). Kudpung, I can't believe anyone would use "posted on talk page after asked not to" as part of a block rationale, so I suggest you rethink that. Pedro : Chat 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Retrolord - you asked for a link to a "block discussion on my talk. Err.... it's in this thread. [3]. Pedro : Chat 11:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrolord, regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bullying, you either drop the stick or I'll personally block you. This is your only warning. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you a brave individual. Happy to pile on the victim but won't stop blatant bullying and intimidation by another admin. And don't block me for saying that. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough Retrolord. Walk away - learn that WP:INVOLVED relates to admin actions and stop escalating this. I endorse Salvio's comment and will also willingly push that button. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrolord, you are lucky that they are being THIS generous! If I was an admin I would have blocked you for this already! PantherLeapord (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PantherLeapord - you're not helping. Retrolord's deletion of your last comment should make that clear. And Retrolord - make that 3 admins now telling you - more accusations of "bullying" will get a block for disruption. Pedro : Chat 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I will agree that the word bullying was overkill and inappropriate (especially when repeated), I can't really help feeling that it is also inappropriate for a nominator of a RfA candidate to go to the talk page of an opposer to (in)directly critize the vote. In general, I think administrators should be very careful about making critical comments about people's votes in RfAs unless the votes (in the form of a comment) is clearly out of line due to incivility or the like. Taking a glance at Retrolord's original comment to his vote, I can't see that issue there. Regards, Iselilja (talk)

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.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

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.

The discussion has been archived - that means the matter is closed. Adding further comments (even if they are outside of the archive borders) serves NO purpose WHATSOEVER other than to create further drama. Giant Snowman 12:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason was given for a close. Is there any reason to close an ongoing discussion? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrolord - I'm going to give you one chance, right now, to persuade me that you should not be blocked. Given you've had 4 admins warn you to step away from this discussion, and that you would be blocked for continuing. Worm^TT(talk) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five. Edit war on this one more time and I'll block you myself. What you're doing is now basically trolling for drama - stop. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As you have been told above, it serves no purpose. The accusations of bullying are unfounded and you repeating them ad nauseam is doing no good. Please do not re-add them. Please move on. Giant Snowman 12:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a good reason: YOU YOURSELF said the discussion was over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrolord, final warning - another Admin has closed the discussion, other Admins have agreed - please do not re-open. If you do, you will be blocked. Giant Snowman 12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed on what grounds?★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was over and going nowhere. Now stop trolling, you are close to a block for numerous reasons. Giant Snowman 12:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not over, someone else had something to say 5 minutes after it was closed. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was over, so is this one. Giant Snowman 12:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, did you seriously block me for asking questions about admin activity on MY OWN TALK PAGE? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I blocked you for not stepping away when you were told you and edit warring over the fact. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did step away. I stopped commenting on the discussion the moment I was told too. Unclosing the discussion is an entirely different matter. Absolutely no reason was given, and still has not been given for the close, other than "the discussion was over". ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclosing it - multiple times - shows that you clearly had not stepped away. Giant Snowman 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Retrolord, I have blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring, personal attacks and refusing to accept consensus. Understand that there has been no bullying here from Kudpung - I agreed with you that his comments were unfair, but no one has agreed that his comments reached the level of bullying. You were told on multiple occasions that this discussion was over, but instead you editwarred to carry it on, refusing to accept a clear consensus. Below is the standard block template to let you know how to appeal.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, it was my own talkpage. Am I being blocked for that very last questioning of an admins unending authority ON MY OWN TALKPAGE?★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage does not belong to you. It belongs to the Foundation, and is subject to the same rules as every other page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bwilkins. Short of an order from the foundation stating otherwise it DOES belong to ME. And unless you have a mandate from the foundation to abuse your power what I post on MY talkpage belongs to ME. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 13:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Giant Snowman 13:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User pages: "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages." Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Yunshui. And considerable leeway is being exercised by me to post whatever the hell I want on my user pages, free from admin persecution. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 13:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retro, I suggest you put down the shovel and reach for a ladder; perhaps find something relaxing and enjoyable to do for a few hours. @ Others, I suggest we ALL simply walk away from this and allow RL some time to relax and reflect - egging him on serves no purpose at this point. — Ched : ? 13:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discussion closed as per random arbitrary precedent set by admins. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I glanced at the diff too quickly. Thank you for toning down the wording. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with other editors

Dear Retrolord, I have been looking through some of your recent interactions with other editors and I am a little bit concerned about the way that you are reacting when you get feedback you don't like. You also seem to have a very confrontational approach to policy that is not the way that things work round here. I also see that you are a relatively new user and, if I might be so bold, it does take a lot more experience and practice to really understand this place than you have had the time to get under your belt so far. I have two pieces of advice that might help you navigate better:

Firstly, you need to grow a thicker skin and try to learn from feedback rather than railing against the other editor, accusing them of bullying and misquoting policy left right and centre
Secondly, you really do need to listen when you are told to stop by an adminstrator. There are no prizes for arguing the toss when you are told something in an administrative capacity and generally there is only one outcome when editors start that - being ejected from the project.

