User talk:Retrolord/Archives/2013/August

Be wary of Retrolord
"be wary of RetroLord appearing to influence reviews from a distance" So User:Pyrotec, care to explain?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, you are blocked, but you knowingly used this userpage to conduct a GAN review on Publishers Clearing House on 27 July. The reviewer who took over put "As per RetroLord's permission, I will continue the GA review for this article. RetroLord is on a long Wiki-break now and wont be back soon. CorporateM, the article is fleshed out enough for GA, but its best to fix up what R-Lord told you to do on his talk page." Another editor raised the point that the review should be carried out on the review page not on your talkpage. Yesterday morning the reviewer wrote "CorporateM I'm on right now, yes I will assess the article for GA, it looks like a clear pass now since you guys have done just about everything Retrolord pointed out, I will begin the assessment soon"; just over two hours later he passed the article without any further "actions" and notified the nominator at 02:10 that it had passed. Eight minutes after that the nominator received a message of congratulations from you. I've subsequently opened a GAR on Publishers Clearing House since just by looking at the Lead, I can see that the article is not compliant and posted comments on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The statement "be wary of RetroLord appearing to influence reviews from a distance" is a direct quotation from my comments this morning at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
 * On the 30 July Noformation attempted to support you against the statement: "The problem would be that you're not taking your block serious, you continued to conduct wiki business, and you're not using this access to work on getting unblocked. The comment you just made shows you're still carrying the stick and you're not taking this serious. Talk page access while blocked is reserved for block appeals, not continuing wiki business" made by Dusti, but here you are just four days later reading comments on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and asking for clarification here.
 * Some GAN reviews stop partway through for all sorts of reasons and your reviews have stopped (at least by you) by events that you have (in theory) have no control over, i.e. you can't edit other than here. Someone usually take over, closes the reviews, or closes the reviews and renominates against the original nominator and that would have happened to all for your still open reviews. However, from one view-point you continued to "infer" after the ban by asking other people to take over the reviews or accepting offers from them to take over. That is not the only viewpoint, another one is that you are taking an interest in the project / wikipeida and trying to organise your efforts whilst you can. The problem is that I assume that you are trying to get back onto wikipedia; and whoever makes the decision may well hold the viewpoint that you are still trying to exert an influence on GAN and/or "interfering". Pyrotec (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation Pyro  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  13:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis infobox flag
I've reverted an unsourced infobox flag based on discussion page section up for two weeks. Please let me know what your thoughts are, as I do not want to be disruptive, only scholarly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to fire this question off to either Khazar2, the current reviewer, or Wasted Time, the nominator, as I have no idea.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)