Jump to content

User talk:RGloucester/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

L'Aquotique

I suspect that L'Aquotique was attempting to generate a false consensus to restore that same info through bullying and impersonation because s/he had lost the earlier debate. The reason they create accounts to talk about themselves is presumably to make it less obvious by avoiding an overwhelming consensus one way. I seriously doubt anyone would be doing this for no reason at all, since usually those kinds of vandals are just silly. This, however, is deadly seriousness. I hope it all works out fine for you, and I will be happy to assist in combatting anymore trouble there might be. EkoGraf (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2014

@EkoGraf: I appreciate your support. I don't feel that the person is being serious, however, in the manner that they write or act. The way both the sock-puppets of Iryna and I were supposedly "talking to each-other" seemed more like some kind of dark comedy, rather than any kind of seriousness. He/she doesn't seem to have a vested interest in Ukrainian articles, only in restoring this one paragraph. That itself is somewhat ridiculous, as they've put in way too much effort in just for the sake of one paragraph, if that's what they supposedly care about. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I just have to point this out: RGloucester, you pinged L'Aquotique. I presume you actually meant to ping EkoGraf? Dustin (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That's odd. I've fixed the ping… RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:RGloucester. For the the problems you are talking about, you have to leave a edit summary that explains why you are making the edit. Rollback does not do that. You have not missed out on anything that would help you.

Where rollback is great is when you are dealing with a prolific vandal who busy vandalising pages as you are reverting. Rollback gives you the time to zap his/her edits and template his/her talk page for them, whilst more-or-less keeping up with the vandal.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up.

I didn't realize that one could actually do that.Hilltrot (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour, as that particular sockmaster likes to sow discord. RGloucester — ☎ 03:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

New template

As I see that you are interested in Ukraine and recent events there, maybe you'll like this template. This template resembles the one used in Russo-Georgian War and is sorted chronologically and by subject. I was recently browsing the articles on the events in Ukraine and there were too many, making it hard to sort out the events. The related topics in the second part of the template are also included, that are seen as precursor to the recent events in Ukraine. What do you think? —UA Victory (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I like it. I was thinking of creating one of those myself. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the template. I couldn't figure out how to create it. Only way I found was AfC. BTW, it still has a small problem: "View" and "Template" buttons in the lower right are in red. Ho to fix this? UA Victory (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hunyadi family

Thank you for your bold copyedit. The article is now ready to a GAN. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Cluestick

The cluestick The Cluestick: awarded to people who do, in fact, have a clue.
I notice your name pop up from time to time in a range of different discussions on the organisation and running of Wikipedia and on other matters. You have an excellent record of saying things I agree withbeing a voice of reason in otherwise fraught debates, and I feel it's worth recognising this. I particularly liked and sympathised with your comment here. Best regards. RomanSpa (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict

Show me where it says Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict is grammatically incorrect. And spare me that talk about being the defender, haunting people, corruption, etc. Just the fact where it says its grammatically incorrect. EkoGraf (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict" isn't a phrase that makes sense. The clause must come before the proper noun. The proper way one would say it is "Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War". I'd also like to note that this was the title agreed upon in the talk page discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, despite agreeing to the title, it was noted in the discussion it was too long and a better/shorter one should be found. EkoGraf (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps so. You're proposed title isn't a good replacement, though, as it doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Good job, genius. Before criticising the man's second-language English grammar, you might want to start with "you're" own.

193.91.197.163 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NBSP

It took me a good while to add all of those non-breaking spaces to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and you removed them. Now, as a result of edit conflicts, I cannot restore them. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They are unnecessary in this instance. They only complicate the mark-up. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And why do you feel that you can make that judgment? In some instances, even when near the beginning of new lines, line breaks may occur with some devices (mostly certain mobile devices from what I have found, but those still are instances), and it is for that reason that the Manual of Style has given it a mention. Dustin (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I can make that judgement just as much as you can make the judgement to put them in. Neither is explicitly supported or opposed by the MoS. Adding extra mark-up doesn't benefit anyone. We don't use non-breaking spaces for every date we write. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for the readers. Regarding the readers, not using NBSPs can have a negative effect, whereas using NBSPs will help some readers and will leave others unaffected. This is the best choice. I must simply ask that you do not remove them again (unless in references or something because NBSPs do mess up formatting there). Dustin (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I will remove them as I see fit if they are serving no purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
None of these serve no purpose. If you do remove any of the current instances, you are being destructive. Dustin (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't destructive, because they serve no purpose, and muck-up the mark-up. There are certain instances where a non-breaking space is warranted. Those instances are fairly rare. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
They are not rare. Every instance of a date or time warrants a non-breaking space to prevent line-breaks, and just because you think it "mucks-up the mark-up" doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Dates such as "3 May" warrant a non-breaking space in the form "3 May", and times such as "1342 UTC" should be written in coding as "1342 UTC". Line breaks within dates e.g. a line break between "3" and "May" are disruptive to an article's readability. Dustin (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. My apologies. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry for pressing so much, I just hate seeing line breaks in dates for some reason. Dustin (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:VP proposal regarding coverage of breaking news

Hello there, RGloucester! I appreciate the proposal you initiated at the Village Pump, presently found here. (You will notice that I changed the heading; I hope you approve.) The proposal doesn't seem to be getting very much comment where it is, and I suspect that may be because it lacks specific concrete actions to take—as you say yourself in the original post, "I'm not sure what can be done." May I suggest that you move the discussion from the "Policy" section to the "Idea lab" section? I suspect that in a case like this, where a problem has been identified but a clear solution has not been articulated, the proposal may find in the "Idea lab" more fertile soil in which to develop. Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will do that. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! I look forward to seeing how the idea develops. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Cross statement

There are numerous news reports and articles that regard Red Cross's statement as a clear classification of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine as being civil war. I don't want to sound rude but if the international press regards this statement as such and you don't, that doesn't make your opinion eligible. Please don't take this as a personal attack. —KronosLine (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the actual press release from the ICRC. It says nothing about "civil war". It says "war", plain and simple. "Civil war" is a POV statement, and it isn't surprising to see a Russian state-run outlet call spin the ICRC's words. The idea that the ICRC "admitted" to the events in Ukraine being a "civil war" is bollocks, pure and simple. To "admit" that, they'd have to say it. They haven't done. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Per this document here, you can use the phrase "non-international armed conflict", in inverted commas. "Civil war" is a no-go, as they said nothing of the kind. I've added in the phrase used, and the sourcing. RGloucester — ☎ 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Throughout their entire statement the ICRC heavily stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of all civilians and that any attacks may be directed only against military objectives. This is an obvious reference to the constant clashes between the pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian Army in which many innocent citizens have died. They have made very obvious remarks which made their classification fall under civil war. I also want to point out that ITAR-ITASS isn't the only outlet to recognize the ICRC's statement as a classification of civil war, same was done by Yahoo! News [1], The Local Switzerland's News [2], Reuters [3], Echo Net Daily [4] and practically any other news reports regarding this statement. --KronosLine (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that basically all reports about this topic consider the ICRC's statement a deliberate classification of Civil War and you consider Wikipedia acknowledging their statement a classification of civil war a "no-go" makes your opinion isolated and very poorly supported. —KronosLine (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen it all, but the fact of the matter is, the ICRC did not use the words "civil war". If we don't attribute these "interpretations" to the media outlets that wrote them, that would not be honest to the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The statement doesn't have to include the exact words "civil war" as they already made their classification pretty clear without them. I'm sure that the ICRC assumes that the people who read their statements are of high enough intelligence that they can interpret their stance on this conflict with the information they put out on the statement, and the actual fact of the matter is that everyone did, as you can tell by the news reports. You are actually the first and only opposition I've encountered. —KronosLine (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't at all clear. If they didn't say "civil war", they didn't say "civil war". Other people and agencies can interpret it as they like, and we can report those interpretations, but that doesn't change the original words that the ICRC issued in their statement. If they wanted to say "civil war", they could've done. They didn't. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass

Thanks, I will update the map daily. —201.252.4.163 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged, Mr IP. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Bermicourt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A grant of honour

Thank you very much for the recognition. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: July 2014

I did not.

For one, I noticed many news articles and independent analysts referring to it as "Ukrainian Civil War", which, quite frankly, it just is.

Secondly, there is no definite evidence of Russian in involvement. The State Department says they have evidence, but they have not shared it, and what few things they did provide are unreliable at best.

I am trying to be as fair here as I can.

Славянский патриот (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our job to decide whether the evidence is "definitive" or not. That is for the sources to decide, and they say what they say. I've not seen anyone refer to it as "Ukrainian Civil War", and that's POV. Regardless, there has already been a "Ukrainian Civil War". Plenty of people consider it a direct war with Russia, but we don't put "Russo-Ukrainian War" in the lead. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk offensive

This is just an idea. On french wikipedia there was a an article called the "donetsk offensive" included the the Donbass War. Perhaps a draft or an article could be created? It would cover the events after slovyansk was retaken by Ukrainian forces.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

All that stuff is already covered in Timeline of the war in Donbass and War in Donbass, as far as I'm aware, but you can try and make a draft if you think you'd be able to. RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the draft if you want to look at it: Draft:2014 Donetsk Offensive

I'd be okay with an article on the offensive of Donetsk city itself. I don't think we need a broader article starting back at Sloviansk. That stuff is covered. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft

That draft's dates were originally in Month Day format. Why did you change it? Dustin (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To match the French article that this is based off of. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

BiloxiBeefalo - possible vandalism

The user BiloxiBeefalo has been making several edits, on Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, Timeline of the war in Donbass and War in Donbass which may be considered as vandalism. Do you agree? If you do, could you warn him about it, please?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

what happend to the 2014 ukraine unrest timeline?

Most of the information in the timeline is missing has it been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.240 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please go to Timeline of the war in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Black Future - disruptive editing?

I think Black Future has been posting some edits that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive to me, unexplainably deleting sources, adding unsourced figures and distorting quite a lot the content of a source that he added, and I 1st deleted and I added again with the right information that is in that source. Do you agree? Should he be warned?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, there are some edits from this editor that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive. In one of them, in the summary of the edit, the editor made the following accusation: "Convenient when sources are blanked, content changed, and when content is re-inserted, "it's not in the sources" is used as an excuse to blank again". Well, now Black Future added the source (concerning to the 80% of eventual Russian volunteers)! But it wasn't there before. Therefore, I didn't blank any source stating that there might be 80% of Russian volunteers. Now it's correct (since, later, this editor added the source that actually says that). On the other hand, he or she is removing sources, without any explanation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Shaktarsk

Do you think you could help me create the draft about the clashes in the Sharktarsk raion?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle in Shakhtarsk Raion

I would like to, but I'm quite busy at the moment, and hence cannot. I should be able to help in a couple of days, but I think you are quite capable yourself. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the fact the Battle of Shakhtarsk raion has been barely worked on, i'm just going to create it into an article.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be created until it has adequate content, usually. If you'd like to create it, you can. I can't guarantee that someone won't nominate it for deletion in the state that it is in. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, no one's working on it.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you can move it to article space and see if that attracts more editors. RGloucester — ☎ 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's an article now, should i add it to the campaginbox?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

July GOCE drive

The Minor Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 1,741 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 drive! All the best, Miniapolis 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

What is the difference of this article with these articles?

Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present)

Euromaidan

2014 Ukrainian revolution

2014 Crimean crisis

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

In the first article of a similar number of victims. In other articles is much less, and still fall within the conflict 2014. Template I do like Euromaidan and 2014 Euromaidan regional state administration occupations. What's wrong? I see that Wikipedia in English is no longer a free encyclopedia, but a political instrument of the United States and Great Britain. Here interfered policy and there is no point. The article is biased and not encyclopedic. Violated neutrality. If this article does not belong in Categories: Conflicts in 2014 with great sacrifices, then I'm right. You deny me access. I do not care. Anyway, I will not take part in all this.--Baba Mica (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? If you want the article on the conflict, that's War in Donbass. If you want the article on the protests and overall unrest, that's 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is inserted in Categories: Conflicts in in 2014. This is a military conflict. There are a lot of victims. These riots are much worse than Euromaidan, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and 2014 Crimean crisis. It is similar to Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present). There are over 1,000 casualties. I want to divide it into two phases. The first phase - Protests: 23 February - 6 April. The second phase - War in Donbasu: 6 April - ongoing.

--Baba Mica (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the unrest is not a "conflict". Only the war is a "conflict". Secondly, the "war" is not a "second phase", as protests are ongoing in other parts of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Euromaidan conflict? Why is the 2014 Ukrainian revolution conflict? Why is Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present) conflict? Why 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is not a conflict? What's this all about? What is this nonsense? If the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is not a conflict, a Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present), Euromaidan, 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Ukrainian revolution are, then this is nonsense. 2014 Crimean crisis is ridiculous compared to the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Three of the victims in the Crimea in relation to the thousands of victims in South-East Ukraine is an amazing difference. Crimea is not at all involved in military battles. Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present), Euromaidan, 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Ukrainian revolution should be removed from Categories: Conflicts in 2014 or change the title of 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. If this is not done, then Wikipedia has become ridiculous.--Baba Mica (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Donetsk?

Perhaps a draft could be created about the siege of donetsk? It would have nobility.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It would not have notability, as it would be crystal-balling. No such siege has happened, yet. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Snizhne and Torez

Are Snizhne and and Torez part of the Shakhtarsk Raion? If they are we could add them to the draft.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They are part of the raion in a geographic sense, but they are administered separately at cities. In that case, I think it is acceptable to add them. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

map problems

The map we are using is not fully correct. Donetsk has been separated from Lugansk, and i have read no sources that they reconnected.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend restoring the English language version of the map that was removed yesterday. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

DYK for Deutscher Nationalverband

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated map

Well, I was the last person who updated the map on 5 August 2014, because the previous editor disagreed with the map and said he/she would not update it anymore. But as soon as I started to see locations that I couldn't find on Google Maps, I also quited. So, the map is not updated.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Russian map has been updated by someone else, which is why I put it back in. We can use that until someone fixes the English one. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious

simplistic style of Wikipedia
Thank you, user who finds "that editing Wikipedia is a stress reliever". for quality articles such as Edinburgh Trams, Deutscher Nationalverband and A Collection of Vibrations for Your Skull, for precision and a map, for "The simplistic style of Wikipedia is part of what makes it great", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Waverley Line

Can you point which edits you found inappropriate? I looked not to alter the meaning of the sentences, and the prose shortening was done in order to achieve neutrality.--Retrohead (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I found that you introduced awkward grammatical structures that were not improvements on the existing text. For examples, take a look at this. It shows the text before you began copyediting, and after you finished. As a first example:
  • You changed "they were designed for long stretches at speeds above 80 miles per hour (130 km/h)" to "they were designed for long stretches at speed above 80 miles per hour (130 km/h)"
This doesn't make any sense, "at speed above x" is grammatically incorrect.
My only change was "speeds" to "speed", which is a correct edit.
  • You changed "Feelings were running high along the route" to "Tension among people became apparent"
The existing phrasing wasn't very good, but "tension among people became apparent" is both vague (what people?) and awkward (became apparent).
"Feelings were running high" is POV clause. I'm not familiar with the topic and can not say who were the people.
  • You changed "With the trees in the reforested areas of Kielder Forest now approaching maturity" to "With the trees in the reforested areas of Kielder Forest now grown up".
"Grown up" isn't usually used for trees, but only for people.
"Approaching maturity" is definitely a worse choice than grown up.
  • You changed "On 27 March 2007, Transport Minister Nicol Stephen formally initiated preparatory works" to "On 27 March 2007, Transport Minister Nicol Stephen formally initiated preliminary actions"
What exactly is a "preliminary action"? This lacks specificity, and could refer to budgetary or planning concerns, rather than physical works.
Agree, this is my bad.
These are only a few examples. I do not mean to criticise you in any way, merely that I think that someone else should take a look at it and perhaps alleviate some of the awkwardness. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, reverted all of my edits and de–archived the nomination. Apologies for my mistake. I hope we'll a have better collaboration in future.--Retrohead (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said at the requests page, that's some good investigative work on your part. I've never edited the article before, merely passed by it and thought it needed work. That's quite a disaster. I do appreciate your efforts, regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for your reply. Hopefully your next request will have better luck. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've restarted the copy-edit; thanks for your patience and I'm sorry about the copyvio business above. Third time lucky, perhaps? ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


(←) Hi RGloucester, If you're still interested in this article, there's some coverage on the BBC's website that might be useful for references. here etc. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

new article

Are there any notable events in the Donbass War that could be considered for the making of an article?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Epic Barnstar
In recognition for your tireless efforts to improve the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and War in Donbass, with exceptional accuracy, balance and persistence

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood because he is a racist madman. Also according to DNA reports wounds seemed to be self-inflicted. Simple as that and end of story. Won't make such an edit ever again but that is the truth. He is a murderer and he should be shot just like he shot Martin. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

convoy attack

Is the time right for the refugee convoy attack draft I created too be published into an article?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me copyedit it, and then you can publish it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to the article space. I apologise if I do not respond swiftly to queries, as I'm on holiday. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nani, Vivian Dsena

Hi, I'm Anupmehra. Just a note that, I've unaccepted two pending changes accepted by you because they clearly were either very irrelevant changes or not in accordance with Wikipedia verifiability policy. On Nani article, you accepted pending changes in which a seb-section was converted into section and moved under a very irrelevant section. On Vivian Dsena article, you accepted pending changes, where changes made by IP to the biography of living person were not verifiable. I hope, you'll take care of these stuffs further on. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note the purpose of pending changes. None of these edits were obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and there was no barrier to my accepting them. You are free to revert the changes using standard procedures. Please note what the guideline of reviewing pending changes says: "It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting". You appear to be discussing matters of content, which is not the purpose of pending changes protection. A pending changes review is merely meant as a "quick check" for vandalism. None of these edits were vandalism. RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's an exemption to allow you to add unsourced contents to BLPs and break structure of the article, and in turn to create extra unnecessary tasks for other editors who try to keep Wikipedia articles accurate. I'd suggest you to revert obvious vandalism only on pending changes at this time, and leave the unclear pending changes unaccepted for someone else to do it. There's no hurry to answer them all. Nani is a good article and I'd say, you for a moment, degraded it from its standard. I hope, you understand what do I mean. I'm not here to stalk you on your talk page. I'm saying, by accepting those pending changes, you are giving articles bad shape, and the worse creating other editors extra unnecessary tasks. This way, Wikipedia community will end up making circular efforts. And, I'm sorry, if I did sound rude somewhere in my words to you. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologise, but I disagree. IPs must be able to contribute, and the contributions at Nani and Vivian Dsena were not vandalism. We don't artificially protect articles to maintain some kind of ivory tower standard. The only purpose of pending changes is to stop obvious vandalism and grievous BLP violations. These IP contributions are as valuable to this encyclopaedia as mine and yours, and were neither vandalism nor grievous BLP violations. You are free to revert him outside of the pending changes process. Please follow the guidelines for reviewing pending changes. Your attempts to essentially block IP editing with pending changes is not at all appropriate. If you'd like to do so, please request semi-protection. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been a reviewer for quite sometime, you may believe me to have read the related guideline. I'm sorry but I feel, you are misinterpreting me. I'm not sure, if above or any where on Wikipedia or any Wikimedia projects, I've ever said that, IPs contribution should be neglected. I'm not against any IPs or new editors or any person else's contribution. Positive contributions irrespective of the contributor are most welcome to the project.
I'm saying inaccurate changes either should not be accepted or fixed first before accepting them. I've noticed you accepting many unsourced pending changes (not to the height of vandalism, but claims very likely to be challenged), and I may cite them, if you want me to. If a guideline or policy prevent you from improving the project, you may ignore all rules. By making circular efforts, are not we wasting bunch of our time, for example, you accept unsourced changes, and what break the structure of article, and I make efforts to remove unsourced claims and fix structure of the article? It appears to me, beside making constructive approach towards my concerns about you, you are wikilawyering here. I'd not comment here, any more. On a side note, if you want me to, a {{ping}} would be fair enough. Thank you, and happy editing. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What is inaccurate is not a matter for pending changes reviewers to decide. They can choose to do so, if they wish, but it is not the purpose of pending changes. Pending changes is about vandalism, and neither of these edits were vandalism. I apologise if you disagree, but that's just the way it is. My actions have been in compliance with the guidelines, and I have no desire to ignore "rules" at this juncture. Please cease and desist. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Illovaisk

This small but critical railway town has seen heavy fighting. Perhaps an article could be created on this? On Russian Wikipedia, i found an article called "Battle for Illovaisk"--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not worth an article, despite whatever might have happened on the Russian Wikipedia. I've followed the events in the town. Nothing out of the ordinary about that town, compared to all the other similar ones in the Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but is there any thing in this war that is notable for article creating?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Izvaryne

I moved the information to Izvaryne (border checkpoint) as it concerns the border checkpoint rather than the town. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so there's a new article. I'm not sure it is entirely necessary to have two articles, but I suppose that's how it is. I see no reason why the two couldn't be merged. RGloucester — ☎ 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Better than being poked with a cricket stump...

