User talk:RetiredDuke/Archive 1

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, RetiredDuke. 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
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to 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 Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! –72 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Fred FAC
Hello RetiredDuke. Thanks again for your source review over at Hurricane Fred´s FAC. I was wondering if my improvements to the text are to your satisfaction, and/or if you have any further comments. If everything is up to standard, could you leave a quick reply detailing so for the FAC coordinators? Cheers,  Auree   ★ ★  06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldham
So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude. Back off. That article is clearly notable and someday someone with access to the sources I mentioned will fix it. I'm certainly under no obligation to do so. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus: Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing trolling by TenPoundHammer. Andy Dingley (talk)

For unlooked for helpfulness
Oh that's awesome Gog the Mild, that's my very first barnstar! Just a quick note to tell you that I really appreciate your work on the Hundred Years' War articles; you are quickly turning a very neglected part of Wikipedia into a reference for the early part of the conflict. Keep up the good work! RetiredDuke (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your first? After all of your helpful input over the past two years! Some Wikipedians are being unwontedly unappreciative. Happy to have broken your duck. (It took me two-and-a-half years to get my first barnstar.) And thank you for your appreciation; it is difficult to tell to what extent anyone notices. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Bliss for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Bliss is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In appreciation
I have just noticed that you have Crécy campaign among your favourites - bless you - which made me laugh and gave me a warm glow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the barnstar Gog, really appreciate it. I swear I'm not stalking you at Battle of Lagos, it's just that I have almost every Portuguese-related article under the sun on my watchlist so that one has been popping up lately. It's been fun to follow the progress made on the article, fully expect it to appear at FAC someday.
 * As for my favourites list, yeah. I tend to jot down some featured articles that catch my eye so I can come back to them eventually. The Crécy campaign one is there because it's an overview article that's concisely written on a bunch of conflicts that have seen plenty of work and research done to them (by you) and about which I knew next to nothing about - we don't cover the Hundred Years' War in school, the one time it briefly intersects with Portuguese history is during the 1383–1385 Portuguese interregnum. So the Crécy campaign is my hub for all the articles under it, and all of them are exemplary. (Also, the notes and citations look beautiful, I spend way too much time dealing with substandard sourcing.) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi RetiredDuke. I had actually forgotten that I had awarded you a barnstar back in April, until after I made this award. But you more than deserve it. Given the amount of useful work you do, I find it a little depressing that no one else has seen fit to similarly express their appreciation.
 * I think that it is only harassment if it is unwanted or done for negative reasons. Please feel free to stalk me for the purpose of tidying up all of the mistakes I make . (My views on my "stalkers" can be found towards the end of this).
 * Good. I put a lot of effort into the whole 1345-1347 series. It seemed ridiculous that the Gascon theatre got almost no coverage, and the north of France just had the main battles and sieges cherry picked. Hopefully the coverage is now fuller and also sets the 'sharp end' bits in context. I think that Crécy campaign may be my favorite of the many I have worked on; or perhaps tied with Battle of Crécy. I have plans for a grand, over-arching Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 article (as in the third one down here, but I am taking a break from 100 Years' War articles for a while, or trying to. Hence Battle of Lagos. (It must be interesting to observe my patchwork approach to building it up.) And my next two FAC candidates: Battle of Ecnomus and Razing of Friesoythe.
 * I was "encouraged" to get my sourcing right in a hard school. I am pleased that you like it. If there are Portuguese focused articles which you think that I may like to work on, feel free to flag them up. (No promises.) Or if there are any you would like to collaborate on, ditto. (And ditto, although I have never collaborated on an article and would like to.)
 * Finally, I have been tasked with coming up with a sentence summarising 18th-century maritime neutrality - see towards the end of here - for Battle of Lagos. I don't suppose you have any knowledge of this or could give me any pointers?


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I only had time to look around for a bit to answer your neutrality question What I found out during that tiny bit of research was this source, that goes on about how the ship Océan has been heavily studied by Portuguese maritime archaeologists (the abstract is in English, so you can follow it). Then, on page 464 it says:

Este episódio da Guerra dos Sete Anos, ocorrido menos de quatro anos após o catastrófico terramoto que assolara o reino, ficou conhecido pelo nome “Batalha de Lagos” e provocou um veemente protesto do governo de Sua Majestade D. José I, junto da Inglaterra, redigido pelo punho do futuro Marquês de Pombal, então Conde de Oeiras.