If you can learn to deal better with adverse feedback and accept things when you are told them you have a really good wiki-career in front of you as that's how we all learn and develop as editors and you are clearly passionate and care deeply. I hope you take this advice in the spririt in which it was intended and feel free to drop me a line if I can help in the future. Best wishes Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken aboard, thanks for posting ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right

"Not a complaint, just an observation. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)"

Right. How is that comment credible? (What possible purpose could there be behind such a post -- why would a user feel you needed to "hear" those "observations"?)

There's no value to WP being intimidated to lose your independet thought & honest expression of your opinions. Any organization doesn't profit from uniformity in thinking. If others feel the need to squelch different opinions ... that is pretty ugly to contemplate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support mate. Numerous admins piled on and basically told me to stop complaining otherwise i'll be blocked further. Basically akin to being told not to appeal a guilty plea or you will be sentenced to prison. But thankyou nonetheless. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good case to make that User:Kudpung is hounding your edits. At User talk:JustAnotherWuBanger you were objecting to the PA in that user's !vote re reference to accusing other editors of having schizophrenia, and asked that user to re-phrase. So Kudpung interprets that you are "throwing your weight around" and commanding editors "how to vote"?!? (And this from an Admin! Too absurd.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page bans...

...of Kudpung and Pantheeleapord? Yeah, ain't gonna work, especially for Kudpung as an Admin. If you do not wish to interact with them, then rather than posting large & aggressive 'ban' notices at the top of your page, it might be better to politely ask the editors individually to cease posting unless it is necessary. Giant Snowman

Pantherleapord is engaged in systematic harrasment of me so you are right it won't stop him. As an admin Kudpung should respect the notices, as I respect the fact he banned me from his talkpage. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 11:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pantherleapord's editing in general is getting more & more questionable, not just at yourself. You and Kudpung need to take some time apart. Giant Snowman 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional pieces of advice

Retrolord, I think we can all agree that yesterday was not a good day for you. If you don't mind, I'm going to try and unravel this whole thing. In the long run, I certainly don't ever want you to feel you were downtrodden on the project - I honestly feel your day was based on misunderstanding which frequently happens when the sole medium of communication is the written word. Important: I'm not laying blame on anyone - not you, not anyone, because blame is a useless tool (as are grudges)

First, allow me to clarify the timeline:

you posted the first Oppose !vote on an RFAa couple of days ago
a number of people commented negatively on your !vote
Kudpung commented on your talkpage, urging you to reconsider your !vote
your perception of Kudpung's comment was that it was bullying
you accused Kudpung of bullying on WT:RFA
consensus on WT:RFA was that no bullying took place whatsoever
you disagreed with that assessment
everything went downhill from there

As I have said before, although I don't agree with your !vote, I accepted your authority to have an opinion. Yes, a major problem with RFA is that too many !votes do not appear to be based on reality or policy. No, there's no need to have unanimity on any !vote. Yes, ANYONE can suggest that someone review their !vote if new possible information has come to light - after all, people do not change their minds - they make a new decision based on new information. Kudpung was well within their right to suggest you review your !vote - I don't think there's any argument about that.

Your perception was that Kudpung was being aggressive in his request - you attributed this in part to the fact that a) he's an admin, and b) he was a nominator. There is a great danger in trying to get into someone's head like that. However, at that point, your first line of defense should have been clarifying Kudpung's meaning directly with them - that would have either given them a chance to amend, clarify, retract, or otherwise try to resolve the issue. If you were unsuccessful there, your next line of defense would be to approach WP:ANI to try and get consensus as to whether Kudpung's post was bullying or not - WT:RFA is never the place for such a discussion.

The important thing, however, is that after stating your point, you must accept the consensus - if a half-dozen uninvolved people say "no, it doesn't look like it", then it means "no". Yes, I understand that you still would perceive a slight, but if other people read it very differently, it's important to personally re-review what had got you angry, and why. Perhaps there was a word out of place, or one with multiple meanings. Remember, assuming good faith in all posts by others is the key to this project.