The Current Events Barnstar
In recognition of your tireless work in developing and maintaining multiple articles surrounding the recent events in Ukraine. Your ability to treat the subject matter intelligently and discerningly in order that they remain neutral is nothing short of superlative. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I do appreciate it. These are interesting, if disconcerting times. Our efforts here will hopefully be important in the years to come. I mean, I don't want to be grandiose, or anything...but it will be interesting to see what effect our little chronicle will have in the future. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I find that the most fascinating part of the project. Should Wikipedia (and these archived versions of the events as they unravelled, along with the talk pages) still exist in 50 years, how will it impact on the interpretation of social order of the day? No doubt, there will be revisionist versions in scholarly research floating around. Will they reinvent the current generation as being unable to be neutral? Will the records survive? We are a strange species. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's my thinking too. It will be so odd, I think, for people to be able to read history as written, but also to read how that history was written. It is like an instant historiographic record. Who knows if it will all still be around. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
At this moment in time, I'm envisaging it as being the stuff of a sociological study on people of the early 21st century who appeared to be divided into three distinct groups: those who engaged in real warfare, those who played at imaginary warfare by means of video games, and those who worked on Wikipedia. Statistics now demonstrate that death by Wikipedia was higher than in real warfare, i.e., strokes, heart attacks, alcohol and drug abuse, clinical depression and other forms of mental instability directly due to their engagement in this activity. Wikipedia donations founded the "Nietzsche Institute for the Terminally Catatonic" (AKA NITC-pickers) which is held in trust as a museum of international significance by the World Heritage Foundation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dried vine fruit

Please source the material you have added to this article. see WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add any material at all. I merely restored the existing page that was redirected inappropriately ages ago. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebel offensive

We had our major disagreements in the past, however, I find you have nicely managed to update the conflict events as they have developed. Most of my time goes to the editing of the Syrian war articles, so I only have time to update the casualties of the Ukraine conflict. Due to the current block of the editing on the main article for the next three days, I thought to send you the links on the current events so you have them when you start updating the conflict once again after the block expires. Events - AFP journalists confirmed no Ukrainian Army presence south of Donetsk or along the 100 km highway leading all the way to the Azov Sea coastline, which they confirmed is separatist-held. Starobesheve, about 30km southeast of Donetsk, confirmed by both locals, Ukrainian military and AFP to have been captured by separatists. Ukrainian troops surrounded in Ilovaysk, confirmed by its commander. Source here [5]. Further, Ukrainian military confirmed separatists captured seven villages north of Novoazovsk while denying the capture of the town itself. However, the mayor of the town confirmed separatists entered the town this morning. Source for this here [6]. And soon after it was reported Novoazovsk had fallen to the separatists, one of the sources being a pro-Kiev volunteer batallion commander [7][8]. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've got such a paragraph in the works at the my sandbox, so I'm ready to update it when it is unprotected. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Here [9] a military source confirmed the rebels also captured Savur-Mohyla hill. EkoGraf (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass

Just fixed it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't know what I did. Should be good now. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester (talk)

Are you connected to User:RGloucester (talk)? If so, what is the purpose of that account, and could you declare it as an {{User alternate acct}}? Superm401 - Talk 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No relation to me. Clearly a sock-puppet of L'Aquotique, who has done this before. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I am not familiar with the L'Aquotique backstory, nor do I have checkuser access, but that is not necessary to see a clear justification for a username block. I have blocked User:RGloucester (talk) indefinitely, and commented on the user and user talk pages accordingly. Superm401 - Talk 23:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for finding him/her out. He/she has been quite aggressive over the past couple months. RGloucester — ☎ 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Answering 'edit semi-protect' requests

Hi, I'm Anup Mehra. I noticed that while answering 'edit semi-protected' requests on Talk:War in Donbass, you simply marked the requests answered with an edit-summary, "not protected". The page actually is still protected, however the protection level was today reduced to be edited by autoconfirmed editors. I just wanted to let you know that we have few templates to answer "edit semi-protected' requests, and can be found at Template:ESp. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for linking to those templates, which I did not know existed. I only "answered" those of people who were auto-confirmed, as I was aware of the semi-protection. Regardless, I'll use the templates in future. RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Brain stormin'

I've noticed you have some stuff (which is good quality) in your sandbox. So maybe here is a way to come up with a sensible way to organize both the topic and the articles: in the sandbox or in userspace come up with an organizational structure both for the topic and the *specific* article which is to cover the ongoing conflict.

In other words, articulate what article should be precisely about what. I think it's this lack of clarity that's causing a lot of the problems (though spurious forking is too of course). At least one article should be about Crimea, one about the war in the east and one about the Russian involvement. Then we need the sections for each one. One irritating thing about the intervention article is that it already has a ... very dysfunctional and hard to work with structure. Everytime I want to make a change, I'm not quite sure where to put it, especially if I'm going to work on it incrementally. Like you say, nuking it and starting over might be a much better way to go. But in order for that to work, and to get the support of other editors, it would help to know what it is we're trying to rebuild. So instead of an incremental approach, maybe a planned approach will work better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Russian intervention article has been unworkable. That's why I left it to rot ages ago, and that's why I favoured merging/deleting. Regardless, we need one article on this subject. I don't care which one, but we need only one. My general view of the schematic of our articles in the way that I'd like is as follows:

This is how I'd like to see it work out, vaguely. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the big elephant in the room is that I just honestly don't see the "Intervention" article becoming viable. It's a mess as you said yourself. It should be kiboshed. I've seen this over and over here - an article on an important subject gets so overloaded with junk and POV pushing and tidbits of trivia and all that, that even once you remove the most egregious parts ... it's still a mess, because it started as a mess. And even minor changes to that article will just result in time wasting mindless arguments. Which you yourself said. I'm a practical person - I want what whatever will work. I am not trying to put the burden on you but having no hope for one article means that I would rather choose to devote my energies to another, related, but different, article. You work with what you got not what you think should be. I don't know. Is there some way that we could get other (responsible, non-crazy) editors involved in cleaning up one mess or improving the other? I think we see the end goal the same way, it's just about how we get there. Volunteer Marek  08:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And if I've never expressed my appreciation for your work before (I get creeped out by those barnstar things) let me express it right here. You've done a tremendous job on these articles. Really, in my ten years here I've seen very few (as in less than five) editors who are as conscientious, professional and honest as you. I've been impressed and amazed for quite awhile. Please keep up the good work even, and especially, when we have a disagreement. Volunteer Marek  08:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vostok Battalion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Award

Edit Barnstar Merit
For your tireless work and diligence on articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine such as War in Donbass, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, 2014 Crimean crisis and others, I hereby award you the Edit Barnstar Merit. —
Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Talk:2014_Ukrainian_crisis.
Message added 20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This edit does not follow the MOS WP:MOSDAB [10] I left a message for you there Widefox; talk 20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

If it happens that they keep that other article titled the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for which I expressed a delete/merge opinion/vote, I would suggest the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine be retitled to avoid the confusion between the two. Retitled to something like 2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimea (of the top of my head). EkoGraf (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't about Crimea anymore, and hasn't been for a while. Read the article. More stuff is in there about Donbass than Crimea. The only thing that they could do is merge the intervention article into the invasion article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, but they don't. So I was saying that in case that other article sticks, that we move any Donbass material from the old article to the new one (maybe in the background section), and make the old one Crimea-exclusive so that there wouldn't be overlapping or any confusion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If the article sticks, I will have lost faith in Wikipedia and will be done. That would be an outrage. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm losing it under the pressure of far too many splits and articles that should have been merged or deleted ages ago. I don't know how to salvage the article, although it appears to be getting some sort of facelift (emphasis on cosmetic surgery) at the moment. No one is monitoring the timelines and other 'child' articles, and my time is being eaten up in trying to keep a lid on these. All that's happening is that POV-ers who've been shoved aside on the main articles have scuttled off into camps working on the leftovers. Ultimately, we're now overrun with articles overlapping and contradicting each other... and sourced from both Ukrainian and Russian yellow press. There's undoubtedly a desperate need to amalgamate and toss out massive tracts of superfluous content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The battle is already being lost, and I can say with candour that I am quite annoyed about this whole situation. The rise of "Russian invasion" article, which started at the title "Russo-Ukrainian War" is absolutely absurd at face value. It doesn't matter how absurd it is, nor how many times I make it clear that it is absurd, however, because POV pushers on both sides make the whole debate pointless. At our little deletion discussion, we have those who say "there are Russian troops in Ukraine, therefore, we need this article" and then there are those who say "no evidence of Russian anything, Nato-junta allegations, delete". Of course, this framing of the debate is totally wrong. Sadly, my desire to get rid of the article has nothing to do with POV, but I get lumped in with the "Nato-junta" crowd because I have a tiny bit of sense in my mind. All I want is content that is organised properly, that makes sense. Does anyone care that we have two articles with titles that mean the exact same thing? No. Does anyone care that we have an existing article for the "Russian intervention business"? No. Does anyone care that this new "article" started off as a POV fork (its title was "Russo-Ukrainian War", for pete's sake!) to get around full protection at War in Donbass? No. RGloucester — ☎ 04:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What's probably needed is a DRN presented by a reasonably uninvolved party: someone armed with all of the articles and child articles pointing out that they're POV variations on the same subject matter. The difficult issue is finding someone who's willing to present the case for a DRN. I have a couple of people in mind, but don't have the energy to put a case to them only to have the buck passed because no one relatively sane wants to touch Eastern Europe. I wouldn't worry about being categorised by POV-ers. I've had that done to me time after time. As I say on my own user page, I take it as a compliment because being labelled a Russophobe, a Russophile, a Ukrainophobe, a Ukrainophile, an anti-semite, a pro-Israeli, etc. only goes to show that I'm serving the project well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't so much that I worry, so much as that I would prefer to remain outside the back-and-forth mess of juntas and moskals. Regardless, I'd be happy to see a DRN. I wish that sysops took advantage of the existing Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions to deal with problems regarding the Ukraine mess, but, to be honest, I haven't seen much sysop presence at all in the topic area. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Being caught up in the crap is par for the course when it comes to Eastern Europe... as is the absence of sysops. Masochism teamed with irredeemable obstinacy is the prerequisite for long term neutral editing surrounding all things Slavic. I'm going to think on who to rope in and how best to approach the subject of a DRN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Grammar in the Battle of Ilovaisk article

Hello! I've just checked some grammar in this article, but I'm not entirely sure it has been well corrected. Could you check, please? Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a quirk of the English language, but the expression is "taken prisoner" regardless of whether there are multiple prisoners involved. It works the same way as "taken hostage". One would say "Ten men were taken hostage", not "Ten men were taken hostages". Similarly, one should say "Ten soldiers were taken prisoner by ISIL". There is no plural form "taken prisoners" or "taken hostages". RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ilovaisk

First, I would ask you not to remove sourced information. You may disagree with CNN and Kyivpost, but removing them to push your viewpoint is not allowed. Second, they DID capture by that point the city, after which they were surrounded and trapped in it. Third, with your blind revert you also removed the sourced info about the number of soldiers who managed to escape the siege. In any case. Sources have been provided calling it a siege and it was already established they captured the city (so your argument on that point does not stick). EkoGraf (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I already commented on the talk page, which you didn't bother to read. I do not "disagree", I merely adhere to our Manual of Style. They never completely controlled the city. Regardless, that bit about "breaking the siege" is unverifiable, and most likely not of any consequence. Please see the talk page at the article, not here. RGloucester — ☎ 12:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity on Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014

Hello, thanks for your message. As you may have noted, the edit war is also on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. There are reliable sources, and I wrote that on the discussion page, Volunteer Marek who has been warned and blocked repeatedly for biased editing (1 2 3) and then Kudzu1 deleted without discussion anyway. Also the claims that the sources are just op-eds or don't support the group are wrong, neither the German nor the Russian sources are op-eds, and while the journalists may not be convinced by the groups reasoning, they certainly don't question the fact that the open letter exists, which is all that needs to be reported here. Galant Khan (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

They aren't reliable sources. They're advocacy blogs, and your insertion presents claims by this Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity group with undue weight. What's more, you need to stop edit-warring no matter how much you think you are right, because that's a fast track to getting blocked from editing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a matter of WP:SOAP. The position of this "group" of people is not relevant at all. Including their opinion would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight, for one thing, and it would also be a form of advocacy. This is absolutely unacceptable. You are quite wrong that its existence dictates that it must be reported. This is not correct. We have policies on neutrality, advocacy and opinion pieces, and also on verifiability. We cannot give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant enough to be reported about by international media, US, UK, Germany, Russia, please inform yourself about what is generally considered relevance at wikipedia. Presenting information is not advocacy, readers can decide by themselves if they are convinced by what the group writes. I find your attitude alarmingly biased, just as that of the edit warriors. Since there is an edit war at two pages I ask for an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I guess others it's best if we find uninvolved users who decide without previous bad feelings. Galant Khan (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are WP:SOAP, and we have no need for soap here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't need to go anywhere to know that Süddeutsche Zeitung is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. It is not an opinion piece. I cannot really believe that you contest the fact that there is an open letter to Angela Merkel by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - which is all that counts - after Süddeutsche, Stern, Morning Star, and The Nation all reported about it and you can find it on numerous websites. Galant Khan (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't contest that there is an "open letter", I contest that it is a notable non-fringe opinion that should be included, in line with our policy on WP:DUE weight. The RS noticeboard will provide the third opinions you so desire, which is why I recommended it. If you have no desire for dialogue, then I suppose there is no reason to continue.
So quality media in Germany and the US report about it and you decide it's fringe? Galant Khan (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State

Hello! The User:Freek Verkerk inserted a ton of links in the War in Donbass, most of them, I guess are useless, as a pretext (I guess) to insert his/her crazy original research, which I already removed. What do you suggest that is done to all those links?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Red links are fine. They are meant to encourage people to write the articles on subjects we don't have articles for. There's no reason to waste time removing them. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard III

Request for checking 2 pages

Hello! I've made considerable changes in one page - Iryna Dovhan and created another - Dmitry Beliakov. I'd be glad if you could check them, particularly in what concerns to English language. Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: They are on my list of stuff to copyedit. I've got to get to the Novoazovsk battle article first, then I'll do those. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about your userboxes

Does anyone every give you crap for your marxist userbox? I was thinking about adding one to my page but I didn't want anyone to interfere with my experience on wikipedia. Marxism isn't exactly something you're very open about in the U.S. How accepting is wikipedia?Fungal vexation (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever bothered me about it, as far as I can tell. I'm not American, so I don't know about that. If anyone ever did "interfere", you could easily take them to WP:AN/I for personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: I don't know anything about how campaignboxes are supposed to work, so I don't have an opinion. Perhaps ask at the Military History project. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Barnstar

The Portugal Barnstar

The Portugal Barnstar of National Merit
For your very valuable recent contributions regarding the Ukrainian community in Portugal: the 2nd largest immigrant community in Portugal and the 2nd largest Ukrainian community in Western Europe, after Italy. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalize "Infratest Dimap"?

Thanks for the ce. I deliberately chose to not capitalize "Infratest Dimap", as it appears as "infratest dimap" on both their own home page, and in the Spiegel Online article. Is there a WP rule about this?

Also, I note that you left copies of a few points behind in War in Donbass when you created the new International reactions to the war in Donbass. I wonder if we should add at least some information from the section "Nongovernmental reactions" to this duplication, to lend some balance to the former.