 * That means that Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal wrote a strongly worded letter to the English on behalf of his King, about the Battle of Lagos. So looking for the letter I went. The letter is obviously not available online, but I found its location here (second item, the first one is a reworded title used in an old monograph, it seems). That is the catalogue of IDN's network of libraries.


 * I'm sorry, it's getting a bit late for me here, when I have the time I'll do a proper research. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My goodness. That is amazing research. I am highly impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that But that wasn't "research" per se, just a crafty Google-fu.

I found out the reason that I was having trouble getting significant results with "batalha de Lagos" is because Portuguese historians refer to it as "caso de Lagos" (Lagos' case), probably because for them the battle itself wasn't that important but the political ramifications were significant.

All of my Google-fuing led me back to Wikipedia, to the Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762) article (Portuguese and Spanish neutrality in the Seven Years' War), where I found this reference which leads to a passage about the incident with the following quote: On 1 April the Bourbon powers presented their ultimatum, alleging the failure of Portugal to obtain restitution of French ships captured by the English in her waters: therefore she must be invaded. That whole page is interesting and I think that this consequence of the battle is significant enough to include in the aftermath section. Since Portugal did get invaded shortly after.

On your neutrality question (sorry, I get easily sidetracked), I found a book that explains Portugal's neutrality at that time. It's "Portugal e Brasil na crise do antigo sistema colonial (1777-1808)". 6. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1995, p. 17-56, chapter I: “Política de neutralidade.” by Fernando Novais. I don't know if it is available in English (it must be, it's been cited a lot but alas, I'm reading the Portuguese version) but it explains the context. It's a bit dense for me to summarise but it explains the historical Anglo-Portuguese alliance (commercial advantages for the English, political protection for the Portuguese), then when other colonial powers started to threaten Portuguese hegemony in the New World, the country found it necessary to balance its alliances with the other European powers to try and stop the direct trade between those powers and Portuguese colonies. Ergo, neutrality.

I found nothing in there that directly ties the Battle of Lagos to Portuguese neutrality in general, but it does say that Portugal managed to sidestep all the tensions and war at the time due to that reasoning.