What then appears to have happened was that rather than accept consensus and step back from the brink, you personalized the situation, and took a series of aggressive (and disruptive) steps. This led to a brief and unfortunate block that could easily have been avoided.

It's unfortunate that this whole situation went down the way it did. You've been around here long enough to know that you can never ban an admin from your talkpage - they may still perform administrative tasks if/when required (oh, by the way, THAT is what WP:INVOLVED refers to - not what you seemed tho think it was). It's truly unfortunate that you were unable to resolve this directly with Kudpung first - a lot of people (especially you) would have been given a lot less grief. I would hope that in the future, you will try and resolve things with the least amount of drama - and that usually means one-on-one. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. I've taken the advice given by you and a few other admins onboard. Lets hope we don't see a repeat of yesterday. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage bans

May it please your Lordship,

Without getting into whether it's a good or bad idea to ban two users from your talkpage, right now, if someone looks at your userpage or your talkpage, the very first thing they will find out about you is that you have gotten into a dispute and banned two users from your page IN LARGE BOLDFACE CAPITALS RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. I don't think that's really the first impression you want to make on people. Your request that these two people not comment on this page will remain even if you take the large banners down.

Also, I like your username, and there's nothing wrong with giving yourself a title or six on Wikipedia (I've worked with a couple of excellent editors whose usernames start with "Lord" or "Sir") — but if you are going to have to do something as unhappy as barring someone from speaking to you, that's probably not the right sentence to include the words "By Order of His Majesty the King."

I'm glad to see some other experienced users giving you some advice here. Happy editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows you're really not moving forward. I'm assuming you're an adult, and since you already know that you cannot ban any admin from your user talkpage, your statement at the top shows a) you're holding a grudge of some sort (which is ridiculous), b) you don't understand policy, and c) you don't care about the project and its community. Really, as a grown-up, you really should know better (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest wall of text I've ever written

Hello. :) It's me. You seem like a pretty nice person and you make constructive mainspace edits, so I'm writing to you. Oh, and I have no hard feelings about your oppose. You have the right to your position. :)

I'm so sorry for the wall of text, but I think you're worth it. I really want to let you know that I understand how nasty feelings of injustice are. It's a horrible, frustrating feeling. I was on the wrong end of this MMA thing once. Several well-established editors agreed that my position was faulty, and I didn't like it.

Kudpung was very gentle with his post, but posting in the first place may have not been such a good idea. Who knows? It's complicated. The RfA thing has had problems and I think he was trying to do the right thing in good faith. But, I think the way things turned out with this matter was maybe connected to your very quick and explosive reaction. That may have worked against you. Had you gently raised the issue and waited for broader community input, a completely opposite result may have resulted.

I read somewhere that if your heart is racing, don't click save. :) Anway, this leaves you with the feeling that a huge injustice has been done, but the chance to right it has maybe come and gone. Not a nice feeling.

Moving forward

So, I know you're in a "state of quasi-retirement", but Wikipedia is fun, and editing in the mainspace is fun. The back pages aren't so fun and you don't have to deal with back pages at all. I'm not saying don't. Just that better, more rewarding experiences often lay in the mainspace.

Anyway, some have bad experiences with the people here then stupidly say "I hate the encyclopedia and I'm leaving", but I think they're sort of ripping themselves off. You don't move out of a city because you meet a few people you don't like. And this encyclopedia is the size of a city. Maybe it's just a neighbourhood problem. :) So, please, don't leave, and don't fight, and if you want, think to yourself "...Mgrrrrmmmph! Nerts to all this. I'm going to the mainspace to edit..." That's what I would do. My allegiance isn't to Kudpung or you. It's to the mainspace that we love. I know you love it too. Our relationship is between us and that lovely encyclopedia. We mustn't allow others to break us up. :)