Is there a convention about how to maintain consistency between such duplicates, as one of them develops further? Layzeeboi (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of the sub-article is to keep that information out of the main article, so that the main article's length is cut-down. It is already much too long for the length guidelines, so I'd prefer if we kept that stuff in the sub-article. I only left the most significant viewpoints at War in Donbass. Regardless, I will get rid of the capitalisation. I merely assumed that it was meant to be capitalised as a proper noun. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International reactions to the war in Donbass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The west. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rule of three edits

Does this rule not apply to users with multiple user id? If not, then tell me how can one can obtain multiple user id without being identified as sockpuppets. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. Care to clarify? RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Concerning to the proportion of ethnic Russians and russophones in Donbass

I've consulted the maps in the Russians in Ukraine and Russian language in Ukraine articles, more precisely the following files: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Ukraine_census_2001_Russian.svg. And I did the math, taking into account the population of the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts before the war! Sorry, but this time I will undo your fix... But we can talk about it in Talk Page! It's a good place to discuss these disagreements and to reach some conclusions.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You've got to provide reliable secondary sources. RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll look for the sources for the maps and make the necessary changes.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Done! I've discovered meanwhile that there are Jews and there are Mountain Jews! And a lot of Greeks there too, curiously, but that I had already read.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit. I had some work with the Census, actually, since they discriminate every single ethnic group, even if there are only a couple of people of that ethnic group. Most ethnic Ukrainians in the Donbass region (50-60%) actually speak Russian. And the other minoritary ethnic groups (including the Jews, the Greeks and the Germans), most of them also have Russian as their 1st language. The majority of the Romanis don't speak Russian as their 1st language. But many do. This issue about the language is very important, since it was one of the reasons that caused the protests: I'm not speaking now about the armed insurgency... it's very important to make a distinction between protesters and the insurgents. I think that Poroshenko is in touch with that reality and that he's making whatever he can do to bring the groups inside Ukraine together, and I hope he will be successful!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Richard III and Nuno, a word of caution in using the 2001 census stats: they're very, very old; their interpretation has been dubious (the actual questionnaire was specious in the first instance). Much of the information has been 'massaged' by Russian editors over the years and mixed (read as WP:SYNTH) with Soviet stats in order to heighten the number of ethnic Russians and exaggerate the Russophone component of the Ukrainian ethnics.
I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page also makes much ado about how long Russians have lived there side-by-side. In fact, around 30% of the Ukrainian ethnics in that area were wiped out during the 1932-33 famine. A large percentage of the Russian ethnics present now were brought in by Stalin explicitly in order to raise the Russian ethnic presence for the workforce as it was being further industrialised in the 50's and 60's. In other words, the majority of the Russian ethnic presence is very recent and ethnic tensions were high going back prior Ukrainian and Russian independence.
While some background is essential, please don't make the mistake of oversimplifying it. Naturally, I'm not pushing for any form of complex and WP:UNDUE details as to the background, but it needs to be handled more honestly that "Russian and Ukrainian ethnic groups have both been there for aeons". I'll see what I can dig up in terms of background information that doesn't sound like a sales pitch one way or the other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:I didn't find yet any more recent census with information about the number of Russians and Russophones in Ukraine (I can try, with more time, later). Concerning to the leaders of the insurgents, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, his surname seems to of Ukrainian origin, doesn't it? Ihor Plotnytskiy seems to have a surname of Polish origin. The others seem to have Russian surnames. (I'm not sure, I've gave a quick look at List of surnames in Russia and List of surnames in Ukraine). I'm going to have to do other stuff now, but are there available censuses online from before the Holomodor?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm somewhat opposed to including these at all in War in Donbass. They are better handled by 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The "background" for the war is the unrest, and the background for the unrest are things like these stats. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: If you are interested, it might be worth while to make an article like Background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, similar to Background of the Russo-Georgian War. Such an article could delve into this historical and statistical analysis. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Yes, sure. I'm going to see the Background of the Russo-Georgian War. I hope there are enough sources to create such an article. As I said, it would be particularly interesting as well to have census data before the Holomodor and more recent data than from 2001 (if they divided the population of Ukrainian popultion according to ethnicity and language).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: I've made a draft for us to use: Draft:Background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I don't have much time to help with it at the moment, but I will contribute what I can. I think this will be a good collaborative effort, and will address your concerns about our lack of such an analysis of background info. Hopefully we can have Iryna help out too, as her grasp of the history will be quite useful. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:@RGloucester: So far, I've found these 2 sites about the Census of 1926, concerning to Ukraine: [11] and [12]. By what I see there, there was already a higher proportion of Russians in Donbass, and there was a higher proportion of Jews and Poles in the West, with overwhelming Ukrainian majorities in the middle. But I still couldn't find very useful data in terms of numbers, in that census. And I couldn't find yet information concerning to the censuses carried during Tsarist Russia (before the War of Independence). I think it would also be useful to compare the censuses immediately before and after WW2. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri1, I'd suggest you read the article on the Soviet Census (1937). Just a quick look at this article might provide you with some insight into why even the 1926 census is not necessarily entirely 'honest'. This paper on "THE SOVIET CENSUSES OF 1937 AND 1939:SOME PROBLEMS OF DATA EVALUATION" might give you a little more insight into the issue. There is also already information in Wikipedia regarding Censuses in Ukraine, including under the Russian Empire.
There was a famine in 1921 which has been conflated into a Wikipedia article entitled "Russian famine of 1921" where Ukrainians, Belarusians and, even more preposterously, Georgians are treated as being 'Russians'. In other words, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to establish anything other than extremely rough guestimates regarding the demographics of the region. It makes working up a 'background' one hell of a confusing and problematic proposition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is confusing, but it seems like a worthwhile thing to do, or at least attempt. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:@RGloucester: According to what I read, the censuses of 1937 and 1939 are not reliable at all, so they should be dismissed as sources. Concerning to the census of 1926, less criticism is made. Well, we can't dismiss all the censuses in the Ukrainian history! We may point out that their results might be distorted because of this or that. The last census was in 2001, and the next one will only be in 2016. It's probably the most reliable one. Maybe we could use the 1926, 1959, 2001 and eventually some censuses closer to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1970, 1979, 1989). If there are data from the Tsarist period it would also be welcome. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't worth trying to put together a background section. What I am trying to make you aware of is that, if you think the trolls are flying in thick and fast now, just wait until both lots of POV-ers get stuck into using background info as a political edit warring and disruptive editing nightmare. Trying to proscribe which census info should be considered as close as possible to being 'neutral' and keeping out the card carrying nationalist fanatics is going to be extremely difficult to justify. We don't have enough policies and guidelines to keep ethical evaluations in check.
That said, I'm not one to shy away from a challenge. I do see great value in providing a contained background for the readers as to pre-existing conditions and tensions in the region. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with RGloucester that this background is appropriate for the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article, not for the War in Donbass article. And the article about the unrest has been relatively calm, these days, apart from a pro-Ukrainian POV edit by an IP user and several pro-Russian POV edits by User:Russianunited, who actually attacked me and has already been warned. Anyway, I don't think we should be intimidated by the possibility of POV edits, because there are ways to deal with them.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, for trivia purposes, Greeks in Donbas are the Crimean Greeks (or Pontic Greeks) who were deported by Suvorov from Crimea. (One of the first deportation of the Empire. How Crimean Greeks populated Wild Fields. Ukrayinska Pravda) The Russian authorities granted them area around the modern city of Mariupol which before then was a Cossack fortified settlement of Domakha. If you look at toponyms around Mariupol, you will notice many names similar with Crimean such as Yalta, Urzuf (Hurzuf), Staryi Krym, Manhush and many others. September 16 is a national holiday of Ukrainian Greeks. (Two thousands people celebrated anniversary of Greek resettlement in the Azov Litoral. Radio Liberty (video)) With fall of the Soviet Empire, many Azov Greeks left for homeland (Greece). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev Yes, as I said, I had already read about them. And I already had read that they gave the cities near Mariupol where they live now very similar names to those where they used to live in Crimea. Why did they move from Crimea to Southern Donbass? That's also an interesting question.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, briefly, after Russia defeated Turks at the end of 18th century and reached the northern coast of Black Sea they forced the Turks to acknowledge independence of the Crimean Khanate. Then Russians conducted coup-d'etat and installed pro-Russian ruler Shahin Girey who allowed Russians to intervene in Crimean internal affairs. After that Russians deported all Christians out of the Crimean peninsula including the local Greeks to Ukraine and eventually annexed the Khanate. One of contemporary Ukrainian historians of Greek descent wrote an article about it in the Ukrayinska Pravda. He also mentioned that Gothic-Caffa diocese of Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was liquidated and annexed to the Russian Orthodox Church soon after the bishop of the diocese, Ignatius (Gozadini), died (see Metropolitanate of Gothia). It was Ignatius who gave the name to the city of Mariupol bring there the icon of Saint Theotokos from Mariampol (today it is known as Bakhchisaray Cave Monastery). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandr Grigoryev That's very interesting. Thank you for your little lecture to me about that. There's an article containing at least some of that information: Greeks in Ukraine. It might eventually be improved.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, I've edited the Draft:Background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I guess the use of the English language can be improved there. It may also contain information that you may not consider useful or that might be compressed. I've looked at the census of 2001, and made the counts on an Excel file. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've added the 2001 census data for all the various areas of importance. The next thing to do will be to write brief history sections for each region, documenting ethnic and cultural changes, such as deportations, settlement schemes, famines, &c. This is not an area of my expertise, but I will look around for books next time I'm at the library. In the meantime, if anyone else has a good handle on the history or time for research, go ahead and write it all out. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, it gave a lot of work to you, by what I've seen, RGloucester! Thank you also for making more concise the part I had written. And yes, I agree that the historical issues shall be developed in that draft, and there is a lot of stuff on the web about it, so it should not be difficult. Some important information may, eventually, exist only in printed books. Do those references count? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Books are just as good as web sources. Just make sure to provide full citations with page numbers, so that they can be verified. I'm nearly done with the Donbass section, and I'm going to spin-off the background section 2014 Crimean crisis to this new article. However, if you could work on the Kharkiv and Odessa sections, or provide any new information you have to the Donbass/Crimea sections, that'd be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'll be glad to work on that too. By the way, I found some results of the "Donetsk District" and "Mariupol District" from the Census of 1897 (though only the spoken languages, not the ethnic groups). But I don't know what area was covered by each district. And there might be other districts as well, in the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. [13] [14]. I'll check the names of the other cities there to see what are their current names, and where they are.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I found Donbass census data from 1897 in this book, so that's all set and done. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, great! There is also the District of Slovianosebersk (in the Luhansk Oblast): [15] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And here are the data about the "Oleksandrivsk District": [16] and Bachmut (Artemivsk) District: [17]. The Donetsk district probably included parts in the Donbass region, in Ukraine, and parts in Russia. By the way, there is another Donetsk, in Russia, and I'm not sure to which Donetsk is it named after.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Donetsk, i.e. the city in Ukraine, was called "Yuzovka" in Imperial times. The area that is now called Donbass was mainly in Yekaterinoslav Governorate, with some parts in the Don Host Oblast and Taurida Governorate. RGloucester — ☎ 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are the figures (excluding the Donetsk District): Total population: Mariupol district - 254,056, Slovianosebersk dist. - 174,753, Oleksandrivsk dist. - 271,678, Bachmut (Artemivsk) dist. - 332,478; Total = 1,032,965; % of speakers: Ukrainian: 60.3%, Russian: 22.7%, Greek: 4.7%, German: 4.5%, "Jewish" (Yiddish?): 3.5%, Tatar: 1.6%, Belarusian: 0.9%, Moldavian/Romanian: 0.7%, Others: 0.9%. Taurida seems to me to include Crimea, and parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts, I didn't find anything about being in Donbass too. Are you sure that the Donetsk District didn't have any territory in Ukraine? Because 38.9% of people there spoke Ukrainian there. And the Donetsk city in Russia is right next to the border. I'll look at the Don-Host Oblast a little later.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2014

"Ukrainians dominated rural areas, but cities were often inhabited solely by Russians...", as you wrote in the draft: What about the Jews? They were typically city-dwellers and there were 36,265 Jews in those 4 districts I mentioned. Though they were only 3.51% of the total population, I guess the urban population wasn't very large either, by that time!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2014

I don't know anything about "Donetsk district", but I imagine that if it existed, it is related to the river rather than any city. The "Donetsk" in Russia was originally a Don Cossack village with an odd name, and then became "Gundrovka" in the early 20th century. Certainly the Ukrainian Donetsk was not called "Donetsk" at the time of the census. RGloucester — ☎ 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I got different data from those 4 districts those you indicated in the draft. And I made also a count including the Donetsk district, which also differs, with its population exceeding the one you wrote (which is natural if it's at least, partly in Russia). So, including the Donetsk district: total population: 1,488,784; Ukrainian: 53.8%; Russian: 34.1%; others: 11.3%. The Don Hon governorate you told me about maybe it was the same one where the Donetsk district was, but in the census that I've consulted, they call it the Don Voisko Oblast (it's the only division called Don there). But there was also the Kharkov governorate, for instance. It could have a part in Donbass. You were quick, sorry for not having contributed more, I was busy trying to decipher this census online. I also read parts of the book you told me, but there are missing pages on the online version.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Kharkov Governorate didn't include any parts of Donbass. "Voisko" means "Host". I wish I had a map, because I have no idea where this "Donetsk district" is. It could be anywhere along the river. What governorate is it in? RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The Donetsk district is in the "Don Voisko" or "Don Host" (the same as you said) Oblast. It's not called a governorate. It includes a city called "Stanitsa Kamenskaya" or "Kamenskaya". I think it is Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, in the Rostov Oblast, very close to Donbass.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, as I suspected, that's not in the area where most Ukrainians are. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But there were many Ukrainians there. I guess it also included areas in Ukraine. Well, you've asked me to work on this draft and until now I did very little, sorry. You can leave the Odessa Oblast history for me, now, if you want to have rest! It will be interesting, with all that mix of Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Russians...Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There were many Ukrainians around in different areas at this time, as the boundaries were more fluid. At least, that's my understanding. Now, however, that's obviously not a Ukrainian area...perhaps it was Russified. Anyway, I'll leave Odessa to you. Has a more complicated history. Ottomans, Romania, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 18
19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a map, but it's from 1882. And in this map, the Kharkov governorate or Oblast also included a large portion, in Northern Donbass: [18] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh, you're right. I need to check my book again. However, the would explain why northern Luhansk Oblast is mostly populated by Ukrainians, given that it must've been part of Sloboda Ukraine. It is culturally distinct from the Donbass proper. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi-five, for the work in this draft! I still get only a 25% share (I guess), but at least now I can really say that I actually contributed! Good job, RGloucester, as you always do!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon in the Donbas conflict

I know you asked to wait with the information, but for familiarization purpose:

There were spotted at least 4 vehicles 2S4 Tyulpan that shoot 240mm nuclear rounds. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Those news seem to be sensationalist. Would they go so nuts?... That would be the suicide of Russia! It's better to wait for information from more reliable sources, if it's true!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, Valeriy Heletey did follow up on his statement acknowledging that he was not sure whether Russians were using nuclear warheads, but there were 240mm self-propelled mortar vehicles 2S4 Tyulpan that are capable to conduct such strike. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Terrorist Operation

RGloucester, please, reason with me here for a moment. How do you understand Ukraine conducts its military operations in the East Ukraine? Did you notice that there is no real war was announced? Did you also notice that involvement of regular military was limited to certain selective units? Why is that? Why do they use National Guard and territorial battalions more than regular army units? Explanation is simple. The operation is called "Anti-Terrorist Operation". Not because it is propaganda, but because it is what it is. The operation is coordinated by the Anti-Terrorist Center of the Security Service of Ukraine (special designated division that existed long before any "pro-Russian protests") and due to presence of great amount of armed personnel it is supported by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and militarized units of Ministry of Internal Affairs such as National Guard. There are some volunteer territorial battalions that are either under jurisdiction of Military of Internal Affairs or Ministry of Defense. All this is being coordinated through the Anti-Terrorist Center. I do not understand why you are deleting it. It is not an abstract or something out of a comic book. I am not labeling, but simply providing facts. Plus there were enough supporting references from quite neutral sources, weren't there? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alexander! I stopped by to say hello to my English buddy Richard and discuss with him the implications of the referendum in Scotland, and by that chance read your message thus becoming a party to this very interesting discussion since you have raised several good points. Being shamelessly impulsive, I decided to jump in and provide you with my raw and uneducated thougths on the matter while Richard is away from his computer, undoubtrdly enjoying his weekend. Therefore:
  • Yes, indeed, the formal name of the War in Donbass is the "Anti-Terrorist Operation". However, the scale of death and destruction in Donbass cannot be fit into the shoes of the state police (SBU) action. Thousands of people are killed, ten of thousands are displaced, the damage to the capital plant both residential and industrial estimated in billions of grivnyas. It is definitely a war which is a shame! And to stop a war, which we all sincerely desire to, you have to acknowledge its existence first! Last but not least, the First and the Second Chechen wars are still called by Putin's military bureaucrats as "Anti-Terrorist Operations"...
  • It is an established fact that all wars are not waged by militias such as battalions of territorial defense of Ukraine or volunteer special police detachments of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine, but are waged by the armies that are using military hardware and trained soldiers. AK-47's are out of fashion in Donbass now, in fashion are reactive artillery "Grad", counter-artillery bombardments, armor columns bold dashes into urban areas and encirclements of whole regiments. While all-volunteer units such as Azov (special police regiment) or Aidar (ter. defense battalion), or Donbass (national Guard battalion) are faring rather well in Donbass, other are not. In August, the 5th battalion of the territorial defense loaded into trucks, left Donbass and drove with weapons straight to their homes in Western Ukraine. Recently, battalion of the territorial defense of the Nikolayev Region followed the suit.
  • During the Summer of 2014 the whole Ukrainian Army was assembled in and near Donbass. If you try to trace any of its brigade in the press you will find out that it was engaged in the fighting in Donbass at this or that period of time. However, not in the central Ukrainian press but rather in the local media publishing obituaries and notes of death of the local residents who were called in. The central media organizations were bubbling about the volunteer militia battalions and were collecting shoes, clothing, various supplies including body armor. Some people were even buying written off armored personal carriers without guns, refurbishing them and donating them to the volunteer battalion. By the way, now every respecting itself political party in Ukraine has its own armed militia battalion, some of them are recognized by the state, some are not. So, the question arise what was that hoopla around volunteer battalions all about?
  • To answer that, it would be instructive to listen to the volunteers themselves! Recently, I listened to Semen Semenchenko's, Donbass battalion commander, webcast from the Washington, D.C., where he met with the representatives of the American political establishment, and musing about the history of the volunteer force and the reasons for its development, Semenchenko said that his battalion was established because regular Ukrainian army was unable to fight since people of Donbass formed the human shields to stop the Army personnel redeployment. Indeed, on many occasions Ukrainian soldiers in May 2014 refused to fire into civilions who were able to seize their arms and hardware. Apparently, armed and patriotically minded civilians did not have the sensitivities of the professional soldiers... One more thougt, I consider the mass communication campaign around volunteer battalions as a brilliant "Wag the dog"-type of PR action on a world scale. It completely obscured the movements of the regular armed forces which were pushed into fighting with Ukrainian protesters in Donbass using tanks and artillery. As we know from Newton's laws of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the object responds with an equal force, action brings reaction! That explains the subsequent events.... I know that I am a bore and it is a good time to bid you farewell! With best wishes, --Nabak (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't delete anything about the "anti-terrorist centre", which remains there. However, your distinction between an "anti-terrorist operation" and "war" is not one supported by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not only does it not supported by RS, but also according to numerous encyclopedias the Russian-Chechen wars are called Russian-Chechen Wars not Anti-Terrorist Operations. Obviously our user here is maybe a politician of some sort, but he forgets that Wikipedia is first and fore most an encyclopedia, not a collection of propaganda material. As to user @Nabak: I think he should get accustomed with Content disclaimer policy.--Mishae (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, what does Scotland have to do with War in Donbass? I completely don't understand this version of trolling (if its polite to call it that).--Mishae (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Ilovaisk

As promised  Done--Mishae (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work! RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually, I will edit Siege of Sloviansk article the same way, but for that I would need my whole weekend to be off, and that wont happen till December 16. :( I can do 100 refs in 1 full day, (that includes brakes for food). :)--Mishae (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The IP is branching out

He failed to get his way on various forums so is now going into other articles with his POV-pushing and original research: [19].Faustian (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti

Since when did RIA Novosti became non-RS as you said in this revert? I for one speak Russian and know that even Russian Wikipedia uses it as RS, let alone that the whole Wikipedia community will agree on it being one. Maybe you should have rephrased what the anonymous user trying to add? I checked his edit too, I don't see any POV. In my opinion this revert was unjust, although the previous one was fair in my opinion. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti is non-RS in this context because all other sources used in the article contradict it, such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, &c. Simply, what it says is unverifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, wont agree. Wikipedia have nothing against using foreign language reliable sources, infact it even welcomes them.--Mishae (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't that it is foreign, it is that what it says is unverifiable, and that it is known for producing outlandish stories, as has been debated at WP:RS/N numerous times (search the archives there for more information). It was decided that cross-referencing was necessary, and that if something produced by a source such as RIA Novosti was not verifiable in mainstream reliable sources, it should not be included. If you can find a reliable source to cross-reference with the RIA story, then it can be included. Otherwise, it is not fit to print. RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, if, as you say they are unverifiable, you can use |trans_title= and/or ask me or other Russian speaking Wikipedians for translation of context. Keep in mind, that the article is about Russian-Ukrainian dispute so it should encompass some foreign language RS. There are numerous of examples: Donald Tusk (plenty of Polish language RS), Petro Poroshenko (plenty of Ukrainian language RS), Pavel Gubarev (Some Russian and Ukrainian sources), 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots (plenty of Ukrainian and Russian sources). I think I gave you enough examples which prove that its O.K. to do and that they are verifiable. Like, do you see any cross-references in my examples?--Mishae (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't care about the fact that is in a foreign language, nor about other articles. I care about the fact that it is unverifiable, and no reliable sources support the version of events that it is promoting. I also care that the RS/N discussion that was had on these particular Russian state sources in the context of the Ukraine conflict, said that we should cross-reference. If you can provide a cross-reference in a reliable source that verifies these events, then it can be included. However, at present, there is no verification. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No Western source would ever support a Russian POV. That's laughably ridiculous. You base the NEUTRALITY of a WP article on prejudiced Western sources aimed against Russia in this conflict. All of WP articles relying on it become biased toward the Western POV no matter what, so all of the neutrality is compromised. The only way to uncompomise it is to translate information from sources like RIA Novosti and RT, and put it in WP. You'll see right off that Russia is not implicated in the conflict... But then again, who would want it? Westerners love to sip their coffee reading timelines of war events in the morning, so seeing "Russia isn't responsible" sentence might shock them. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Tone of Car/Automobile Discussion

Hello,

I'm trying to understand the rename of the Cars article and have been reviewing WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and the other arguments that made that change happen. I've been working hard to try and clean up the Category:Automobiles tree and want to make sure we fully discuss any changes to the category space because I don't see hatnotes as useful there due to HotCat. You may not agree that viewpoint. Fair enough.