I hope this helps, when I get more time I'll make another round. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * RD, that is excellent stuff. More than I can use. Many thanks. I think that you can stop now.
 * Seperately, perhaps you could answer my earlier queries: If there are Portuguese focused articles which you think that I may like to work on, feel free to flag them up. (No promises.) Or if there are any you would like to collaborate on, ditto. (And ditto, although I have never collaborated on an article and would like to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll try and make a very short list of Portuguese-related articles that could also have a strong English coverage so you can see if there's something there that catches your eye. I would love to have one strong article on our history on the English wiki, that's for sure. As for collaboration, I'd be very honored to but I don't feel that I have invested enough on an article yet, 90% of the work I do around here is wiki-gnoming: correcting references, find archives to dead links, find sources and the like. The other 10% are AfD and FAR. So yeah, I don't dabble on content creation much. But I'm honored by the request, thank you. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As well as the (very few) articles I start, and those I pick up as stubs or starts, I do - or did - a lot of work on relatively mature articles which for whatever reason need polishing up. So, for example, I have been picking away at Alvor Agreement for over 18 months with a view to one day getting it to GAN. I also did a lot of work getting C class articles ready for B class assessment at MilHist. One or both of these approaches may work for you. Or if you look at Alvor Agreement or one of the articles you are considering pushing my way and think "I have some background on that", or "I have - or can find - some relevant sources". I would be more than happy to work with you if you did. After all, you don't get to invest in an article until you invest in an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we could work on developing an article together, yes. As long as you don't mind having to keep an extra eye out for the quality of the prose, my English sometimes fails me a bit. I've been wanting write something myself for a while but I honestly did not know where to start so I never bothered. Do you have some articles in mind you think have potential for development? I don't have many ideas right now, mainly because I wasn't expecting to start developing an article on Wikipedia any time soon. But I've been thinking and starting a collaboration effort with an experienced editor would be very valuable to me. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what takes your fancy. You could browse my To do list; Alvor Agreement is the only one which relates to Portugal. Is that something you would fancy? And/or could add some knowledge or sources to. I don't think that it needs a lot of work to get to GA. Or Vespasian's Camp, Cholesbury Camp or Zeno (emperor) should all be easy to get to GA, with some minimal digging around for sources and a little rewriting. I do a lot of work for GOCE, I am used to copy editing. On a different level, Ashley Castle would be very easy for you to take to B class; then we could think about GA. Similarly Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it wouldn't necessarily need to be something Portugal-related, that's a very limiting factor. I don't know much about archeology, but I think I'd like to work in one of the camp articles; both of them have already a nice set of references to start from so that's a plus. The Alvor article looks veeeery tempting but it's already a step above the rest. Zeno is a no, Roman history confuses me. The Ashley Castle article is a bit behind the rest in terms of sources, I would have to dig very deep on a subject I know nothing about. Bombing of Pforzheim, ditto. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, that's a very impressive to-do list, let me tell you. And such an array of topics too, that's some dedication. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Off you go then. Vespasian's Camp: From memory all of the additional sources you need are in External Links. I seem to have left it in good shape after getting it to B class. Keep an eye on the GAN criteria. Remember that "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". I shall keep an eye on your progress. Post queries on the article's talk page. This is a collaboration, so post lots: no need for you to do something the hard way if I already know the answer or can just do it.
 * I write Wikipedia articles largely for intellectual stimulation. So having to research a completely new topic every so often, about which I was completely ignorant, keeps my brain cells active. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly forgot - a couple of hill forts which are already GAs, to give you an idea of what you are aiming for: Cadbury Camp, Mellor hill fort, Solsbury Hill, Worlebury Camp. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would strongly recommend changing the referencing to Harvard; if you want, I will do that for the existing references. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pointers, they'll be useful. When I'm a bit more available (probaby the weekend) I'll start analysing the article, the similar articles and the GA criteria so I'll get an idea of what to do. I won't say no to your offer on citation formatting since I usually don't have that in mind. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Jeropiga
"Hello fellow Portuguese editor, I've noticed that you have an article on jeropiga waiting for approval in draft (shocking that we still don't have an article on it!! - thank you for starting a draft on it). Would you mind terribly if I add some better sources to it since its sourcing is a bit poor at the moment?I'll start editing a bit now, just leaving you a note so it's not a surprise to you. Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)"
 * Dear Retired Duke. Your improvements are certainly welcome. Jeropiga is such a common feature in the Portuguese village I live in and want to make it more known to Wikipedia readers. I could not find more sources in English, so... I'll be looking forward to see your improvements. Gadogado123 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Duke, I like your historical references. It increases the encyclopedial value of the article. I do object though to one word in the first sentence of your modification: "commercial". The potion may be sold under the name 'jeropiga', but there is nothing commercial on the jeropiga offered to me (an expat) by my neighbours in a central Portugal village. I also perceive from the references that homebrew jeropiga is a common feature in parts of Portugal. I suggest to leave the word commercial out.Gadogado123 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I've removed the word; I'd put it there to reflect the first source in the text. I'll try to write a short paragraph that incorporates a bit of the historical sources and then a bit about the tradition in Brazil. The most important thing to get a draft approved is to show that a topic is widely covered in reliable sources so there shouldn't be a problem with this draft. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I've been working on the draft. Almost everything has a citation next to it now, which is good. I've added your image from the Portuguese wiki, hope you don't mind. I don't expect to make many more edits to the draft, if at all, although it can still be expanded greatly by using some of the sources there. Good luck with the draft being accepted! (Feel free to discuss something that I did wrong, I don't promise to answer right away though) RetiredDuke (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My submission has been accepted, no doubt thanks to your improvements. The jeropiga in the picture is already finished :-) Gadogado123 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, wasn't expecting it anytime soon, the draft process usually lasts a bit longer. Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of jeropiga myself, but I'm always happy to help improve Wikipedia's coverage on Portuguese topics (which is miserable at the moment). Congrats! RetiredDuke (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Middle-earth peoples
Hi, if you have time, can you check recent deletions from the article? Thanks, Denisarona (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fake allegation due to significant coverage, stories don't touch much form Global Child Prodigies
I have also seen the question was raised on the funding source but it is already mentioned on there website it is done by there sponsors and partners Significant coverage has been done by different media sources when i have gone through the google search there is enough reliable content from which it can be removed from the deleted wiki source & make it live. If i talk about query raised due to its the Stories, so it is clear that this is not an organization who entertain with the stories. There are some blogs i have seen which can be a mode of inspiration for other kids & parents to not stop their child --Ajit.rox28 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , that article was deleted by consensus four months ago. I stand by what I wrote back then, that I couldn't find enough independent coverage of the event for us to have an article on it. The stuff that is on gcpawards.com does not qualify as independent coverage, because it was written by GCP Awards. It's advertising. There's also no need to accuse me of anything, it's just an article on a website. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is not at all advertising because It's an initiative which is supported by different persons like the President of Philippines, the head of Indian Army, Director of CBI, Governer, chief ministers and many more who don't support any kind of promotional event or they don't do any advertisement for anything. They have supported it because it has got a view of higher people. please give a suggestion on the page how can make it live.--Ajit.rox28 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Diacritic
"ö" in German can be transliterated to "oe", e.g. "Schroedinger", "Doenitz", etc. It's OK. Kurzon (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this about atom? The article had a series of Schrödingers and 1 single Schroedinger; consistency is expected from a FA and, I think, not unwelcome on Wikipedia at large. Thank you for the info though, feel free to revert. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR work
RD, thanks for all the reviews and talk page notices for FAR. The current problem is that very few people are nominating FARs, and those who are, are limited to one nom every few weeks, so it's hard to get through the growing list. If you are able to also make some nominations it would help us lower the size of the growing template. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can help that way. I've held back nominating so far because the FAR instructions say we're limited to "No more than four nominations on the page at one time" and I did not want to strain the process by asking the coords for an exception to an extra nom. Every time a slot opens someone beats me to it, so I just review articles. RetiredDuke (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That means no more than four nominations by you, not overall ... I guess we had better clear that up :). You can nominate an article every two weeks as long as you do not already have four nominations. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aaah, I see it now. I must have confused it the first time I read it and then never questioned it again. OK, I'll look into it tomorrow or the day after, it's getting late here. RetiredDuke (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Many thanks Gog, very kind of you. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Rescue barnstar