I know you opposed because you didn't see evidence that I could be a good arbitrator. So this is my try to maybe help get this behind you. :) Don't worry if you want to tell me I did a bad job. I won't be embarrassed. The best I can do is try. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments Anna. They are appreciated ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. And your user page is looking much better than it was before. I rather like the picture. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) ★★Retro Lord ★★ 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 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: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction
Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 08:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruption at WP:ANI. Two admins warned you, Ponyo and myself. Failure to listen. Demeaning other editors.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Retrolord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Disruptive editing? One week? Seriously? Has the world gone mad? Was I seriously banned for a WEEK for that last edit where I called something a non issue? FURTHERMORE, where did I ever demean another editor? That was a ridiculous non issue, how can you possibly ban someone for questioning that. Dennis, you ARE a clown. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on a review of all of your commentary at WP:ANI, it appears that you do not currently hold the required WP:COMPETENCE to comment there - you have led complainants the wrong direction, attempted to close discussion that should not have been closed, and indeed confused many new and old editors alike. You have been appropriately warned to stop commenting there - the only future possible unblock provision would require a full-scale topic ban from AN, ANI, or any other administrative noticeboard (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Add: I note the irony as you ask "where did I ever demean another editor" and then follow up with "Dennis, you ARE a clown" ... how clear is that. Please be quite surprised that the block was not extended due to that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are making a bad habit of disruptive behavior at ANI and other venues. You have been warned a number of times, this is only the latest instance. I fear that if you don't change your perspective, you won't be here long. Your personal attack on me only proves my point, I might add. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. Yes or no Dennis, did you ban me for calling something at ANI a non-issue? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I was banned for questioning the authority of dearest Dennis, and for calling something a non issue, request immediate unblock ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing that has culminated in this. You were warned by two separate admin about this. Then you followed it up with the "clown" comment above. I will trust the wisdom of the reviewing admin to review the situation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite literally blocked by Dennis for calling something a non-issue, and for insulting our dear leader Jimmy wales. Seriously? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I have been blocked for it, could Dennis please explain what this "History of disruptive editing" includs? It would appear I was blocked purely for calling something a non-issue at ANI and not listening to the commands of dearest Dennis. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching your behavior recently and I have to concur with Dennis that it has been rather disruptive - the ANI thread was not your business and those comments appeared to be jokes on a serious noticeboard. My advice for you would be to stick to GA reviews only and keep out of AN(I) matters. Note that you aren't banned but only blocked, and you therefore are still a member of the community. However, I know you can act more maturely than this and I request that you do so. Remember, we value GA reviewers at a time when the GA process is backlogged. If something is brought to ANI, it's most likely an issue for admins to look at. When it's not, it's not really your job to point that out, it's the admins'. The best rule if you have to comment at ANI is that the tone of your comments must reflect the situation - you have to give a matter the seriousness it deserves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks to dearest Dennis's failure to administrate properly several GA reviews will now be on hold for an entire week. All for not listening to the commands of Dennis and calling something a non-issue, really. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust an admin with some sense will overturn this most ridiculous of blocks. All for questioning Dennis's authority and calling something a non-issue. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a third opinion, here it is: consider this a sharp wakeup call regarding your participation in wikidrama. This was a perfectly cromulent block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

I have removed the "exile" comments from your user and user talk pages; please do not restore them. We do not tolerate "shit lists" like this on Wikipedia; if you do not have anything nice to say about another editor, don't say anything at all. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, WP:POLEMIC is one of the policies that covers 28bytes actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a good thing I dont have a shit list, just a list of people banned from my userspace. Thankyou and goodbye. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of people banned from your userspace IS a shit list! PantherLeapord (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it about 19 times and i'll say it again. Do not EVER post here. YOU ARE BANNED from posting here. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? FAILURE TO LISTEN TO THAT = DISSRPUTIVE EDITING + HARRASMENT ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repost this here: The problem is Retro - you haven't actually learned from your block. Others have given you advice above, and your only response is concern that your "titles" may have been removed. You've shown absolutely no remorse for what you've done, you've not shown you've learned from this, and you certainly haven't shown that you understand what policies even brought you to this situation. You're lucky you haven't been indef'd yet, and in fact - you very well may be; or access your talk page while blocked could be removed. Dusti^*poke* 07:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I removed the reviewer topicon from your userpage as the right has been removed . Dusti^*poke* 02:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some advice

I'm not an admin, but I was drawn to this as I've been seeing you around quite a bit. I'm not sure if you're wanting others to actually take you serious with the decrees, comments and banishments along with the declaration of your Royalness — but I believe you're missing what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is a place for collaboration, editing, and more. You're not doing that by picking battles. The recent edits leading up to this block are sad. They show an editor who's meerely misguided. If you have something to say, there's a way to say it, and a way to not say it. I hope you take the time you've been given here as some time to think about what you're doing, else, you'll likely end up here, and then you won't be able to voice your opinions and concerns anymore. Dusti^*poke* 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numero uno - I will be filing another unblock request later on the grounds that Bwilkins is already involved with me and refusing a request because I called someone a clown afterwards is ridiculous.