Even if misguided as you see it, my comments are sincere and not "obfuscating". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, dear fellow. Don't worry a trifle about it. Keep up the good work. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence that the word "automobile" is an Americanism is hilarious when one considers the Royal Automobile Club. It was named thus in 1907 by order of Edward VII; was he American, by any chance? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That club was formerly called the Automobile Club of Great Britain. It was in fact the first body in Britain to use the term "automobile". "Motor car" and "autocar" were attested prior to the word "automobile" in the UK, and "automobile" never gained currency outside proper names, i.e. in that club's name. "Automobile" is an Americanism, and I've provided the OED to verify that. It is not used in general use in Britain, and hasn't been since a brief blip at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, British legislation uniformly refers to what Americans call "automobiles" as "motor cars". In other words, this is not "my insistence". It is verified by the most reliable dictionary on English language usage, the OED. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on personal opinions. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The word is derived from French. What is American about that? Dustin (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you being dense? It was imported from French into English, but only ever became common in American usage. That makes it an Americanism, which is what the OED says. The word "tram" (meaning "streetcar" in American English) is derived from Scots, but only ever became common in British English. Hence, it is a Briticism. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pingback

Thanks for the note and sorry for the inconvenience. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Image

Why did you revert the image back [20]? Do you understand what the image says? I think a normal reaction of a normal person who accidentally found himself on Wikipedia would be that it's a joke or maybe vandalism by people who use Wikipedia for propaganda. Cause these people are probably worried about what happens in the South East and the image reassures them. But why you? Do you understand what it says? And it's indecent, in smaller font it insults Putin and it uses a word that is banned from literary use and it is not safe for children and kind of tells much of the person who wrote it on the wall. I guess there are some people on Wikipedia who want to insult Putin and put indecent images everywhere, but I'm surprised that you were the one who did this. Really, what does the graffiti say? And if you can read it, can you explain to me how is this representative of anything? --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, as I'm sure you know. It is representative of the unrest in Ukraine, obviously, because this type of graffiti is now found everywhere. It has nothing to do with "propaganda". It is illustrative, nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not found everywhere. It cannot possibly be found everywhere. Do you know what it says? I just wonder. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know what it says. I also know that this type of graffiti is found throughout the conflict zone. It is representative of the tensions of the unrest that has struck Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was apprehensive in the beginning about it, and more inclined to a picture like File:RussianSpringOdessa20140420 04.JPG, for instance, except for the title of the picture, which is pro-Russian. I'm neutral. A pro-Russian title is not neutral. An anti-Russian graffiti isn't neutral either. Well... Is it more important the content or the title? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The picture doesn't have to be "neutral", merely demonstrative. It demonstrates the events that took place. This graffiti appears, is demonstrative, and hence is a good representation of the feelings that are part of the unrest in Ukraine. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the picture. The words that appear in the picture are "non-neutral", but the picture itself is not. We are not endorsing the views of whoever wrote that on the wall. RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. After all, these events are not a sort of a hippie movement, and it would be more or less impossible to find a neutral image that expressed the true nature of the events.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: What I meant is that the picture says "Lugansk is Ukraine", which is not "representative of the unrest" cause it's a minority opinion in the breakaway rebel regions. Moreover, here on Wikipedia the image looks as a war propaganda poster for the current Ukrainian government. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There are people saying "Lugansk is Ukraine", and there are people saying "Lugansk is Russia", and there are people saying "Lugansk is New Russia". Of course, we can't include graffiti from every party in this template. However, given that we have this one very good quality picture here, it makes sense to use it. Is evocative of the type of unrest going on. It doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion, which is unverifiable anyway. It is merely a picture of what has gone on. We are not endorsing what it says. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be a picture from the North of the Lugansk Oblast, where most people speak Ukrainian. I guess this kind of stuff provokes strong emotions at this time.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

From Dark Liberty

From Dark Liberty at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests:

As you are the only one shifting hard the POV in favor of another term as of October, with the rest of us with rather lukewarm support, I would like to inquire why you are in favor the phrase, and is trying so hard using logical fallacies in order to justify support for this phrase. Remember, I am not in favor of any neologism for any article. And do not give me "I'm helping Wikipedia". I want to know why you desperately do support the phrase at this stage, in favor of all opposition.

"The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest." -RGloucestor

here is your argument repeated, and here are the problems: 2014 Taiwan protests and Hong Kong protests are both valid, not absurd, as you would think unfortunately, and most readers would agree. Are intelligence agencies aware of every single protest that occurred during the year? I doubt it. And Calling 2014 Ferguson riots as "American unrest" would be equally as absurd.

Like monkeys trying to call a deer a horse. Wrong political opinions are not relevant here; we're better than that. Wikipedia is for human beings. Have some pride in your humanity.

Feel free to erase this message if you want. --George Ho (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The mass graves in Donetsk

It does a poor job of "debunking", as I found many faults in the narrative. For example, the bodies at the morgues were moved there after being discovered in the mass graves. Not to mention they do not explain anything about the captured volunteer who admitted to committing the atrocities.

Славянский патриот (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OR Noticeboard-Ruthenians_in_Galicia

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, RGloucester. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please be advised that you are being discussed here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
for setting-aside a content dispute to help honestly resolve an edit issue DocumentError (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

question

I have some extra time at the moment. Would you object if I renamed the page to "... against ISIS" and replaced the half of the references that were changed back to "ISIL" back to "ISIS" just pending the outcome of the discussion ... essentially just roll everything back 24 hours? (At which point we may need to change it back anyway ...) I think it's an important exercise to establish an interaction precedent if nothing else. But I won't do it if there's any objections. DocumentError (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a waste. There is no point to going back and forth. Once something is settled, let's stick with it. Until then, let's avoid edit-warring and flipping things all over the place. That's my personal view. Neither title is so bad that it needs to be changed immediately, and we really need to change the culture of unilateral action, in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Great point - sounds good. DocumentError (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Belated, but very much deserved

Order of Merit of Ukraine
I am honoured to award you with this acknowledgement for the remarkable work you have put into creating, developing and maintaining genuinely neutral and informative articles over the last year surrounding recent events in Ukraine. The integrity with which you have fought off POV pushers from all sides is nothing short of stellar.
this WikiAward was given to RGloucester by Iryna Harpy (talk) on 04:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! It has been a wild ride. I'm still eyeing the future, but I fear that the old-fashioned "frozen conflict" scenario has set in. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that was the objective. Let's just say that there are certain superpowers who have everything to gain by putting the crunch on Russia. 'Twas mapped out already, and only 'over' in name. Any 'stuff' that happens to people who don't matter is 'collateral damage'. You know something is seriously wrong when state sponsored political assassination is televised as a hooray moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite news

I was wondering if your edit here was justified and weather I should follow it. On one hand, I like to use agencies and publishers some times but from what user @Alarics: explained to me that according to {{cite news}} template we need to use either work or newspaper and user @Redrose64: agreed with him. Now I am wondering who is right?--Mishae (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between the parameters. "Work" refers to the literal "work" that the article being cited appears in. "Publisher" refers to the company or organisation that publishes that "work". As an example, an article appears in The New York Times, which is published by The New York Times Company. In the case of a Reuters article, for example, the technically correct way to cite it would technically be "agency=Reuters|work=Reuters", however, that is redundant. It makes sense to use only "agency", as that Reuters article, being a wire piece, likely appears in many other "works". In cases where the "work" and the "publisher/agency" have the same name, it makes sense to use the "publisher/agency" parameter. In cases where this is not true, it is makes sense to prioritise the work parameter. In other words, we don't need to fill in the "publisher" parameter for The New York Times. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that I got. What about BBC News is it suppose to be "agency" or "work" in your opinion?--Mishae (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Changing |work=Reuters to |agency=Reuters was certainly correct: Reuters is not the name of the published work, but of the news agency - the organisation which supplied the story for reproduction in that work. Changing |work=BBC News to |publisher=BBC News is debatable. I often come across cases where |publisher= has been used incorrectly for the name of the work; I think that this is because some people believe that "publisher" is another word for "publication", which it is not. Personally I would have left |work=BBC News alone.
Regarding agencies: a real example that I recently came across is this story on the website of the Victoria Advocate, which begins "By Greg Kot Chicago Tribune (MCT) Dave Mustaine has ..." Here, Greg Kot is the author; Chicago Tribune is the newspaper which Greg Kot works for, and is also where the story was first published; and (MCT) immediately before the start of the text indicates the agency that the Victoria Advocate obtained the story from. If a story begins with something in parenthesis like that, it's almost certainly an indication that the story came from an agency. (MCT) is McClatchy-Tribune Information Services; other commonly-found agencies include (Reuters) and (AP), the latter being the normal acronym for Associated Press. Taking this story as another example, it is on the BBC News website, so it's |work=BBC News; the copyright note at the bottom says "BBC © 2014" so it's |publisher=BBC; the text doesn't begin with something in parenthesis, so it's not an agency story. BBC News is an agency only if the website or broadcast where the story appeared does not belong to the BBC - if that same story had appeared on a different website (say, that of the Daily Planet), and the text had begin "(BBC) Investigations are under way ...", it would then be |work=Daily Planet |agency=BBC. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think BBC News is ever usually appropriate for the "agency" parameter, however, I think that in their case "work" is inappropriate for one important reason. That's that the "work" parameter italicises the text, giving it the sense that it is one printed work like a newspaper or journal. The reality is that "BBC News" should never be italicised in this manner, as it never represents a "work" in that sense. I believe one can write "BBC News" as the "publisher", given that BBC News is a division of the broader BBC, not a separate company or anything like that. RGloucester — ☎ 12:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that both "publisher" and "agency" is not italicised therefore it shouldn't matter I think.--Mishae (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It does matter if the data is used to populate the COinS Metadata that {{citation}} and all the Citation Style 1 templates emit. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The "publisher" and "agency" parameters should not italicise, and don't. "Work" does italicise, and should do. It is meant for works like The New York Times or Journal of Contemporary Asia. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I already began renaming BBC News works and agencies to publishers.--Mishae (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Another question; Obviously BBC Sport, CBS News, and NBC News/NBC Sports are publishers but how would you classify Dunya News which is a Pakistani news channel?--Mishae (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the specific channel, but my general understanding is that television networks can be considered works (if one is citing an actual television programme). If one isn't citing a programme, but just some article on the network's website, then it would be considered a "publisher". RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
BBC Sport is not a publisher. It is a work; the publisher of that work is the BBC. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's debatable. "BBC Sport" should certainly not be italicised.
You know, when such debates go, I get even more confused. On one hand, it says that BBC Sport is a division of BBC North which is therefore a part of BBC agency just like BBC News. On the other hand, because its a division of BBC North, it makes it work, but I might be wrong. Either way, I will revert 2 of my edits for now, but when the consensus will be reached (and if in mine and RGloucester's favour), then I will put it back. If not, then I will except the defeat in this discussion and will leave it as is. Sounds fair?--Mishae (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My other question, is that while searching for BBC News works I have stumbled on these templates: {{Wayback}} Although I don't mind them and maybe they are good for say archiving BBC stuff, they don't incorparate as much. Like, there is only url, date, df, and title which makes me wonder on what is their point? It would be a lot better if we will include work, author, publisher, agency, date, and accessdate with a chance to arternate it to newspaper or delete ones that are not present in the one template. How is this sounds?--Mishae (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The usual cite news template has archival parameters, so I don't know why we'd ever want to use that template. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Beats me, found it here. Its may be good on refs where authors are not specified such as BBC News and Dawn, but then it lacks date and accessdate as well, and you need to put it manualy. Here is the diff. It was used only once on sites like BBC News and The Times by user @Synthwave.94: who is just a clean up guy at the WikiProject Music department. I'm fine with it being used on BBC and Dawn since they don't have authors, but The Times and the rest do have them, which makes me wonder how useful it is? I hope user @Redrose64: will have something to say about it. I wont use it till consensus will come to a clause regarding this issue as well.--Mishae (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to show "BBC Sport" without it being italicised, but without incorrectly marking it up as the publisher (which is the BBC), try |department=BBC Sport (see documentation):
Roan, Dan (8 October 2014). "Premier League explore taking one regular-round match abroad". BBC Sport. BBC. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
You can of course omit the |publisher=BBC (see documentation). If the webpage that you're using as a ref says "BBC", "BBC News", "BBC Sport" etc. in big letters at the top, it is incorrect to use |agency=BBC. However, if that same webpage says "(Reuters)" before the text, putting |agency=Reuters is perfectly in order, see documentation.
Templates like {{wayback}} are intended for use on refs which do not use templates like {{cite news}} for formatting. When {{cite news}} etc. are being used, the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters (see documentation) are sufficient to give a link to the wayback page. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. Now I guess I can clean up Amy Winehouse a bit from this {{Wayback}} template. :)--Mishae (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there ANY way I can contact you and TALK to you?

Or are you going to keep reverting any text I add to your Talk Page? 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is about the Donbass article, please move to that talk page, where I've pasted your comment. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it's about you and seriously understanding why do you mark other people's addition as "bizarre" in the summary? Thanks, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Because it was "bizarre", and because it read like mangled English. RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
"Supporting party" isn't mangled. It means that a certain implication of support may come from that belligerent. I personally have to let you know that if I do edits like that, I welcome any kind of talk about them in my own talk. Were I not, I think I would've put an infobox saying so on top. But of course this is just me. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - MOS

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Good heavens! Don't risk to be blocked again for trying to write in Shakespearean English!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it is nothing like that. I am merely trying to resolve a dispute about British units of measurement, which is something I became involved in a year ago. I don't edit in the area, merely on talk pages. RGloucester — ☎ 14:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some disruptive editing on the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport article

I've noticed what appears to me to be some disruptive and POV editing in the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport article, namely concerning to casualties and losses. I've already asked the help of EkoGraf. Do you think any measures should be taken? Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest. My opinion is that that article is based in WP:RECENTISM, and hence likely a mess. I've been ignoring it for the time being. After events settle down, I'll go back and verify/copyedit. As it stands now, I don't think there is much to be done. You could ask for semi-protection at WP:RPP, though. RGloucester — ☎ 14:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And what do I claim to be the basis of semi-protection? Recentism? I'll see what EkoGraf can do about it, and if I notice that the page continues to be disrupted I'll ask for that. Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Addition of unsourced POV content, is what I'd say. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine added to the Category of "Causes of war"

An IP user added Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine to the Category of "Causes of war". It's a very indirect cause. I think it would be more logical to add 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine as a cause of war than the Historical background. Do you agree? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine it should be removed, but at the same time, Background of the Russo-Georgian War is also in that category. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but if you look at the content of Background of the Russo-Georgian War it actually talks about quite more direct causes for the war!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
That's true. This article is the background of the unrest, which led to the war. You're right. Remove it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Done!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#RM (October 2014)

Will you withdraw this proposal? Everyone is opposing your proposed name. --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not. I still believe that the move must be carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that vote is not a substitute for discussion. However, opposers have a point, and you are the only supporter. How much rebuttal will you convince them to change their minds? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I won't ever change my mind. RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, the administrator will close it as "not moved". If that happens, will you discuss this with the closing administrator for re-evaluation? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I will open a new discussion in a month's time, if that's the case. RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
One month's not enough; how about after New Year's Eve (or Day)? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Perfectly fine. RGloucester — ☎ 12:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Hist/page - talkpage?

Hello RGloucester, you moved United States occupation of Haiti with this change [[21]]. However, the talkpage still seems to be the old one (of the now redirect page), should it be moved aswell? I'd do it myself, but I would most likely create more problems trying it. GermanJoe (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've paged merged the two. A bot modified the redirect, that's all. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

British Isles sanctions

I am aware of the problems with the use of British Isles as a side issue of the various Arbcom decisions over the Ireland naming issues. However where are the "British Isles sanctions" you have mentioned documented, because AFAICT for example there is no mention of (or link to) sanctions on talk:British Isles -- PBS (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: They are described at this page: Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What should I use?