 * Many thanks Dumelow, but I only did minimal copyediting. Glad to be able to help. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

albums are in italics, people
Hi RetiredDuke, thank you for the advice, mistakes are often made out of distraction. Greetings from Italy Take care| :) Luigi936 ( talk) 18:28,  7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Luigi936, it's OK. Albums are in italics, songs are in "quotation marks" and no need to link well-known countries like Japan or Canada, only the more "unknown" ones like Zambia. See MOS:OVERLINK. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks RetiredDuke, very kind and thanks again for the information.  Luigi936 ( talk) 18:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice edit summary
I am certain you intended to freak me out with this :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia I genuinely only noticed the double meaning now (having a laughing fit over here). Don't worry, I'm not planning on flooding the thing any time soon. :) RetiredDuke (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, that's some amount of work you've done there! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia I am starting to notice something about these old entertainment FAs. On the surface, they look solid: everything is properly cited, and you can't find much fault just by skimming the article. But then you find something that makes you pause. In 300, it was the Iranian subsection; it felt like I was reading the same thing three times over. So yeah, I was ready to label the article "meh" and leave it for a later, "non-urgent" review, until I noticed that and had to unravel the article, leaving a full review behind. Because really, it looks ok at a glance.
 * It was the same with grunge, the article looks very nice until you find the sections that have more quotes than sentences. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s why we need to insist on three reviews from different types of editors at WP:URFA/2020 before we move them off the list ... you will see things I have no idea about on pop culture FAs. I know what to look for on medical articles, for example. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

errant Rick Bot edits
Hi - Thanks for noticing and fixing the errant edits. I've changed the bot so that this error won't happen again (FAs with a single quote in their name were causing a problem). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rick Block No problem, glad you could fix the code. Kinda forgot about notifying the bot owner when I was going around fixing it manually. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You didn't hear this from me :)
After Shimer, I got so sick of FAC reviewers pushing stuff like that up the line, that I took off my FAC delegate hat and reviewed his next one myself. You can see what was getting support before I opposed. Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia FAs about higher learning institutions read as overly promotional to me in such a weird way. The other day, I landed independently on Duke (because of the lacrosse team incident, it's fascinating from an outsider perspective) and that section on notable people is simply ridiculous. As if we do not have a separate article to cram all those people in. And yes, I'm getting the idea that some of these older FAs would have benefited from a substantiated oppose at the time, I find myself unconsciously doing random spotchecks at every article I review for FAR now. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wondered about every one of those school articles. Thanks for all you do!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)