User talk:Retrolord/Archives/2013/July

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

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

Knighthood
I request permission by thy king to serve the kingdom and the royal highness as knight. I request this with honor, it is solely my duty to protect you and your kingdom. Oh and we need your help at WP:AFC, there's a backlog there that requires your attention! Prabash. Akmeemana   02:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What sort of Knighthood do you want?  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  03:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Grand and most Honourable Order of the Royal Knights of Wikipedia. Prabash.  Akmeemana   03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Josephine 96 GAN
Hey there! I believe I answered your questions about Josephine 96. Lemme know if anything else needs to get done. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Elimination drive
Yeah, I'll knock something up in the coming few days- we could perhaps run it through August, though I am moving house at the end of August and so may not actually be able to do much at the very end of the competition. I suppose having a couple of coordinators/judges would be helpful... J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Let me know if you need any help with it then,  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much!  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  13:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Government in Exile
Absolutely! I look forward to it! --Brigade Piron (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
I have blocked you indefinitely. This is unrelated to the section right above; I take no position about whether you are a sockpuppet or not. But simply put, you have been a disruptive influence to the project for the last several weeks. Today's mess regarding the AutoWikiBrowser is one incident, but there are many others: spamming the emergency Wikimedia Foundation email, opening 15 GA reviews and generally giving very poor-quality reviews, being quite hostile for no apparent reason, the list goes on. This style of editing behavior is not well-compatible with what the community expects from its volunteers. Accordingly, I am blocking you until you can demonstrate the appropriate level of emotional maturity to edit without causing disruption or conflict. (To appeal this block, if your reply fails to convince me, please see WP:GAB). NW ( Talk ) 21:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good block. I nearly did this hours before. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Woah woah woah. Hold up. Give me a chance to read this sockpuppet investigation before I even begin replying to this.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  00:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * NW specifically said that the block was unrelated to the SPI. N o f o rmation  Talk  00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to be able to defend myself. I currently have a topic ban discussion going on (While im indeffed, how preventative), where people are spouting pure lies about me. Then I have an open SPI where I'm being accused of being some asshole. (from an IP in an apple shop over the road from a school apparantly) 00:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppet madness comes to a close.
Case closed. Hope everyones happy with the outcome. Would have been nice if I wasn't subjected to this humiliation in the first place.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the outcome, and I apologize for my concern and my mistake. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CorporateM Unnoficial GA review
Even though I'm blocked, I thought I'd do you a review anyway.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) " When Publishers Clearing House moved its headquarters in 1969, its prior location was donated to the city and renamed the Harold E. Mertz community center" His basement was donated? I'm not sure I understand,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is right after "Within a few years the company moved out of Mertz's basement and started hiring staff." I added "into an office building" to make it more clear.


 * 1) "broke sales records" Which ones?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the book was any more specific, so I just re-wrote it into "sold more than other products" This also seems more neutral to me as "Breaking sales records is a bit promotional"


 * 1) No criticism section? Does any exist?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a massive Government Regulation section, as well as a Lawsuit section under history that cover the extensive criticisms the company has received, but no "Criticism" section per WP:Criticism.

Thanks corporate.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Images are good and all statements are sourced,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks messy. I've posted some comments inset above and made some tweaks. CorporateM (Talk) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. Just thought you might be without a reviewer for a while as I doubt the people who blocked me will be taking over, hope the above helped a bit.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  02:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * and Retrolord, I will take over the GA review if you want, but if retro can handle it, that's fine!  Prabash.  Akmeemana   02:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking over Prabash?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  02:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as you are fine with it :)  Prabash.  Akmeemana   02:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I appreciate it Prabash,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  03:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind waiting. It usually takes about 3 months to get a reviewer, so the article was actually picked up quite promptly! There was some discussion about the overall structure of the controversy. One editor proposed merging the Lawsuits section with the Government Regulation section. I mentioned that if we did that the section would become long enough for its own article Regulation of Publishers Clearing House. Right now the Lawsuits section summarizes it at the time in the chronology where it occured than it's expanded in the gov regulation section. Would be interested in your thoughts on the best way to handle it. I feel any way would be basically fine. CorporateM (Talk) 02:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Prabash. Akmeemana   02:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished business
User:‎Peacemaker67 Hiya! That review of the SS mountain division was finished, pending me formally passing it. Seeing as I am now incapacitated in that regard, you may want to attract some attention from either milhist or wt:gan, asking for someone put the GA tags on it and close the review. Best wishes,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  05:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Retrolord. I will take over this review. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa, good catch on the source paraphrasing too, I missed that.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

More Unfinished Business
User:Khazar2 User:Rschen7754 per your discussion at WT:GAN. What to do with my reviews, I think the following would be best.