One other question that have arose is that when it comes to sports articles should I use publisher or website when it comes to such links as ESPN/ESPN.com and MLB.com. So far I decided to change ESPN.com to ESPN since they are basically the same but I still would like to hear your opinion on it.--Mishae (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For those, I believe, you should use the cite web template instead of cite news. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if they are covering sports news? I think since you are unsure we should ask @Redrose64:.--Mishae (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
{{cite news}} is for news sources, both online and printed, including sports news. {{cite web}}, according to its doc, is for "web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template". You can use any of |work=ESPN, |website=ESPN.com or |publisher=ESPN Internet Ventures but using more than one of those is redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: So in which category will ESPN.com and MLB.com will fit in? Is it web as it implied by .com or is it news as it implies by its content?--Mishae (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If what you're citing is a news story, use {{cite news}}. The presence of .com in the website name is immaterial - pretty much every profit-making organisation - and that includes such well-known newspapers as The New York Times and The Washington Post - has a web domain ending in either .com or .co.xx (where xx is a country code) and so it doesn't really mean anything when choosing a cite template. As an aside, any company that is still banging on about their .com identity is fifteen years out of date. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider sport "news", so I'd favour keeping it out of the news template to make clear that it is of a lesser significance. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

You have done great work in the area of the Ukraine situation. I have generally agreed with your views. I hope that your intellect can help continue the development of WP in this area, whether or not we come to a consensus on the particular point I raised on the talk page regarding a name change. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft sanctions

RGloucester, there's a couple of points in your latest draft that I fear could be problematic, given the love of wikilawyering and interpretation and all the rest that we see so often. But I don't want to bog down the AN discussion with them - it's in danger of becoming TLDR already. Do you think you and i could work on drafts together, say in a sandbox page like User:NebY/sanction drafts? It needn't be just us - NE Ent might be interested, and Boson may be back in days - but I'm not sure many others are interested in the detail work right now. On the other hand, if we are going to have to gain wider community approval per PBS, a bit more detail work now could really help. NebY (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with PBS about the need for an RfC. General sanctions have never required an RfC. They are usually established at WP:AN through discussion, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, as I'm sure you know. They don't fundamentally change anything for everyday editors, only those who edit war or otherwise cause disruption (and only after he/she has been notified). Regardless, we can establish such a page and work on the wording, but I'm already afraid this has got bogged down into too many details. We need to keep it simple. General sanctions generally are simple. Wikilawyering seems unlikely to happen here. An uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions on anyone who has been notified of the sanctions and is acting disruptively in the topic area. That's a fairly standard definition. Making this complicated is inappropriate. It isn't meant to be complicated. RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's not meant to be complicated, that's why I offered a shorter version. I don't know what you think of that one, but I'll work with you on yours if you'd prefer. Just for-instance, what are "British units"? No, I don't want to add fifty words explaining that. I 'd rather find another phrase/clause that's as short or shorter. NebY (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please paste your shorter version here? I don't think I caught it. As far as "British units", I imagine one could say "units used in the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. First, after quibbling about "strong ties" (and in full knowledge that I'd left room for trimming):
...maybe we can make progress by looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:
  • Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
  • Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
  • Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further....[22]
Second, after suggestions from Boson which I tried to integrate succinctly:
"Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement"[23] NebY (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I figure that my new proposal was meant to incorporate that stuff, and I think it does that well. Could you name the issues with it so that I may revise it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to collaborate with you on the wording rather than submit complaints to you for your consideration. So, I'll mention a few issues and be off. I'm going to cut down my Wikipedia activity and take a lot of pages off my watchlist anyway, WP:AN and WT:MOSNUM particularly. First, here's your text:

"In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard."

  • As previously discussed, "strong ties" is too encompassing - (World War II) has strong ties to the UK. That's why I suggested "primarily concerning UK subjects".
  • "Without clear justification" is wrong - it's easy to provide a clear justification for the most heinous acts (cf war), and it's not a Wikipedia norm. Hence my "without consensus".
  • "Changes from metric to imperial" - or between different metric systems as in the arguments about using cm, m or feet and inches for basketball players and as certain editors would do for devilment. Simply "switching units".
  • "Systematically" is too open to gaming (e.g. just pick 20 articles at random), 1RR covers edit-warring, so just change "systematically" to "repeatedly" and make sure to say 1RR applies.
  • "Disrupts discussions" by itself doesn't cover trolling by starting discussions, stringing discussions out e.g. WP:IDHT going round and round in circles (a distinguishing feature of DeFacto that I could easily believe has led to divorce). "Disrupts ... normal Wikipedia processes" doesn't clearly cover forum-shopping. Hence my "forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement", which avoids that "British units" phrase too.
  • "the existence of the British units general sanctions" -> "the existence of these sanctions"
  • "Sanctions can be imposed if ... the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes." If they do that anywhere? Or on any matter in UK-related articles? Or only with regard to units of measurement in UK-related articles? It has to be the latter, otherwise that sentence does just apply sanctions Wikipedia-wide. But the latter has already been covered, in detail, so this sentence seems superfluous and has already disturbed others as massive sanctions-creep.
  • "the topic or its closely related topics" - "the topic" isn't spelt out. Better to spell it out from the start - that's why I began with "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects".

Hope that helps. Good luck. NebY (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects". "Strong ties" is not too encompassing for ENGVAR or date formats, and there is no reason why it should be here either. If you read Wikipedia:Strong national ties, it says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", meaning "particular" as opposed to multiple such nations. "Concerning UK subjects" doesn't make any sense to me. I'm in favour of using the existing language that is found in MOSNUM and other parts of the MOS. As far as your other ideas, I do not think that these specifications aren necessary. They are not necessary for other general sanctions such as the Syrian Civil War sanctions, and I don't know why they'd be here. They are called "general sanctions", and they are certainly not "specific sanctions". We don't need to specifically say "forum-shopping". If it is disruptive, an uninvolved administrator can sanction an editor. "Systematically" is used by the British Isles general sanctions, and is an appropriate phrase here as well. Specifying about "feet and inches" isn't the purpose of these sanctions, and I'm not aware of any dispute in that regard. Even if there was such a dispute, an uninvolved administrator could easily construe "edits disruptively in areas pertaining units of measurement in the United Kingdom" or whatever, as referring to that. We are supposed to have a loose wording, not a tight wording. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Clarification

In an English encyclopaedia strong ties to the United Kingdom is so wide open to misinterpretation and POV as to be intrinsically unfair. For example you say it includes The Protectorate, but does not include the 26 counties in Ireland, yet the protectorate included that territory in Ireland. Do you see the knots you are creating? -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: No, I don't see those knots. "Strong ties" to one country as opposed to others, meaning that if there are multiple countries with strong ties, the "strong ties" principle doesn't apply. That's what the MoS says. Anyway, this is total abstraction, as no units at all are even used in the The Protectorate article. Can we please use common sense here, rather than delve into absurdity? RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Novorossiyans"

Hi, what do you think of WP:hatting this? It's obviously not a serious proposal, and just a pretext for expressing hatred of Russia. Also, whoever it was who made the proposal, he didn't even bother to sign either of his two comments. Finally, as you probably, the rebels themselves, most notably Mozgovoy, want there to be a "unified" Novorossiya, but Moscow wants to stick with DPR and LPR being separate entities.

I wanted to tell you before that you demonstrate your wisdom by avoiding the MH17 article, but didn't want to intrude on your Talk page.

I see you just made a comment there. So now you are "involved", so I guess I should do the hatting, unless you object. The IP is from Toronto, btw. Also, I hope your use of the expression "New Russians" was a joke. What kind of people could new Russians possibly be? Whereas it is very clear what Novorossiya is. IIRC, you lost the debate about this naming convention. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore it. It isn't worth the time. I haven't made any comments about the aeroplane, so I'm not sure what you are referencing. No, my use of "New Russians" is not a "joke". I don't speak foreign tongues (except when I do, as noted on my user page). When speaking or writing English, I write or speak English. In English, the term can only ever be "New Russian". "Novorossiya" is not clear, no more than "Rossiya" is clear. I admit defeat as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but I shan't change my own usage. Regardless, I fear that this is a great problem on the English Wikipedia. Whilst I do appreciate the great contributions of non-native English speakers here, and their ability to combat systemic bias, I do quite hate that many try to foist foreignisms on the English language as a matter of advancing various nationalist agendas. There is not much to do about it, though. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you were clearly wrong in using "New Russians" to refer to residents of Donetsk and Lugansk. A page for New Russians exists, and it has nothing to do with Novorossiya. As a general matter, I do share your dislike for "foreignisms". For example, I think the article about the Ukraine using "oblast" instead of "region" is very silly. But there are exceptions in the case of which I find the use of foreignisms acceptable. In the case of prominent countries, such as Israel, Germany, and Russia, the use of Knesset, Bundestag, and Duma instead of "parliament" is acceptable. Since what remains of the Ukraine is not a prominent country however, the use of "Rada" instead of "Ukrainian parliament" is not.
As I pointed out in the discussion about renaming the Novorossiya article, if Novorossiya should be called New Russia in English Wikipedia, then the Ukraine should be called the Borderland.
There have now been several sensible posts in that thread, so hatting it is no longer desirable. What I meant about the "aeroplane" article was that even though you edit many Ukrainian articles, you have shied away from the MH17 article. I find that to be wise, because the MH17 article is the most contentious article I have ever edited. And I have edited articles on Christian sects. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've "shied away" from it because it has nothing to do with my areas of interest, and it because it is clearly a great waster of time. I cannot agree with you such matters as "if Novorossiya should be called New Russia in English Wikipedia, then the Ukraine should be called the Borderland". There is one essential difference in this case: that Russia is not ever referred to as "Rossiya" in English. If this is the case, purely as a matter of consistency, "Novorossiya" must be "New Russia". Otherwise, the etymological link is not clear. Until we start calling Russia "Rossiya", we ought not be calling New Russia "Novorossiya". Likewise, "Belarus" is properly called "White Russia" or "White Ruthenia". I do not support using such words as "Rada", "Duma", "Bundestag". These are the Supreme Council, State Council, and Federal Diet respectively. I speak Japanese, but I don't call the National Diet of Japan Kokkai in English. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, your speaking Japanese is really impressive. I studied Japanese for a while, to ameliorate my Eurocentrism. You make a good case for "New Russia", although "New Russians" still sounds funny to me. I think the deciding factor is that English sources representing "New Russia" call New Russia Novorossiya (or Novorossia, which I think is a bad transliteration). But absolutely the worst convention is the one that the Vineyard of the Saker blogger uses (read his blog to get "poisoned" by pro-Russian sentiment): he calls it Novorussia! Should Novgorod, where I have been accused by an IP of residing, be called New City? – Herzen (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't that impressive. It is an easy language to learn to speak, though Chinese characters are quite a pain (and beautiful). My academic specialty is in literature/media, and Japanese literature is one of the areas that I study. Plenty of sources refer to "New Russia", and plenty of others sources completely ignore its existence in favour of the DPR and LPR. There is no academic consensus, yet. Like I said, I concede defeat for Wikipedia's purposes, but I shan't change my own usage. As far as "Novgorod" is concerned, no. That's because it has always been called Novgorod in English. I like to follow tradition, in this regard. However, it is properly called "Novgorod the Great", as opposed to "Veliky Novgorod". RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Japanese is a perfect example of foreignisms gone crazy. So many English words have imported for no clear reason, confusing the vast majority of Japanese who have no idea what they mean. Media often use English words even when there are good Japanese equivalents, and result is that people simply don't understand what is being said. This was the case with the word accountability, which was originally rendered in katakana as アカウンタビリティー. Quite simply, this means nothing to an average Japanese. The sounds provide no hint of the meaning. Luckily, the Japanese Language Committee created a new expression from old words in the early 2000s that does have meaning in Japanese as a way to replace the meaningless Katakana transliteration: 説明責任 (Setsumei sekinin). This means "responsibility to explain", and is very clear from the characters used. On the whole, I tend to favour calques over using foreignisms, but I'm perfectly fine with using loanwords when they provide a meaning that is unavailable in a certain language. However, I'm strictly opposed to using foreignisms for the sake of it, as it is with "oblast". Quite simply, "oblast" is meaningless to the average native speaker of English, and its meaning is easily replicated with English words. There is no reason to use un-natural foreignisms that one has to look up, as opposed to perfectly good existing words that better convey meaning. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

I have noticed you are capable of very constructive work and did acknowledge that in writing. Nevertheless you seem to jealously guard status quo in the articles in which you take an interest. It seems that you are perched in front of your monitor ready to jump in and revert any change I make even if it is an obvious, non-controversial enhancement to the page. I think you are capable of frying bigger fish than, for instance, reverting my edit changing a section head over an international list from "Response" to "International response". Why would you think that is so important? It really seems that you are making an issue of it because you just want to be "right" and in control of the page. Perhaps I am mistaken. I actually do like many of your edits and your positions are usually interesting, whether or not I agree with them. One constructive change for the better that I acknowledge and thank you for refraining from merely insulting other people's editorial approach. When you provide substantive remarks you can really shine. When you insult you don't do your reputation any good. Anyway, I can appreciate your best work, and you have done a nice job running off some of the IP trolls. But remember, in war, any war, including propaganda war or just war or people's war or war of resistance against evil, there is always the risk of becoming like one's enemy. This is a problem on many levels, not just for us...Wikidgood (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I do what is necessary for the project. If you make bad changes, I will revert them. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The standard is whether the edits are consistent with WP policy and it is expected that you would justify any modifications accordingly. What is objectionable and can get you sanctioned if you substitute your personal preferences and revert without reference to WP. Transparency and communication are important irrespective of whether or not your are "right". Wikidgood (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you recent reversion of "alleged" on 2014 Unrest in Ukraine. But there you also did cite a policy and it was pertinent. Wikidgood (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Information on Russian army losses in the "War of Donbass"

I found information on the losses of the Russian Federation in the Russian-Ukrainian war over Donetsk basin. Ukrayinska Pravda published a news with reference to the site of Russian human rights activist Yelena Vasilieva. According to Vasilieva the Armed Forces of Russia lost over 4,300 soldiers in the war. Here are websites that she prepared Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation agrees with 900 dead, Geography of the Russian dead (interactive map), Lost Ivan (interactive map). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-Soviet Conflicts

I do not want to create a full scale edit war so I would like to discuss this issue here. The only reason a campaignbox has been used for Post-Soviet conflicts is because it is the most relevant thing to depict a violent political or ethnic conflict of any kind. If you want you can change the template to a different attachment but Euromaidan and the Ukrainian revolution must be included as they are by all means violent political conflicts. --Leftcry (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not wars, they are not military campaigns. Everything else included in that template is a military conflict, and it is called a campaignbox. Euromaidan was not a military conflict, and does not belong in a campaignbox. Please don't pass off protests as a war. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
They were not just protests, they were very violent political conflicts, which is what the entire article was made for. Based on what you're saying out of the Southern and Eastern Ukraine conflicts the only one that should be left is the War in Donbass. --Leftcry (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Crimea was military action, as is Donbass. The "2014 unrest" article should be removed. They were just protests, which had some violence interspersed. The violence was not military. It is not equivalent to any of the wars included in that template. It is not a military campaign. We are not talking about any article. We are talking about the template, which is a campaignbox. RGloucester — ☎ 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The template was made to match the article so yes we definitely have to consider the article. --Leftcry (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to make a new template for non-military conflicts. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate your intervention

@RGloucester:, I would appreciate it if you could take another look at User talk:Technophant#SCW&ISIL sanctions. I believe that there has been a serious breach of good practice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was highly incorrect, what Technophant did. May I recommend that you contact Callanecc, and ask him to evaluate Technophant's use of sanctions notifications? He's a sysop that is most involved in this stuff, and much more suited to evaluate such misconduct. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It was my mistake here to specify intervention and not check this page for an answer until now. It was this that led to me doubling up the request at Greyshark's thread so apologies with thanks. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am still not sure which if any of the following edits (or others) are inappropriate. What does the policy apply to. Could you add comment below? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: This edit here. That's what I'm referring to. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

logging Syrian Civil War sanction warnings by non-administrator

Hello RGloucester,
I would like to point your attention to actions done by user:Technophant between October 17 to October 22, when he logged 5 warnings of Wikipedia:GS/SCW by himself and apparently with no report at WP:ANI and actually no violation of 1RR as far as i can see. I clarified to him that he cannot log warnings (see User_talk:Technophant#1RR_notification_on_Syrian_Civil_War_articles), because he is not an administrator and there was no complaint at WP:ANI. I expect he would understand and undo himself before i or somebody else interferes. I would herewith like to notify you about this incident just in the case he will not comply and i would require your assistance. Thanks in advance.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, i now notice you are not an administrator as well. So please familiarize yourself with sanctions logging...GreyShark (dibra) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere on the sanctions page does it say that only administrators issue sanctions notifications. My understanding is that they are not "warnings" at all, but merely notifications that these articles are covered by the scope of the sanctions. For example, with WP:ARBEE sanctions, anyone can issue notifications as such, as long as they follow the proper procedure (i.e. do not notify someone more than once or use the notifications in a threatening way). RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ottawa shootings

Please see my comments about your recent article renaming at Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa#May need a rename. I'd like to gain consensus on a new name. --Natural RX 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the content about War in Donbass

I didn't mean by my edit that it was not important concerning to the War in Donbass... I only thought that it was more important concerning to the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, so I thought that it might be a duplicated sentence. As long as it also belongs to the Russian intervention in Ukraine (or with very minor changes there), for me, it's just fine. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (23:06, 23 October 2014, Lisbon/London/Casablanca Time)

I think it should be at both, for now. It is definitely relevant to both. RGloucester — ☎ 22:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I was just worrying if it wouldn't be considered as a duplicate. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:61, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (23:06, 23 October 2014 Lisbon/London/Casablanca Time)
If it was a significant duplication it might be a problem, but the amount of content shared is minimal, and important to both articles none-the-less. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A consideration

I may sometimes (though I think not very often), confirm or doubt some edits. That's why I was one of the 1st ones to doubt about the actual Russian involvement, and that's why I was if not the 1st, one of the 1st ones to ask the opinion of Wikipedia if Russia was just a supporting or a direct belligerent in Ukraine. Now... My opinion and my edits have nothing to do with Russia at all. They may have to do with the fact that I'm for the self-determination of peoples (as close to here, as the Catalonians, for instance... I don't agree with the independence, but I'm for self-determination). Now, concerning to Donbass, this article, in my opinion, has gone too far concerning about trusting too much the pro-American and some Ukrainian sources and disregarding too much the Russian sources. Well, I watch RT, I don't take all of what they say as the actual truth, but sometime, they may be right!... What are the reliable sources???? The ones that Wikipedia considers as reliable sources? And who owns and approves what is reliable or not for Wikipedia? I don't wan't to blame the WP administration at all, but, there might be ppl who could be distorting the reliablility of the sources. And this is not pro-Russian. I'd be delighted if the RS tomorrow would be DN, Público, El País, El Mundo, Folha de São Paulo, etc... Spanish/Portuguese speaking RS! Mondolkiri1 — talk 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Hello, I'm the person whose been questioning the validity of the term Cultural Marxism, and I was glad when you (someone familiar with the subject of Marxism) took a position on the patchy and questionable content that makes up the wikipedia article on this biased and right-leaning pejorative. Anyways, I'm not an expert on the workings of wikipedia, but it seems your work has been undone: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.86.130 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

please help us ...