I don't believe that is a good idea, however that is up to you &

Numero Due - I will be restoring my regal titles as there is absolutely NO reason to remove them. Other people have pictures and funny quotes, why can't I? An speedy closed ANI discussion involving 3 editors without me is not a censensus. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 06:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody removed your "titles", the only thing that was removed was the topicon insinuating you had reviewer rights, which you don't anymore.Dusti^*poke* 06:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocko Requesto

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Retrolord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I am requesting an unblock so that I may finish my current GA reviews and post at regular ANI discussions regarding my own conduct. I promise I will ONLY post on my talk page, ANI and the GA review pages. This would be inline with blocks not being punishment, but preventitive. My conduct in GA reviews is actually pretty good, and I see no reason why other editors should be penalised. And letting me comment on my own ANI discussions is common sense ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How helpful you are in other areas is irrelevant. Without a sincere acknowledgement of the circumstances which saw you blocked, there's reason to believe you'll go straight back to picking fights with people to the detriment of the project; indeed, your actions post-block have only made that seem more likely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The problem is Retro - you haven't actually learned from your block. Others have given you advice above, and your only response is concern that your "titles" may have been removed. You've shown absolutely no remorse for what you've done, you've not shown you've learned from this, and you certainly haven't shown that you understand what policies even brought you to this situation. Dusti^*poke* 07:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats irrelevant. You are punishing me, not preventing any disruption, by stopping GA reviews going ahead. I have never, and will never be disruptive over at WP:GA. You are disrupting the entire GA process by stopping me, aswell as punishing many other users waiting for a review, or for their CURRENT reviews to FINISH. They are all postponed by an entire WEEK. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only person capable of doing a GA review Retro. Dusti^*poke* 07:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your disruptive comments. That was about as hardcore and offensive as the comments that got me banned. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see an attack, bad faith, or disruption from offering you advice. You need to step back and realize exactly what you're doing to yourself. By lashing out at anyone attempting to assist you in any manner, you're going to find yourself banned, and I don't think you want that. Giving yourself a false sense of entitlement by issuing royal decrees and all this other nonsense is doing nothing to help your case. Grow up, read through the relevant policies, and try again. Dusti^*poke* 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll issue as many damn royal decrees as I want until Arbcom tells me to stop. Would the reviewing admin PLEASE unblock me to end this punishment to myself and other users. I AM NEVER disruptive at GA, so there is no reason I should not be allowed to continue my work there. I was banned for a few words at ANI, no reason I shouldnt do GA's anymore. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retrolord. I'm a member of Arbcom and I thought I'd stop by to tell you a few things. Firstly, Arbcom is not the be all and end all, we're not likely to get involved here, we're here to solve intractable disputes which the community can't handle. I see no reason why the community can't handle this, it's the sort of thing our excellent administrators handle every day. I suggest you listen to them. You've been told by multiple people that you are acting inappropriately. You've been pointed to the policy in question. You've been blocked for ignoring it and having an I didn't hear that attitude. You need to stop. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Retrolord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I now understand why I was blocked and will endeavour to ensure those events are not repeated. To avoid any further disruption, I shall have a self imposed rule for the next month to not comment on ANI discussions not involving me directly. I will return to my GA reviews and try not to bother anyone else. As I understand now why I was blocked and will not be posting at ANI to repeat my behaviour, could I please be unblocked, so that I can continue my work at GAN. Thankyou, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've had two blocks in fairly rapid order, each issued by admins known for their patience with troublesome users. I find I agree with Deniss' proposal below and would like to see you give it more consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As the blocking admin, I would feel better if there was an indef ban in all admin areas, except where Retrolord is an involved party, as a precondition to unblock. Similar to what was suggested by the first reviewing admin, and with the understanding that a violation of that ban would mean a block longer than a week. If Retrolord agrees to this, I would gladly unblock him myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't seem very fair. I've only messed up once or twice at ANI, how does an indef ban follow from that? I admit that I was wrong, but you seem overly keen to pile on more and more bans for just a few mistakes. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that your participation at ANI has ranged from unhelpful to disruptive. To put it in plain Texas talk, you lack the clue and familiarity to help there, and you treat the place like a forum. It is not. That makes the job of finding solutions more difficult for everyone. You have also shown an inability to curb your desire to opine even after being asked to, rather bluntly, by multiple admin. Since this is why you were blocked and it is based on a long term pattern, I think it is a reasonable preventative measure. It can be reviewed at a later date, but I'm convinced that this is necessary. The ban would be for anything that is considered an administrative area or admin focused, including WT:RFA, WP:ANI, WP:Arb, WP:3O, WP:AN3, etc. although it won't stop you from filing a valid case or commenting in one where you genuinely have an involvement. It only stops you from making "drive by comments" in things to which you have zero vested interest. It may not seem like it, but I'm trying to keep you from getting an indef block in a week or two, as I've seen this same story 100 times over the years, it is the road you are on if you continue like you have. I would rather not see it come to that, and allow you to do some good at GAN, while still allowing you to participate on the boards when appropriate. You don't need to be hanging out on the drama boards for fun, it benefits no one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit heavy handed. I'm happy to agree to be on my best behaviour and to try my utmost to stay out of trouble at admin areas. However, I do vote at RFA when I get the chance and would prefer to not be banned from that. Please reconsider your request, as it does seem you are quite intent on having me banned for as many things as possible for as long as possible. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as everyone has a vested interest in RFA, I assume I would be allowed to make votes there, provided they are not disruptive should we go along with your plan? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 17:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ban was specific in saying WT:RFA. You can vote, just not hang out on the RFA talk pages. I'm pretty fixed in my opinion here. Any admin is free to ignore my advice and do as they please, with no hard feelings, but I'm confident my ideas here are representative of a consensus of admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Dennis ... of course, that's because I suggested it :-) . I will also ask Retro to read more carefully .. WT:RFA is the talkpage, WP:RFA is the !vote page - you're not being disallowed from !voting on RFA, you're being disallowed from being disruptive and leading editors seriously astray. I can understand this being a 3 month restriction, with a possibility of requesting reduction after a month - if this was to go to the community, it would start as a 6-month topic ban, and there's no question that it would pass with flying colours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more formal way that spells it out.