 * 1) Great power article, fail it.
 * 2) George Mcgovern and Jefferson Davis should be taken over by someone else, they shouldn't be too hard to bring up to standard
 * 3) There are a few outstanding remarks at Talk:Pennsylvanian (train)/GA1 but otherwise that one shouldn't be too hard
 * 4) Euro Banknotes, no review has occured, so should be failed and put back on the list at the same spot it was before I picked it up
 * 5) Publsihers clearing house, I did a review anyway on my talkpage, but someone should go over it again, shouldn't take to much work to pass
 * 6) Sora:kingdom hearts one should be failed
 * 7) Spongebob one should pass

Thanks,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  05:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And as per the thread above, the mountain SS division one should be passed.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  05:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're on it. My suggestion for now would be to not worry about these, but to concentrate on getting unblocked. I've been following the discussion here off and on, and it seems to me you've been getting a lot of good advice about this that you're deleting or declining to take, especially PinkAmpersand's heartfelt note . FWIW, I feel like you're somebody who has a lot to contribute here; it's just that you've let your signal-to-noise ratio get out of whack the past month or two, and others' comments about this, including mine, seem to have accelerated the trend rather than reversed it. I hope you can reconsider some of this behavior and refocus on quality content contributions and reviews. All the best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to stop trying to conduct wiki business and begin focusing on your block, else your talk page access is going to be revoked.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request prep
"I have blocked you indefinitely. This is unrelated to the section right above; I take no position about whether you are a sockpuppet or not. But simply put, you have been a disruptive influence to the project for the last several weeks. Today's mess regarding the AutoWikiBrowser is one incident, but there are many others: spamming the emergency Wikimedia Foundation email, opening 15 GA reviews and generally giving very poor-quality reviews, being quite hostile for no apparent reason [1], the list goes on. This style of editing behavior is not well-compatible with what the community expects from its volunteers. Accordingly, I am blocking you until you can demonstrate the appropriate level of emotional maturity to edit without causing disruption or conflict. (To appeal this block, if your reply fails to convince me, please see WP:GAB). NW (Talk) 21:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)"


 * Problem A) I never had 15 ga's open
 * Problem B) I sent the WMF one email, hardly spam, + its off wiki
 * Problem C) Why didn't anyone tell me my GA reviews were not up to scratch before? And can someone substantiate the claim of substandard reviews? People provided 2 diffs as far as I know at WT:GAN, and one of them happened quite a few months ago....

 ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  07:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare, your input is requested.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  07:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare, I hate to be rude, but could you clarify the three points above?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  02:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm sorry to see things are going badly. I would suggest seeing WP:GAB your posting above probably won't cut it. I know you're frustrated but you may want to wait a week or two let the people involved calm down, and yourself too. Just my opinion again but I don't see you having too much success with the request as is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats less of an unblock request and more a few questions for NW. I'm just seeking clarification seeing as things spiralled out of control so quickly. Woke up this morning indeffed, with an open SPI + a topic ban discussion going on. Fun times.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Problem B", what was stated on your talk page about your use of the emergency email was "You received a response to your initial contact to the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency email address explaining that the email address is used for threats against life and property. Your continued use of it to request an unblock is not only inappropriate, but pointless" (my emphasis). This suggests more than one email was sent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really a topic for on wiki speculation. I've said what I'm going to say about this, and if the WMF wishes to correct me, they may do so.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  11:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WMF are not handling, and will not be handling, your unblock request. Therefore they have no interest in any potentially misleading comments you may make while attempting to get unblocked. Others do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 8, 12, 15 – the exact number, frankly, is irrelevant. With respect to the WMF: it was more than sending the email, it was your completely immature response when told by Maggie and others that you should never ever use the emergency alert system for something like that. And people have told you that, you have just chosen not to listen. I linked to one example above. Also add in basically every noticeboard discussion you have been involved with in the past month for people telling you that your behavior needs to change. NW ( Talk ) 14:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguing the minute details that have been mentioned in the discussion of your block, such as exact number of open GA reviews, number of emails sent to the emergency address, etc. won't really get you anywhere—it just comes off as Wikilawyering. A good block appeal would discuss the general pattern of behavior that led to this block, not try to get the block "thrown out on a technicality". – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not trying to wikilawyer here, but if your going to cite "15 ga reviews" in a block notice, it would be nice if that figure was somewhat attached to reality. As far as I'm aware I have 8 open at the moment, 15 is almost double that. I'm just trying to understand all this.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  17:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For Christ's sake, get a clue. I didn't sit down and count the number of reviews you had open; I saw the number 15 quoted by a number of other editors and assumed it was true. I did know that the number with a lot. And frankly, it's irrelevant exactly how many you had open; the bigger problem is that you are reviewing more than zero badly. The fact that the number is more than one is just a bonus to that issue. Go post a coherent unblock notice and stop bothering me for these minor points. NW ( Talk ) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was of the opinion that my reviewing was ok. Would you mind providing a few examples where my reviewing has been so incompetent it contributed to my indef block? The reason I ask his, prior to about 3 days ago, I haven't had anyone question my reviewing for about 6 months, so I'm keen to hear why you think it is so appalling. Thanks NW  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  04:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He asked you to not bother him with minor points, and in your reply you ping-link him.  This is what he is talking about: either you are foolishly antagonizing him or you are reinforcing his point that you lack clue.  This is the kind of behavior that makes me want to decline an unblock request as well.  If you don't understand why, I can't really help you. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats the whole point Dennis. The block notice mentions 15 reviews, and bad reviewing. NW mentions he read it somewhere else and assumed it to be true. Not only was it wrong, it was double the true amount. I am just asking for people to provide a diff or two where I've made a bad review. Sorry if that means I'm lacking in clue, but given i've done 65 or so of these reviews, I'd expect you to be able to come up with a few examples.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  08:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try and understand it's your approach they don't like. This may be personal or it can be based on your interactions against others. If you'd like (I don't suggest this) you can ask for a block review on WP:AN but I think you'd be better off dropping the WP:STICK. Really, at this point in time it's a short matter of time before some administrator decides to yank your talkpage access. Try and show that even though you don't agree with the block you can alter your approach and do something different. Only suggestions, not judgements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WT:GAN contains clear points made by editors regarding your GA reviews, and why they were found to be unsatisfactory by these users. They provided examples which you chose to ignore. It's not exactly like this block came out of nowhere. It came after a series of incidents, mostly regarding users attempting to provide valid criticism and advice on your work. At this point, it is somewhat worrisome that you are unable to figure out the problems with your reviews and demeanor when there are so many cases of users attempting to inform you, and you brushing them off. Please, spend some time examining the criticism you have received at various venues, and take it to heart. If you wish to be unblocked, that is the best approach.NativeForeigner Talk 11:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this diff shows you having far too many GA reviews on the go at once. You'll recall I dropped a note on your talk page saying this was too many and to just concentrate on one at a time.

If you want get unblocked, my advice is the following:
 * Get yourself a mentor (you can email them while blocked) and get them to confirm on your talk page here that they will mentor you.
 * Draft your unblock request. You need to explicitly acknowledge you have been disruptive and your tone has been inappropriate. In particular, I would offer an apology to Bwilkins as, like it or not, he might be the one looking at the unblock. You also need to provide assurance that you will immediately change tact with a mentor in place.
 * Hopefully somebody on here will review your request and restructure it. You then need to wait and see what an admin looking at the unblock request list says.

I think that's just about the only way you're going to get unblocked - you've got some serious work to do here. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs an apology to Maggie as well, whether she wants one or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also recommend completely dropping the "king Retrolord" persona, both in dialogue and from user pages/sig. Wikipedia is not an RPG and while some users may find it cute I think you'll find it annoys more than it contributes.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A promise not to undertake editing like this would also be good - respect consensus. I also think Bidgee needs an apology for your WP:POINTY actions and mild WP:WIKIHOUNDING both here  and on commons . Liamdavies (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already apolgised to bidgee, on this page at some point, no diffs though.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  06:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Retrolord has been given plenty of advice, and now I think it's best to let him spend some time away from the project and think about things. I don't think there's any value in further unblock advice from third parties who can't actually act on an unblock request. Probably best to let things lie now. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 09:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only concur with what everyone else has said. This isn't a nice thing for you to hear, but there's a real risk of your talk page access being turned off. Time is a good healer (as is a pint of Shepherd Neame Master Brew), and you really are better off finding out some of the great things the world has to offer outside of Wikipedia for the immediate short term. (Like Master Brew). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious, why exactly would my talk page getting revoked? I ask a few questions, and get some answers, some polite, some not so polite. What's the problem with what I'm doing?  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  04:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 08:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Retrolord hasn't done anything of the sort for at least a couple days. How about we all take Basalisk's advice to heart and let him/her alone while they decide how to proceed?   N o f o rmation  Talk  09:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PantherLeapord (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)