... to resolve our little question — User talk:Mondolkiri1#...people displaced people... --Q Valda (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of

FYI, a move of 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa has been formally requested. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --Natural RX 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate sanctions

Are any users allowed to notice people about the general sanctions on gamergate, or only admins? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Anyone, per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts and WP:GS/GG. The procedure is explained there. It applies to all ArbCom and community sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...! Don't mean to be short tempered, but that whole area is so damned frustrating. Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ping

"I am pinging all editors that have participated here. ..." I am posting this here to reduce the drams. To avoid the possibility of accusations of canvassing, I suggest that spend more time carefully looking through what is now a large section and ping all the named users who have contributed to the section. For example to take just the first few missing editors in what is now a very large section that you have not pinged: Psychonau, ProProbly and Callanecc, I have not looked through the list in detail and there are bound to be more. -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ProProbly is indeffed, but it would probably be appropriate to ping participants in the very closely related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#What is the basis for the bias towards metric for UK related articles?.
I would also welcome changes or clarication in the proposed text to avoid phrases like "clear consensus" leading to more disruption of the consensus-building process. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Closing the discussion on the removal of the advice about milk makes it clear that there are divergent interpretations of consensus. --Boson (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ping ProProbly because he is an indeffed sockpuppet of DeFacto. As far as the others, I must have missed them. I'll send for them right away. RGloucester — ☎ 12:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
To ping someone, you must use a new signed post. Editing a post you have previously signed will not ping. See WP:PING " if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent" and note also the known bugs. NebY (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that you have now pinged all the editors who have taken part in these conversations prior to the start of the current subsection? -- PBS (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Other than the unpingable and likely sockpuppet IPs, I think so. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Boson: I've added a link to the policy on consensus into the wording. However, you need to keep in mind that the only people that will be able to asses consensus with regard to these sanctions are uninvolved administrators who are well equipped to do so. It is the administrator's interpretation of consensus that will determine whether sanctions should be applied. That's why these are called "discretionary sanctions": they are imposed at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator. In other words, none of the participants' definitions of consensus are relevant, so you needn't worry about that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School conspiracy theory were originally two different articles. They differ greatly in prose and sources. Let's discuss before trying to redirect anything. You chose where... I'm going to fully protect Frankfurt School conspiracy theory as well. — MusikAnimal talk 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, one is a PoV fork of the other one. Even I was tricked by the "Cultural Marxism" article. I thought it was referring to Marxist cultural theory, but it is actually an attempt to portray the conspiracy theory as reality. The articles must be merged, as per the talk page. Allowing this article to continue to exist is a travesty. RGloucester — ☎ 23
27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a point of view so, no. Your own words: "I'm more of what one would call a "cultural Marxist"". From your user page: "This user identifies as a Marxist." You are not objective with respect to this topic. Stop trolling.NerdNinja9 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'm objective, to the same degree that anyone else. By "cultural Marxist", I meant that I endorse and admire "Marxist cultural theory". Notice the lowercase "cultural". I wasn't familiar with the American political canard, at the time. Having actually taken the time to waste my head on such canards, I've learned that the phrase "cultural Marxist" apparently is now connected to an absurd conspiracy that posits that the Frankfurt School supports the idea of "multiculturalism". That is antithetical to the Frankfurt School, and all Marxisst. In Marxism, and in Marxist cultural theory, the emphasis is on the fact that ethno-cultural identities are constructed, as opposed to innate. They are created by society, usually by the ruling class, as a way to divide the proletariat in groups that cannot stand-up for themselves. It is a form of balkanisation. For a Marxist, the ideal of a human is one who puts aside these constructed differences and places emphasis on his status as a human in fellowship with other humans, working for the collective good. The idea of "multiculturalism" is a fundamentally liberal idea that flies in the face of that, and provides for what is known as "identity politics". These identity politics are a liberal tool, as said before, used to divide people into categories for the sake of demographic marketing. Or, at least, that's what Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer would say. For them, culture in the era of mass reproduction of works of art is controlled by the "culture industry". The differences that "multiculturalism" emphasises are a product of that industry, and used to suppress the proletariat as I said above. Regardless, this is clearly a pointless discussion. I can't believe Wikipedia is tolerating this blatant falsity. It is misleading, wrong, and total skewing of everything that Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, and whoever else stood for. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I find this explanation of what you consider 'cultural Marxism' (small-c) to be quite helpful, so thank you for sharing. Do you know of any Wikipedia page or section of a wiki-page that reflects these ideas? I'm sorry you found the old 'Cultural Marxism' article to be misleading. To be honest, however, yours is the first time I've seen anyone use the term in a different way; the majority of my experience has seen the term used to describe a specific type of quasi- Hegelian form of Critical Theory that mainly focuses on questions of culture and national identity. I suspect the difference in our experience has been because I've mostly heard the term in American contexts, where you seem to come from a British background. But I would disagree with you that such a difference invalidates the American definition of the term, or means that Wikipedia's use of the same was a "blatant falsity" (as you write above). Personally I'd suggest there be a disambiguation page with a separate link to a page or section on 'cultural studies in Marxism' as you and British Marxists understand it. PublicolaMinor (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at Frankfurt School, and also Western Marxism. There is no difference between American or British usage in scholarly discourse. This fringe theory is not dominant in American scholarly discourse, anymore than it is elsewhere. The idea that the Frankfurt School supports "multiculturalism" or "political correctness" is pure bunk, not supported by sources, and an attempt to create an artificial classification that does not exist. RGloucester — ☎ 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

reverted your revert of a third party editor on technical grounds

Ping re War in Donbass per Talk thread thank youWikidgood (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrator search committee

I think that is a really interesting suggestion, the first alternative to RFA that has seemed to me worth considering. When the current RFC fails, I would be happy to help flesh out some details and work up a proposal, if you would like to take it further. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It was just a spur of the moment thing, but if people actually take-up on the idea and want to work on it, I'd be happy to help draught such a formal proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your threat

Just a note to say that I consider your post [24] made on my talk page to be a threat. Maybe I am wrong, and it is just that you think other editors can't read the sanctions notice on the talk pages of articles that are covered by the sanctions, and that they have to be told about those sanctions. However, two facts make that unlikely. You have not posted such a notification on any other editor's talk page (how wonderful that I alone get your attention, should I feel flattered?), and there was no reason to place that notice on mine because I HAVE MADE NO REVERTS AT ALL ON ANY ARTICLE CONNECTED TO THE SANCTIONS. I wonder what povs you have been supporting that makes you feel you need to warn me off. All you have done is to encourage me to take an interest in these articles, and in the other areas that interest you (like Ukraine). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Please read WP:GS/GG. Editors must be notified of sanctions, and I've followed the proper procedure per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. It is not a warning, nor a threat. Merely an informational notice, as it says. I have notified many other editors, which you can see at WP:GS/GG#Log of notifications. RGloucester — ☎ 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not accept your "pardon", especially after this [25]. What is your explanation for this, should I see it as more harassment, or just a stupid mistake? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
An edit conflict removed my log entry, so I fixed it. I am not "harassing" you at all. I have no interest in subject matter, have not edited any articles related to it, and have no prior contact with you. I was merely making sure that proper notifications were issued, in line with the guidelines as such. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reversing the Gamergate sanctions edit. I don't consider the notice you placed on my talk page to be helpful in any way (the sanctions are already mentioned on the article's talk page and are referred many times during talk page comments and I had made no reverts or been involved in any edit warring), and I am certain that most other editors would feel the same if it were done on their tall pages. Notices like that are often placed for no other reason than threats and harassment, so why invite bad receptions by posting such notices? You actually have edited articles that come under that topic (talk page edits on several articles), and you have not been warned about the sanctions. Should I issue you with the same notification, and place your name on the notification log? If it is acceptable for you to do it to me, it should be acceptable for me to do it to you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It is acceptable for you to do that, if you'd like. Once again, I made a bizarre mistake in my mind. I've been working on getting the Gamergate sanctions notices out, but I've never editing any articles related to that topic. I had thought you were one of the editors I was notifying for those sanctions, but in actuality I notified you for the SCW&ISIL sanctions, and had logged it appropriately. However, I must make clear that anyone that uses these templates for "harassment" and "threats" should be reported at the administrators' noticeboard. Please read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. These messages are never supposed to imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving them. If they are used that way, that's inappropriate. They are purely for notification purposes. All editors who edit pages related to the scope of the sanctions can and should be notified. Any editor can issue the notifications. If you'd like to notify me, go ahead, as long as it is not being done to make a WP:POINT. Make sure you follow the proper procedure, though. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Two different editors have used repeated template repostings on my talk page as a form of harassment, so that is why I am sensitive to it (maybe overly sensitive). Little real world point in placing the notification on your page: I see you were the initiator of changes to the sanction, so obviously you do know about it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Cooler heads needed

This is going to get out of hand. Not sure what the best way to go about things are, but if you're around it could use some admin help. Strongjam (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I'm not an administrator, but I've made a request at WP:AN for more administrators to take a look at the page. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. Saw your name on the sanctions page and assumed. Your help is much appreciated. I'm obviously inexperienced at this. Strongjam (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the AN ping (Even if I'm involved). --MASEM (t) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the edit in War in Donbass and Wikipedia:Administrative Standards Commission

Hi RGloucester, how are you? I've already deleted the reinsertion of the text, since I actually agree with you. I was just wishing that a consensus would be reached in the Talk Page, and sometimes I have the idea that the English Wikipedia article is more leaning to the Ukrainian side that, e.g., the Portuguese, French and the Spanish Wikipedia (this one, on the other hand, I think it's too lenient to the Russian side). Concerning to the Administrative Standards Commission issue. I have doubts about being a good idea, since as in the case of the War in Donbass article, it's already difficult to control POV, now. By electing the administrators, for instance, in the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedias, some articles maybe taken over by the National-Bolsheviks in the Russian Wikipedia or by the Right Sector in the Ukrainian Wikipedia! And the same goes, for instance for the Arabic vs Hebrew Wikipedias, and Turkish vs Kurdish Wikipedias, etc. It might be taken over by very biased administrators, in some cases. Even your suggestion of electing the administrators by 3 administrators and 3 non-administrators, I don't think it's good enough.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 1:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I had nothing against taking it to the talk page, which is the right action on your part. I'm a bit more bold on the whole, but that's because I tend to have a strong sense of right and wrong. That's often considered a liability in this day and age, but so it is. As far as the ASC proposal is concerned, please do read the full discussion at WP:VP/PR and Wikipedia talk:Administrative Standards Commission. The goal of Commission proposal is to replace the current RfA process, whereby administrators are elected by the community. It would only affect the English Wikipedia, not the Russian, Ukrainian, Kurdish, or whatever Wikipedias. RGloucester — ☎ 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I also have a strong sense of right and wrong, but maybe our perceptions are slightly different, since (maybe) I get more information from non-English speaking countries' media than you do. Concerning to the Administrative Standards Commission, I'll read the discussion more extensively. I'm not so worried about the English Wikipedia, since it's a global language where POV from one side can be more easily controlable by more reasonable editors. I'd be more worried about other Wikipedias.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 1:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Each Wikipedia has its own processes and procedures. They vary widely. Proposals made here only affect this Wikipedia. It's true that I tend to read British news. I don't read American newspapers or news, other than The New York Times, as I find them to be generally horrid. Sometimes I read French news, and sometimes I read Japanese news. More often I read Japanese news, but that's very very different from the English media, and tends to be mostly insular in focus. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I watch regularly France24, and I think it's a quite good one. Portuguese and Spanish media are not really international media (apart from the Portuguese and Spanish speaking world, naturally).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 1:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A side issue maybe, but the most active contributors to the Russian-language Wikipedia used to (I'm talking 7 or 8 years ago) have a reputation for having very high standards, higher than those on the English-language Wikipedia. Maybe being in an emerging democracy made them more acutely aware of article misuse and possible propaganda. Don't know if that has changed since then. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions

I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions, in which I mention your user account -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents November 2014

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move about recent incidents. You can comment there. --George Ho (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass - Where it is and where it goes

Hello again, RGloucester! I praise you so much because you've actually edited more than 50% of the War in Donbass article, by what I've seen. But, as I said to you before, we might have slightly different perspectives about this issue. So, now, I've invited Iryna Harpy who I know is Ukrainian, she is very aware of the Wikipedia rules (she has a long experience), she has a great integrity (more than you and more than me) and she is the right person to analyse this, and to come to a conclusion about it! I have to way for her answer about it, and so you should do! I'm quite sure that what she will say, I'll agree with her. You're a great editor, RGloucester, but she's acturally from there, and that's a great plus! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WP:DABCONCEPT specifically applies to chronological subtopics.

WP:DABCONCEPT states:

Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France)..., the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page.

Pages dividing historical events into shorter periods are not disambiguation pages. They are just not. Please help fix this situation. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "history of" article, it is a timeline. That would only apply if "War in Donbass" was split into articles by time period. The timeline itself is not a "broad concept" in the way that "history of" is a broad concept. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
That's just wikilawyering. This is not an article like "Phoenix" where it could be a city or it could be a mythical bird. This is a list of timelines within a specific conflict. bd2412 T 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your comparison. "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a broad concept. It an editorial division of content, nothing more. It is helpful to have the navigation page, so that people have easy access to the content. The redirect didn't make any sense, and one IP has already complained about it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: Instead of making a mess and overriding a talk page discussion, perhaps you could participate there? RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
A disambiguation page with hundreds of incoming links needing to be fixed is a "mess". If it is "an editorial division of content, nothing more", then it is clearly not a disambiguation page - it may be an index or a list, but disambiguation pages exist because things outside of Wikipedia are coincidentally given the same name, not because we choose to divide things up. Should we make Barack Obama into a disambiguation page because there are articles on the Early life and career of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama? This amounts to the same thing. bd2412 T 20:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I please just have TEN MINUTES to edit this page without you jumping in? Go have a cup of coffee, or fix some disambiguation links, while I attempt to create an acceptable fix, please. bd2412 T 20:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't make "Barrack Obama" a disambiguation page, because that's an actual topic. "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a topic. It was an article created because the main article was too long, so that we could a sub-article for total chronology and details. Of course, now the timeline was too long, so we've split that up to make it easier to read. That doesn't change the fact that "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a topic found in reliable sources. It is an editorial division of content that exists to make content easier to access. If you want, remove the "disambiguation page" template. However, don't make a mess, restoring content that was split through talk page discussion and for good reason. I strongly object to your changing stuff without discussion on the talk page there, and trying to achieve a consensus. You've been reverted per WP:BRD. Please start working on the "D". RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed a fix on the talk page. It does seem that it would be unruly to condense the three sub-topics into a single topic page, but that does not make them cease to be subtopics. bd2412 T 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
They're sub-articles, not sub-topics, and they're sub-articles of War in Donbass, not Timeline of the war in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
A sub-article is merely an article on a subtopic. There is no distinction that I have ever seen made between "sub-articles" and "sub-topics" before, and in any case we avoid disambiguating pages that are "sub-" anything to other pages, because that indicates that they are related. Disambiguation pages are for unrelated topics. Are these timelines not subtopics of War in Donbass? bd2412 T 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand that. I was never defending it remaining as a dab page. I merely was making clear the necessity for it to remain as a navigation page, as you've now implemented. I strongly opposed treating it as a "broad concept", however, because no, the timelines are not "sub-topics" of War in Donbass. They cover the same topic, merely the content is presently differently and in more detail at the timeline. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It might still be useful to offer a summary of key events covered in each of the three timelines split out, so that a reader coming to see about a particular event (like the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) will know which timeline to look in to read about that in the context of the timeline. I will also propose this on the talk page. bd2412 T 21:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Donets Basin
added links pointing to Mine, Ural, Deposit and Slavyansk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I started out on Wikipedia not that long ago, last April. You were one of the first users I came into contact with. I've stalked your talk page for a while. I noticed your recent rfc dilemma thing and upon further investigation, I realized I wanted nothing to do with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Thank you for inadvertently helping me realize that. Now, I'm leaving forever. Keep fighting the everlasting, pointless fight. Fungal vexation (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
An efficient bureaucracy can do wonders, but a corrupt one can only halt progress. In this case, it is not a problem of bureaucracy, but one of lack of accountability. I'm stubborn, though. This is a sometimes admirable trait, a sometimes annoying trait. It is who I am, however. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's really how convoluted it is to me. I can't take it anymore. All I ever did was rollback vandalism. I tried to avoid getting into anything else at all costs. I used to dream about becoming an admin, though. Though all I ever did was rollback vandalism. But apparently that doesn't really do anything to make you admin. It was a dumb dream anyway. If you couldn't become an admin, then I had a whelk's chance in a supernova. Welp, it was fun, for a while. Fungal vexation (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never wanted to be a sysop. Not only would no one support me, but I'm quite a WP:POINTy person. I do good work in the clerking department. I'm better as a functionary. If adminship was about being a functionary, I'd do well. In its current state, however, it isn't about administering, but about being a politician. I'm no politician. Never have been, never will be. I don't like pleasing people if they don't deserve it, and I don't compromise on my principles unless someone can convince me that there is a good reason for doing so. But, at the very least, I can thank you for your contributions. Good luck in your endeavours. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please weigh in more

I often disagree with your edits but I think in the huge mess on this webpage you probably have a much better idea of what is going on than 90% of the people arguing on the talk page. It is not entirely clear to me at this point where you think things should go. I agree with your shocked comment expressing disbelief, it is a really weird article which at this point I think belongs userfied until it is "ready for primetime". Wikidgood (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I want it gone, plain and simple. Merged to the Frankfurt School conspiracy talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree, in fact my first instinct was afd but then when I could see what it was, a creation of propagandist mindset, yeah, it goes there in the dustbin of conspiracy theories that never gained WP:NOT. Merged to a mere talk page, I assume that is what you mean, not even warranting mainspace, Wikidgood (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure of the RfC on general sanctions

I know we talked about the closure briefly on WP:ANI here. But I talk to you directly, about the closure. It seems to me you are involved in this conflict area. Do you disagree? And as such I believe your closure to be inappropriate. Its possible someone that was uninvolved could close the RfC, maybe even as a WP:SNOW close. But as an involved editor, with PBS disagreeing, I don't think a closure was appropriate. --Obsidi (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR. RfCs are an informal process, and if they are so obviously farcical, I have every right to remove the RfC templates. I "disagreed" that there should ever be an RfC, but he didn't care about that. I specifically told him not to use my proposal for any RfC. He didn't care about that. In that case, I hardly care whether he "disagrees" at this point. Farces must be rendered for what they are: farces. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Information icon 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. The thread is "Closure review of RfC on general sanctions". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to Self-determination

I support self-determnination of Donbass (or Novorossiyan people), as well as I supported self-determination of East Timorese people from Indonesia, as well as I support Tibetan and Uyghur self determination of people from China, as well as I support Chechen self determination of people from Russia, as well as I support Catalonian, Basque and Galician sel determination from Spain (whatever the bureaucratic issues may be!) And I also support the Russian self determination in Estonia and Latvia, the Kashmir self determination in Pakistan and India, and the Ladakh self determination in Kashmir, and the Shan and Chin self self determination in Burma. RGloucester, you seem to, under your "superior^" moral stance, seem to be protecting the higher moral ground of the world. Portuguese haven't been perfect. But now now, like the Spaniards, we've been granting to Sephardite Jews, the right of return. And though we haven't have such ""ppl" as Cortez or Pizarro, we had Padre Antonio Vieira (no excuse for having had 5 million native Americans before the Portuguese colonization and less than 1 milion after it, I'm ashamed as a Portuguese). I'm really ashamed. But I'm afraid that you're not so really ashamed. In my lifetime I've dealt witout any racist or similar, wth blacks, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Turks, even Inuits, Indians (either Dravidians or Aryans), Arabs, Jews, so on, so on. We're Portuguese! You've contacted with ALL PEOPLS IN THE WORLD (apart from Siberians)! EITHER WE, PORTUESE ARE THE SUPERIOR PPL IN THE WORLD....... OR ARE THE SIBERIANS! Mondolkiri1 (talk)