Proposal for Retrolord

Retrolord is topic banned from all admin pages (including talk pages), including but not limited to ANI, AN, RFA, AN3, and ARB, except:
He may vote at WP:RFA and reply to questions posed to him on the main voting page as long as his contributions are civil.
He may initiate actions at admin boards if appropriate (asking advice beforehand is advised).
He may participate in any board action to which he is named as a party or he obviously has a vested interest (asking beforehand is also advised).
When he participates in these limited ways, he understands that his behavior is to expected to be on topic and professional.
The ban is indefinite but not infinite and may be reviewed after 90 days at WP:AN.

I have to go for a while, so I won't be around while Retro thinks about it. I don't expect him to rush to judgement, I didn't either. I think I have spelled it out pretty clearly. This doesn't put much of a burden on you, really, it just keeps you out of there unless you have a reason to be there, while allowing you to participate when you have an actual interest. It is much milder than the community would give you, in my opinion. I would ask any admin to implement this on my behalf if he agrees with it, please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I've considered your proposal. I've edited it slightly to something I agree with, what say you?

Retrolord is topic banned from all admin pages (including talk pages), including ANI, AN, AN3, ARB and others except:
He may participate fully in Requests for x(Admin,Crat or comment), provided he does so in a civil manner
He may initiate actions at admin boards if required (asking advice beforehand is advised)
He may participate in any board action to which he is named as a party, or he clearly and obviously has a vested interest, (asking beforehand is also advised)
While he participates in these limited ways, he understand that his behavior is to expected to be on topic and professional, as is expected of all participants. The ban is for an indefinite period of time but not infinite and can be reviewed after 90 days at WP:AN if he so chooses.

The notes about RfX's are so I can participate fully, and to clear up the original wording as I didn't think it was clear enough. Let's face it, it literally takes you 2 minutes max to block me if I am not civil at RfX's, so could I participate there fully? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 17:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable change and fits the idea of what I was going after perfectly: Allowing you full participation in anything to which you have an interest. You don't need to use the talk page there to register a vote, but using the front page without any additional restriction is fine. I will kindly advise you to avoid more than one or two questions at RFX, that is a proposal we are working on anyway, for everyone. I would also note that, like all things at Wikipedia, it is the spirit of this agreement that matters more than the wording (per WP:5p). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad we can agree on this then. I assume you can't unblock because your involved but I have no objection to you doing so if you don't consider yourself involved. To attract some attention from an uninvolved editor i'll post a quick unblock notice. Thanks,★★Retro Lord ★★ 18:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Retrolord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

consensus of most people here

Accept reason:

I can always review my own blocks to accept an unblock :) Per agreement to some reasonable restrictions above, noted in brief in the block log. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]