User talk:RetiredDuke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barcelos Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barcelos. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portuguese-style bullfighting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beja.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Diacritic[edit]

"ö" in German can be transliterated to "oe", e.g. "Schroedinger", "Doenitz", etc. It's OK. Kurzon (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: 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[edit]

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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: 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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: 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[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the regular work you do at most viewed TFAs. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks Gog, very kind of you. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rescue barnstar[edit]

Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
For helping to save Battle of Blenheim during featured article review - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
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[edit]

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[edit]

I am certain you intended to freak me out with this :) SandyGeorgia (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! SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

errant Rick Bot edits[edit]

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 :)[edit]

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. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. SandyGeorgia (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! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)