I'm opposed to all nationalism on principle. I believe that ethnic boundaries are constructed by man, not innate, and that such boundaries are used only by political opportunists to take advantage of the proletariat. Humans are all the same, in their hearts and souls. There is no reason to play games, whereby some people are X, and others are Y. We may speak different languages, practice different religions, but the essence of our humanity is the same, nonetheless. Who or what is a Portuguese? Who or what is a Malayan? A human, that's what they are. We must work for the good of humanity as a whole, not for our own personal interest, and not for the interest of some balkanised faction that exists only to cast people as "other". There is no "other", only human. Arbitrary boundaries cannot separate us from our human sameness. RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
{{If you're against all nationalism, assume that every person in the world has the same rights! And renounce your own rights because you're british and submit to the UN rights! If it can't be so, recognize that other peoples may wish to have their owen right, including sovereign right... not only based on what insterests to USA or (UK... though UK hasn't been relevant for 70 years, if that was the case India would still belong to UK).... let's assume that Eastern Ukraine and Central-Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine have different interests, which is a FACT! Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian, Western Ukraine is pro-EU (they must be mad, me being a Portuguese and I know what does that mean) and Central-Eastern Ukraine so-so. So, I'd be glad that Ukraine would a kind of a Turkey... which doesn't give a shit about EU, doesn't give a shit about the Middle East, so on... but if thet want to embeace the shit that we have embraced here in Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Hungart and Ireland... come in! You (Ukraine) will miss Russia soon! But Donbass doesn't have to be so stupid! I'd be glad to be with Brazil! And I'd be far better! Don't obligate (and they won't allow to be in Donbass) to be slaves of Germany! This is for you, Gloucester! We're independent in Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Turkey, Ireland and Eastern Ukraine! Whatever you think is meaningless to us! You fucked us, now you fuck you (well, most the Germans, actually, sorry Gloucester)! FUCK THE GERMANS! kick me if you wish! I'm tired of this anglo-saxonian-german bias. Mondoliri1 (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2014 (GMT - London-Dublin-Casablanca) 8:48, 5 November (Buenos Aires/Brasília/Rio de Janeiro Time), 12:48 Helsinki/Athens/Istanbul Time, 13:48 Moscow/Simferopol Time.
Well, Sorry it was not really for you!...Well, do what you with. You said you had your convictions, So do I, and they're not pro-Russian. I'm PRO-KURDISH and PRO-TIBETAN and that has nothing to to with Russia. If you want to scre me because of Ukraine, do it. That won't prevent me from being a friend of a very Ukrainian friend that I have here, Iryna Harpy, neither to work hard for Ukrainian hard-working workers, with whom I work, nor will that prevent me from having my own ideas or working with hard-Thai workersd!Mondoliri1 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2014 (GMT - London-Dublin-Casablanca)
I was merely expressing an opinion. I'm strongly opposed to ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics. I always have been, and I always will be. However, I don't know why you think "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian". Eastern Ukraine is not pro-Russian. It never was pro-Russian. There were pro-Russian elements, surely, and certainly many people were more weary of the EU, probably rightly. But most people in the East are not and never were "pro-Russian". Most of the people who opposed the present regime have been either killed or forced out. Who's left, a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape. That's not much of a place to live in. There is a reason why Kharkiv is still under Ukrainian control, there is a reason why Northern Luhansk and Donetsk are under Ukrainian control. You're taking a complicated situation and making it simplistic. It's especially true if one takes time to go through the historical details. As far as "German slaves", I'm not sure what you mean. Germany is largely responsible for the current crisis in southern Europe, certainly, but it isn't as if the Spanish or whoever did not willingly take the money the Germans offered. Less then slaves, more like indentured servants. However, if you make a deal with the devil, what do you expect? RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For someone working in cultural studies, which overlaps with media studies, it is funny how the Anglophone media is able to mislead you baout what is happening in Donbas. You wrote: "Most of the people who opposed the present regime have been either killed or forced out. Who's left, a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape. That's not much of a place to live in." Have a look of videos of the election at this blog. People turned up in large numbers – and not just "a few radicals and a few elderly people" – and they seem to have a high degree of civic spirit. Contrast that with the Soviet-style dour mood at the Ukrainian elections. If you watch those videos, it is impossible to avoid the impression that it is Ukraine, not Donbas, that is occupied. (Ridiculously, the VICE news reporter still considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. But what do you expect: that is USG policy, and VICE is a "news" outlet of the US State Department. Also, the short video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting up a Russian school is worth watching: it is an illustration of how the Ukraine is now controlled by fascists.
You also write: "I'm strongly opposed to ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics." That is the Anglophone liberal ideology, expressed most succinctly by Margaret Thatcher's claim, "There is no such thing as society." See how a real left-wing analyst thinks about these issues:
the US has no other identity but its class identity [24]. It is a class system without a national consciousness. This allows extreme forms of exploitation without a sense of remorse or the kinds of intra-tribal affiliations, which otherwise may act as a deterrent against the worst expressions of class on class exploitation.
The Russians, as Slavs, and less discussed, as Turks, on the other hand, have a very different history. Eurasia is a giant land-mass, existing as a ‘big space’ within which allows for the self determination of this spectrum of European, Slavic, Turkic, and east Asian peoples. It possesses no shortage of lebensraum, and its various peoples have not undergone the deracination process. These peoples have thrived in various organized forms of disorganization, and their various larger political-space building processes have experienced expansion and contraction. These repeated cycles of expansion and contraction over hundreds and thousands of years have given a great impetus for the development of local and familial bonds and social organization, transmitted inter-generationally within the multi-generational household. Layered over this, a developed sense of not just being a population, but rather belonging to a ‘narod’ [25].
In the case of Russia, what you call "ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics" is what real leftists call having an authentic cultural identity, one not dissolved inside unbridled markets. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "Anglophone media". I have good friends that I met at university from northern Luhansk, and also from Donetsk, so I have personal ties to this mess.
There is no such thing as "authentic cultural identity". Identities are constructed, and can never be "authentic". Radical divisions, gender divisions, ethnic divisions, class divisions that exist only so that the ruling class can easily control the masses. Balkanising the proletariat is the essence of liberal ideology: that is, for liberals, we are all "individuals" privy to our own identities, and hence different and apart from each other. Likewise, nations are "individuals", apart from other nations. It is "divide and conquer", essentially, because the proletariat is divided it can never defeat the ruling class. This type of "apartness" is the essence of liberalism, and separates people from the essential nature of their humanity. There is absolutely no difference between class distinction and racial distinction. They serve the exact same purpose, and exist for the exact same reason. The reality is that there is no such thing as a liberal individual. The concept of the individual is based in distaste for the "other". There is no "real leftist" who would support the notion of an essentialised culture. The idea that "peoples" exist is a farce. There is only one people, and that's humanity. However many differences we may have in language, religion, &c., the similarities between humans far outweigh the differences. It is quite clear that you are nothing more than a modern liberal, of the most distasteful kind. I feel sorry for you liberals, for you are caught up in the machinery of existence, and ignore its sweetness and light. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you still believe that the only people left in Donbas are "a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape"? For all I know your "good friends" from Donbas are Ukrainian nationalists who were brainwashed by the Ukrainian educational system. I take it that after the people of Donbas rose up against the fascist junta, your friends moved to western Ukraine, where liberals think that all eastern Ukrainians should be exterminated.
Wouldn’t it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the shit out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place – why not kill them all?
Do your good Ukrainian friends agree? The reason "Kharkiv is still under Ukrainian control" btw is that the locals didn't act in time to preempt political repression from Kiev (people being disappeared, as happened to citizens of earlier US client states such as Chile or El Salvador), as the people of Donbas did. – Herzen (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is it that your fellow countryman Graham Phillips can understand what is happening in the Ukraine, but you can't? Does the girl fighting with the resistance interviewed by him in this video strike you as one of "a few radicals and a few elderly people"? The Anglophone propaganda machine has made you inhabit a hyperreality having nothing to do with the actual situation in Ukraine. – Herzen (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is it that you are so dense, then? If the world doesn't fit neatly into the box you've prepared, you provide revolting nonsense about "eastern Ukrainians being exterminated". Spare me the nonsense. I'm no friend of any nationalist, Ukrainian or otherwise. One of them is from Donetsk, and fled to live with friends in Kharkiv. The other is from northern Luhansk Oblast, in an area controlled by the government, but flooded with refugees. One is a Russian-speaker (Donetsk), and one is a Ukrainian-speaker (northern Luhansk). Neither of them have any desire to submit to extermination of any kind. You are nothing more than a firebrand, sensationalist and liberal, and have no place in the Platonic elite. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you follow that link? I gave a direct quote from the LRB. Do you think that contributors to and editors of the LRB are "dense"? That article is titled "Why not kill them all?", a sentiment that I think is accurately represented by the word "exterminate". Your dogmatic and unceasing denial of what is happening in the Ukraine is a wonder to behold. Do people who compulsively express contempt for and dehumanize people who fight for their freedom, as you do with eastern Ukrainians, belong with "the Platonic elite"? (Actually, you gave yourself away there. Evidently, you believe that you belong to an intellectual elite, which gives you every right and justification to hold working class people in contempt. And that is exactly the attitude of western Ukrainians towards eastern Ukrainians that was described in that LRB article, which you obviously have not read, possibly because doings so might undermine your narrow world view. I guess the LRB is not elitist enough for you.) – Herzen (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it was fairly obvious that the "Platonic elite" remark was a joke. Honestly? Please take your fire and brimstone elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
So was the "firebrand, sensationalist and liberal" part a joke, too? Because you just repeated it, with the "fire and brimstone" crack. Either substantively reply to the points I've made regarding your open contempt for the separatists, or stop expressing your contempt for them at every opportunity. You side with western Ukrainians against anti-junta Ukrainians, even though the LRB has made clear that even western Ukrainian liberals openly advocate the genocide of eastern Ukrainians. You ignore that inconvenient fact, so you can go on smearing eastern Ukrainians. Stop smearing them, and I'll stop the "fire and brimstone". Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing hate speech. Genocide is not a joke. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
How in heck can I be "smearing eastern Ukrainians" when the only Ukrainians I know are from the east? Perhaps your vision of an "eastern Ukrainian" is different from mine. As far as the "junta" is concerned, all I can say is WP:JUNTA JUNTA. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@RGlouster. I am sure that Alexander Herzen would be mostly on your side in this dispute and ashamed of arguments by others. My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't think that Herzen would have fondly approved of this video, produced for the 23rd celebraton of the Ukraine's Independence Day, showing a young man mutilating himself by giving himself scars following the pattern used on the traditional Ukrainian shirt called a vyshyvanka: Україна. Загартована болем (Ukraine: hardened by pain). The article on Herzen says that "The words of Herzen that [Isaiah] Berlin repeated most insistently were those condemning the sacrifice of human beings on the altar of abstractions". – Herzen (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I checked your materials (links) above. The article by the US journalist does not name any person "on the Ukrainian side" who would advocate any killings or executions. On the other hand, your video indeed showcases DNR fighters, one of whom (the girl) promises do not take any prisoners and kill all Ukrainians and Russians on another side. This is nothing new - remembers song "Future belongs to me" from Cabaret (1972 film)? I am not sure if you read non-fiction writings by Herzen on Russian history (I did). He was so critical of the Russian Empire - you would probably call him a Russophobe... My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a curious conversation that was developed here. I was hot-headed when I started, for that I am sorry. Though, concerning to the issue of "genocide", that's clearly a huge exaggeration. But, there has been a very lenient position in these articles concerning to the Ukrainian official attitudes. Both parties are responsable, namely those that are not from Donbass (the Ukrainian government and whoever supports it from a geopolitical point of view and Russia). There has been a rule by one side of Ukraine against the other half of Ukraine (and that was already happening under Yanukovitch, no doubt, but persists). I've seen some comments by Mikhail Gorbatchev that are worth to be listened. Concerning to Poroshenko, I guess he tried to unify the country, but because of forces that are alien to him, he's failing. Concerning to the rebels, no doubt they don't have clean hands, but their existence is a consequence of the divisive political movement that happened during Euromaidan, which was promoted by EU and USA (with the knowledge of that very unpleasant component of it, so, in fact, EU and USA ended up dividing Ukraine more than it was, whatever their rethoric is).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A battle worth fighting

I don't understand what the objective is of this flame war on your user page, no disrespect intended, but your talents - and those of your conversants - would be much appreciated back on Cultural Marxismto help merge it or delete it or reform it Since you are already on that page this is not canvassing it is just a ping seeking your feedback on recent edits which you may have been too busy to notice, thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Wikidgood: Some people like playing with fire. Regardless, I think that no possible edit would redeem that article, and I'm set on having it merged. I'm waiting for that discussion to close. Hopefully the closer will disregard the many WP:SPA opposes. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I could not agree more Glucouster but methinks that a few strokes of thy nimble word-sword would dispath many a heathen interlope if thy were to grace the said merge page with thy illustrious participation In the meantime, the quality of what is merged remains in play. Wikidgood (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:GS/UKU

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom.
Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg

Since you seem to be particularly interested in this image, a headsup to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg.--KTo288 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Alleged

As you insist to point to WP:Alleged, I suppose that you would remove the (alleged) in the 2014 Idlib city raid article, as ISIS presence is clearly sourced.--HCPUNXKID 21:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I would or would not. I don't involve myself in Arab affairs unless absolutely necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

House of Assembly

I'm slightly bemused by your move back. Was "of Jamaica" part of the body's name? Cheers, Number 57 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The closest comparison is the House of Assembly of Bermuda. Let's remain consistent. Natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Most of them seem to be at the parenthical title (see Category:National lower houses). I agree we need consistency, but not in a way that involves inventing proper names. Number 57 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
PS, I've readded the "Politics of" template – I really can't see any logic in the "essentially unrelated" comment - the template is about politics of Jamaica and contains links to the current parliament and its institutions. Being ugly is not a reason to avoid it. Cheers, Number 57 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Being "ugly" is a reason to avoid it. Page design is important. The title is not invented. Given this nonsense, I will be forced to request that the page be speedily deleted, as is my right. RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to throw your toys out of the pram. If you nominate it for speedy, I'll contest it – a national legislature is clearly notable. I'll ask for a third opinion. Number 57 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the criteria I am using for my request. You can write it yourself with templates and whatever else you want, after it has been deleted. I merely don't to want to be associated with incorrect and poorly designed pages. By the way, this was not a "national legislature". The national legislature was the British parliament. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I know the criteria, but I'm not sure whether you've applied it correctly given my edits to the article and whether it can be declined or not (and indeed whether it would be ok for me to delete it and recreate it with the same text). I've asked at WP:AN. Number 57 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm intrigued by your "don't want to be associated" claim. What do you mean by that? Number 57 21:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If my name is attached to the page, and it looks like crap, that will imply that I support poorly designed pages. Design is very dear to my heart, and so, I certainly don't want people thinking I condone template stupidity, or poor design. I do not tolerate anything that looks poorly, whether it be a page, person, or telephone. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well if you're ok with me deleting and then simply creating a new article with the same text, then I'll do that. Is that ok? Number 57 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. All rights released. Ha Ha! RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, have done. Number 57 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: Whilst you happen to be on my page, would you do me a favour and restore Talk:2014 Odessa massacre to Talk:2014 Odessa clashes? An editor moved this talk page to that title without consensus, and now the talk page is separate from the article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you meant Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes (this is where the article seems to be now), I've done it. Number 57 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. My apologies for accidentally dropping the date. Ta! RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions

As you know, I have been working as long as you, possibly longer, to sort out the horrible mess that is WT:MOSNUM. You saw what happened to my last attempt to achieve and effect a minor change (removal of three words quite sensibly suggested by one editor and boldly edited by another) by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Closing the discussion on the removal of the advice about milk. Assuming good faith and responding to other editors' opinions that they believe to be valid is not wikilawyering, regardless of whether that is what other editors are doing.

I think it would be appropriate if you were to strike through your ill-chosen remarks at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom, which seem to suggest that I am wikilawyering and/or acting in bad faith. --Boson (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I refuse. Playing around with technicalities in closures, policies, and whatever is "Wikilawyering". I call a spade a spade. Don't be a spade if you don't want to be called one. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sleep on it! Taking this opportunity to overturn the defectively worded text that does not express what you meant it to and replacing it with one with more legitimacy would be the better course. --Boson (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Sanctions are already in effect at MOSNUM, so it doesn't matter. RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is just a note, but...

...I would suggest that you archive much of this talk page when you can. It is getting rather large. However, it is your talk page, so you can decide what you do with it. I just thought I would bring that up. Dustin (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved the page

It shouldn't be under the talk namespace, so I've moved it. I'll be switching the redirect at WP:ANI so it goes to the right place (so we can have an actual talk page for it). Tutelary (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a talk page for it. Everything needs to be contained on that page, or on the GS/GG sanctions talk page. Sub-pages don't get talk pages. It is at talk for a reason, by the way, which is to allow easy creation of sections for reports. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, kind of weird, but OK. Tutelary (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I have a variety of templates set-up to make the page work, so messing with the page like that really screws them up. Please don't do stuff like that. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I won't apologize for my WP:BOLD edit but what I will say is that I wasn't aware of such and thought that instead of cluttering the page with comments (which I could've put mine on a talk page, rather than the page itself), it would be on the talk instead. But yeah, kind of iffy about this, but probably won't do anything else with it. Tutelary (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done an alternative format, using magic words, and adjusting the header template. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that works wonderfully. Tutelary (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I'm sure you already know what you're doing is wrong, but here's a formal notice that you're about to exceed 3RR at Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian and further editing in my namespace will be reported as vandalism. Take it to the talk page. — LlywelynII 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Vandal. I bow down before thee, prostrate as I am, for I am nothing in comparison to thy flowing grace and water. RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War in Donbass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warlords. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

speed del tag at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

?!? please explain. --Denniss (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a joke. I've never seen more petty arguing over nonsense in my life. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Shoulda put it on the talk page. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Concerning to your messages and edits

Oh, RGloucester, you've talked to me as if you had the moral highground about the Donbass people. Do you know what they actually want? To be Ukrainian, independent or Russians? Well, there are a lot of Ukrainian speaking people in Donbass, a lot of ethnic Ukrainians that speak Russian (I've met some Russian-speaking Ukrainians, and I haven't either noticed that they were glad to be Ukrainians or that they would rather be considered as Russians, though they refused to speak in Ukrainian (according to my Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian mates who talk wih them and found that almost unacceptable to them... well, OK, I thought then, they're Ukrainians, why do they speak Russian instead of Ukrainian... and finally I found why... It's because, whatever their surnames are, they've always been brought up in a Russian environment. Obviously they speak Russian better than Ukrainian. Then I remembered the Basque Country case, where most of them speak Spanish (more preciselly Castillian), while they still have a strong Basque national feeling. It's because Castillian has been imposed on them for centuries, but that doesn't prevent them from being Basques! Ukraine can't either in Donbass, Kharkiv, Odessa, Zakarpattia and even less in Crimea, convince them that they're Ukrainians, if most of them are not! Concerning to relative (not absolute) proportions of people, Ukrrainians may be a majority in Kharkiv and Odessa. In Zakarpattia I have a lot of doubts. But they certainly are not a majority in Donbass or Crimea. I wouldn't have any problem at all if Madeira or Azores wanted to be independent, though they're ethnic Portuguese! Why is there this fuss about Crimea and Donbass from the West? Isn't it just because it's against Russia? I guess it is! Sorry for saying! And by the way, I support self-determination in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, but I'm not anti-Spain! I love Spain! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going into this type of discussion again. I think I've made my position clear. I don't claim any "moral high-ground" about anything. I think you are misreading the situation, personally, but that's your prerogative. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the removal of Poroshenko

Yes, you're right, he's the cammander-in-chief, I have enough respect for him in order not to actually blame him for what has happened in Eastern Ukraine. As I told, he tried to make peace but he was overwhelmed by other forces, both from Ukraine and from Russia. Concerning to the rebels, I give them as much legitimacy as I may give to Catalonian, Kurdish, Basque, Kashmiri, Chechen, Tibetan, etc separatists, so I can't blame them unless it arises any fair argument that they've commited war crimes worse than Ukraine or the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, as I told, I respect and I actually agree with your correction. Sorry for having been not very sympathetic towards the Ukrainian position, but apart from Poroshenko, noone else there has actually made anything to gain more sympathy from me. Read and listen to Gorbatchev's positions about this issue. He's very respected, he ended the Cold War and he's still a person worth to be listened, not only the Anglo-Saxon newspapers (which often differ from other languages' sources, e.g. France24, Al Jazeera, and several others that you may not know about) Thanks for reading.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I attended a lecture by Sergei Khrushchev on the subject just the other day. He's a pleasant fellow to listen to, and an all-around nice fellow, but his ideas are way off. A lot of these old Soviet fellows have ideas that are far from reality and bathed in nostalgia, and don't even line-up with Putin's version of events, whilst vaguely supporting him. Regardless, I don't know what Poroshenko has or hasn't done, but I do know that he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and hence must be included, as you say. I would insist that you avoid the term "Anglo-Saxon". This is not the year AD 900. There is no one in this world who is an "Anglo-Saxon". Even from a purely ethnic perspective, modern ethnic Britons are a diluted mix of Gaelic, Germanic, Brythonic, and Norman blood. What's more, immigration has allowed for many other ethnic groups to gain a foothold in the English-speaking world. "Anglo-Saxon" is not an apt description at all. Spare us the archaic terminology. There is no reason why you can't write the "Anglophone media". RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the little correction

Though these links were not hurting the article, but for technical or aesthetic they might well be deleted. I'm sorry that in the last weeks I took a different position about this issue, since I don't support neither pro-Russian, or Basque or Kurdish terrorism, but I've also consulted sources that are not from English-speaking countries (namely France24, for instance) and others, as well, since I understand Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian. I appreciate a lot the attempt of Poroshenko to reach an agreement and to welcome back the Donbass people as Ukrainians! However, there have been pressures, both from Russia (which is in a bloc that is not mine) and from the West (which is in my bloc, so I feel I have duty to criticize it, when necessary) to prevent any peace agreement in Eastern Ukraine. I honestly think you have the intentions, but Iryna, for instance, I think she has a better perception about the issues (since she's Ukrainian, and not from the East, actually). Sorry for my most fiery moments, but it's because I've discovered some shortcomings related to "reliable sources", and Iryna too, and you can not accuse her for being pro-Russian! Herzen yes, Iryna no. Have a nice afternoon! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with being fiery. I'm a bit fiery myself. In fact, according to the Four Pillars of Destiny, the element associated with me is fire. We all have a right to our own opinions. The thing about Wikipedia is, though, that we have to put our opinions aside and write with neutrality in mind, based on reliable sources, even if we disagree with what those sources say. I'm all for cultural and political critique, but this isn't the place to publish our own WP:OR about world-happenings. If we want to do that, we can write papers, or write a blog, or whatever. Here, though, we are bound by certain standards. You must understand that I'm no fan of Anglophone media, anymore than you are. If I were to go on diatribes about that, I could provide some illumination. However, I recognise that for the purposes of this encyclopaedia, we must use sources that are reliable in the context provided. "Reliable" means that they are given credibility by the majority of people, or have some renown. That's simply what is required in this context, if Wikipedia is to have any credibility itself. And so, I do the best I can to make sure that the articles I write reflect those sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria

There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Good news from me

No longer in Ukraine, now "in Kobane with the Kurds"... I mean I'm only writing, I couldn't compare myself with a 1.5 year old Kurdish girl or kid, that will be where I'll be now! I'll try to see it from a kind of "Moroccan" point of view, since it's the only Arab country where I've I don't think the Turks have been impartial in this war (they're too busy with their own Kurds). But if any from me matters, here it goes: Don't be so much impressed about English-speaking evidences! These are my final words (I hope!... when I just say I hope I worry about myself I may come back today I had wonderful ASEAN, oh so much better places the Slavic countries... sorry for this)Mondolkiri1 — talk 00:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I've now started to edit ISIS (and not Eastern Ukraine), I'd thank you if you could deliver some opinions about my edits. I'd also thank you that you might consider Al-Jazeera, France24, DW, inclusivelly RT, TRT (which in this case may be as controversial as RT in Ukraine), Al-Arabiya, and El Mundo, Le Monde, Folha de São Paulo, Público, Diário de Notícias, Corriere della Sera So not any other anglo-saxonic source. As you can see they mention Catherine the Great (whose statue I've including in the backround article) and I also wished that an image about the holocaut in Ukraine could have been added in that article. And I can promise to you, they all hate ISIS! hate the Donbass rebels. Concerning to that issue, I can give you a link that in my opinion analyses perfectly the Ukrainian problems: (I hope you watch it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kGoueDg&index=1&list=LL6heCwDGlmzgQvzdXpteiqg .

You have never demonstrated any consideration for the self-determmination of peoples!

Please, as I said above, the word is "Anglophone sources". There are no "Anglo-Saxonic sources", unless you're citing Beowulf. I'm not much aware of what is going on in the Near East, at the moment, so I suppose I can't be much help. Perhaps you should ask EkoGraf, as that's more up his alley. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lusophone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglophone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Useful video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kGoueDg&list=LL6heCwDGlmzgQvzdXpteiqg . I'm now on ISIS, but I think this is useful for the Ukrainian War informations. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hi.

I noticed your comment about me (diff). There is a policy on wikipedia (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) which says:"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Please be so kind to respect this policy. Thank you and all the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, and in fact you accused the existing editors of the article of the same thing. If you are able to do that, I am able to criticise you for the same thing. You've opened yourself to criticism here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you include your signature in the closure?

Regarding WP:GS/GG/E. Recently you closed a report. Could you modify this so your signature is visible? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And now you're notified --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. I got emotional and lashed out to something in a way and place I shouldn't have. I hope you can forgive me. --DSA510 Pls No H8 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Ilovaisk

Yes. The very best reason of all. The voices in my head told me to do it. Which sounds better than confirming I am an idiot. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Editor's Barnstar
I know this is what you were least expecting coming from me, but you do a great job at managing the articles involving the ongoing War in Donbass and for that I give you this, great work. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ta! Whatever I may say, it often doesn't represent my true opinion. As I said, I have a sharp tongue. As I told Mondolkiri1 above, I'm a bit fiery. Unless you happen to be watery, you shan't be able to extinguish my flame. I shan't complain about receiving a barnstar, as you might imagine. I do what needs to be done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to say too that I am sorry for last night I was a bit tired and way off base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday

Sorry for being a bit of an ass yesterday. We may disagree, but I wasn't terribly civil. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Such is life, dear fellow. I'll have you know that I've been on the receiving end of Mr Corbett before, so anything you say is likely to be nothing more than a trifle. I don't hold it against him, though, nor you. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Two requests regarding GamerGate

Hi there! Long time no see. Would you mind (1) reviewing the behavior of Zakkarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (2) reviewing my close of this discussion on RSN regarding sources in GamerGate? If you feel the close was improper, please feel free to undo it. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. Please ask one of the administrators that comments at WP:GS/GG/E. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Silly me... saw you on WP:GS/GG closing threads so I assumed that you were for some reason. Thanks anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm merely serving as a clerk, essentially. I'm the one that established the page, created the infrastructure, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As promised...

I promised you that when I will have time I will try to archive other articles. So, today I did two, with 2 more to go: Battle of Kramatorsk and Battle of Novoazovsk.--Mishae (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Your work is always appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

not helpful

I've removed this [26]. I get that GG just sucks, and appreciate the efforts of yourself and the other admins trying to deal with it, but slipping into personal attack territory is perhaps a sign to take a break? Just because someone comments at AN doesn't mean you have to respond; just let the post speak for itself it's more effective and less work. NE Ent 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I needn't "take a break". I have a right, just as much as anyone, to note the density of other editors in certain actions. It is merely an observational process, whereby I evaluate whether such editors sink or swim whilst surrounded by a field of deep water. In this case, the editor sunk quite quickly. My apologies if you took it some other way. Whether it is an "attack" or not depends on one's perceptions, but I highly doubt that this could be construed that way. RGloucester — ☎ 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Crimea article

What "games" are you exactly talking about?? There is no consensus reached for Volunteer Marek's and My very best wishes' version, the version EvergreenFir and I have put in is the version present earlier this month. There is currently a discussion on the talk page and it is not over so I don't know what "games" you're talking about. --Leftcry (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What a pitty

I just saw the talk page of Nickst. I don't know who was correct in the discussion, but due to your use of language we lost a great Wikipedia contributer (see here). Please, try to solve problems without strong language next time. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use "strong language". In fact, he attacked me and called me a fool, despite his disrupting of Wikipedia processes. He was blocked for that. He "retired" of his own will, and is free to return whenever. It certainly had nothing to do with me. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sander.v.Ginkel, RGloucester is correct. While Nickst was a good contributor, even the best of contributors can overstep the line (an understatement in this instance) to become tendentious editors. Unfortunately, Nickst did fall into a pattern of disruptive editing ignoring consensus, moving pages while move reviews were still underway, and basically trying to pre-empt and call the shots on articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine. Personally, I think his retirement message is an excellent example of how ungracious he was/is capable of being: that is, it is the equivalent of a tantrum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello RGloucester and Iryna Harpy, thank you for your responses. I see that my reaction to RGloucester was not fair and much to direct. I see now that it was Nickst using strong language. I screened his talk page (too fast) and thought it was war between the two ending in retirement. I didn't want to blame RGloucester but I thought it could have ended different (as it is in many cases, and such a shame if people are leaving Wiki). Sorry RGloucester! Happy editing, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel. Agreed that it's unfortunate to lose essentially good editors when Wikipedia is struggling to retain editors. Hopefully, Nickst will cool off and return when he's ready to work collaboratively and be civil again. He'd become snappy and snarky with editors he'd worked well with previously, including myself. I'm counting on the addictive nature of Wikipedia to eventually lure him back. If this happens, I'm certainly more than happy to welcome him back and deem it water under the bridge. We're all prone to throwing hissy fits and having bad days, but developing a consistently aggressive attitude to editing and other contributors does nothing to enhance either the content or the editing atmosphere. A pleasure to meet you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hello RGloucester. Regarding your non-admin closure at Talk:Cultural_Marxism#Merger_proposal you probably shouldn't have closed it by yourself. The non-admin closure page states that closures are inappropriate if there is a: "lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well."

I'm not saying your closure was necessarily wrong, and I'm not going to revert it, but just saying you shouldn't do that in the future if you've been participating in the discussion yourself. Pretty bad that no admins were interested in closing it, I know. --Pudeo' 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the procedural no-no I committed, but I'm also aware of the principle of WP:IAR. There was no reason to let that charade continue, allowing tons of off-Wikipedia co-ordinated SPAs and IPs to come in and make a mess. Not only that, but they targeted my person. Policy supports my closure. It also allows us to avoid facilitating these SPAs, who were using that "article" as a soapbox for a variety of unsourced fringe ideas. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Pudeo, RGloucester was advised by an uninvolved admin that, as the merger proposal was opened in October and had seriously run its course plus, closing it was not only appropriate but desirable. I've spent the last hour reading the arguments and, per policy and guideline based arguments, merge (or delete) is evident as being the only course of action. An article dedicated to WP:FRINGE? Regards (from an uninvolved editor). Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to defend me, Iryna. As soon as I stumbled across that mess, I knew something was wrong. The way that the article shifted from day to day, to different versions of conspiracy theories involving "sleeper cell Marxists" and various other canards...honestly, I can't believe that such an article was tolerated for so long. I feel confident in this action, even though it was out of process. When the process fails, we haven't got much choice. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I stumbled across the article through Ymblanter's talk page and couldn't believe it existed. It's been a particularly fine year for trolls. I swear there are days when I feel that "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" ought to read as "red carpet treatment for any idiot who's been blocked from YouTube". In all honesty, what's not to feel confident about. Just off to light fresh candles in my Wolfowitz shrine (I've installed it in the kitchen next to the crockery). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Info

Since I haven't taken your talkpage off of my watchlist for some reason, I noticed the IP vandal/troll's post. From what my informant has told me, is that the /pol/ (far-right chucklefucks) boards of 4/8 chan were complaining that Cultural Marxism got redirected to Conspiracy theories. What I think is going on, is that the /pol/ idiots will try to brigade Wikipedia into putting it back. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 03:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the underbelly of the internet, but I appreciate your candour. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems my informant was off by a few letters [27], but to her credit /pol/ started it. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 03:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not far right. I am Jewish, not related to Gamergate (it is bizarre and idiotic), and I hate both far right and far left. You are far left, so I hate you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.63.200 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "far left", Mr IP. Please explain what your concerns are, and I'll be happy to address them. Since you are persistent, I'll grant you a cup of tea. Soothing chamomile, if you like. The reason I removed your comments was because they were inflammatory. In English, we must be concise, simple, clear, and nice. Those are my rules for human communication. That is, unless someone warrants a bit of a chiding. I don't see how I've warranted such, however. Please point it out, for me. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, RGloucester, the IP is longtime banned User:JarlaxleArtemis. There's no point arguing with him. Unless you agree with everything he says, he'll start posting death threats to you, as he has against innumerable other Wikipedia editors and administrators (most of whom tried to be nice to him at first, just like you). NawlinWiki (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Something for you to sip on while ignoring the gamergate blow-ins until they blow themselves out of the project: approximately all of about 5 minutes for the more intelligent ones. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Whoever that editor is who posted to both of us, they're upset with me because I rev/del'd some stuff of theirs on another editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

French government pages

I don't understand, Mr Appleyard. As far as the Government is concerned, I'll have to revert you. That body simply isn't called the Cabinet. "Cabinet" means something else is French. It's a total kibosh. You can do what you like with the "Political system" and politics articles, but I shan't be subjected to an RM for a blatant falsity. RGloucester — ☎

Stunned confusion

I saw your recent comment at Jimbo's talk page. I think I have a rough idea of what it is you are talking about in general, but hope that the "I give up" is not a statement of retirement, and would appreciate it very much if you provided a slightly clearer indication of what specifically happened here. Maybe some of the others of us who frequent that particular dramah board might be able to help in some way. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. It isn't even worth engaging. I've been wasting my time for more than a month on that piece of rubbish, and I shan't waste any more. I'm the type of person that prostrates himself before authority. I respect the sovereignty of His Majesty, being the stout monarchist I am, and recognise my own inferior will. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, what piece of rubbish in particular is being discussed here? John Carter (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Look at Mr Wales's contribution history. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I just stumbled into here as a result of Frankfurt School conspiracy theory showing up in Category:Invalid redirects, a category that I patrol. So, I have just briefly looked at this to try to sort it out. I see on your user page that you have a user box which says you identify as a Marxist. Now you say that you are a stout monarchist. Can you explain? Are you being sarcastic? Or can those two ideologies be compatible? I see at Talk:Cultural Marxism § Merger proposal that you recently closed a lengthy discussion in which you were an involved party. Perhaps you could reopen it and solicit an WP:UNINVOLVED party to determine where the consensus is and close the discussion. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involving myself in anything associated with that "item" any longer. Please enjoy it. As far as Marxism and Monarchism are concerned, they are quite compatible. Let us hail the great Earl Attlee, extraordinaire socialist and bringer of health and wellbeing! For my rationale, please see the above section, entitled #Non-admin closure. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm still scratching my head though. The Marxism article has no mention of monarchs, the Monarchism article doesn't mention Marx, and the bio of Earl Attlee doesn't get into either, except to list the monarchs he served under. Just from my quick search. I'll review the section above. Did you request any "sock puppet investigations"? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll just have to take the time to read Marx's writings. Perhaps the Frankfurt School, who seem to be at issue here. Some connections are not too hard to make, though it takes a certain mind to make them.
No, I didn't request anything whatsoever. However, having been provided with multiple links to message boards in Lower Slobbovia, it was quite clear what was going on. One of the links is on this page, one of them is at the article's talk page. They are scattered around, here and there. I shan't link them myself, as I hardly want to be associated with such people. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

admin prop.

I opposed your proposal regarding creating an elected body to appoint administrators, but I give you props for conceiving an idea and putting it forward and then endeavouring to defend it. Cheers. Azx2 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar

Why were you the closer of the discussion to merge Cultural Marxism when you were primarily the one outspoken to merge it. This seems like it runs afoul of someone 'uninvolved' closing the discussion. It would be like an administrator who nominated an article be the one to assess the consensus and delete it. It doesn't seem unbiased. I'd like to get your thoughts. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided my rationale in the section above, #Non-admin closure. I repeatedly requested for various administrators to close it, and all refused. I also put in a request at AN/RFC. No one answered. Meanwhile, a large stream of SPAs and IPs organised on message boards, and started attacking the article's talk page long after the initial discussion had ended, and was awaiting closure. As such, after a month of being open, the farce was clear. Tired of this intransigence, I closed the discussion in line supported by Wikipedia policy, and WP:IAR. It was clear that policy did not support the article then, and still doesn't. I do what needs to be done, and always have done. However, as His Majesty's will is clear, I submit as his loyal subject. He acted in accordance with his prerogative, as I did myself, and I respect him for that. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for being colloquial about it. I don't consider it right but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Thanks. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

We may have differing opinions on how this should be handled, but it's all in good faith. I hope this helps relieve some stress with all the commotion and that you could maybe rejoin us for discussion soon. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Come Join Me On The Bench

I've retired from Wikipedia after [redacted], but have been keeping half an eye on the place in order to finish an article I'm writing. In that pursuit I saw your retirement notice today.

I offer no comment on [redacted] and Wikipedia here, of course, but obviously the formula that is working effectively in some BLPs is also being applied with effect to Cultural Marxism. You're an expert on Wikipedia rules and conduct; if you could not contrive an effectual defense for a reasonably clear community decision, it may well be that no defense can be made as matter now stand.

I'd welcome your thoughts on how something can be salvaged from the wreck, or how people of good will and high standards might now proceed. My email address is on my user page.

And, in any case, please accept my thanks for your long labors and my very best wishes for the future. Your colleague in retirement, MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

redacted actually naming the subject on our minds, per complaint at ArbCom. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning

You are edit-warring and being rude to editors to bulldoze your own apparently ideologically driven ideas through. You need to desist, or there will be negative consequences. Tony (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I reverted unilateral page moves that had no consensus. In fact, all of the participants in this row should be aware of that, given that we were all present for the WP:RM/TR discussion whereby all these unilateral moves were reverted last time. Please gain consensus before you defy Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the English-language. I appreciate your threats, as it means you feel that a wider consensus as determined by the now widely-advertised RM that has been set-up is disconcerting. RGloucester — ☎ 05:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The My Personal Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts the past months to make my edits on Wikipedia a lot better by copyediting them! I ain't mad at cha for doing it; but really happy that you do that! Keep ya head up (is also a Tupac Shakur song).
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 		File:Smile-flag Ukraine.gif
Thanks! I'm best at cleaning stuff up, and working on prose. Your ability to amass sources and information is of great value to the project. It's a team effort. Appealing to each person's strengths is an important part of teamwork. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI stuff

You're acting like Martinvl on one of his bad days. You're too good of an editor to lose over something silly like this. I'd like you to consider a unilateral withdrawl, not because you're wrong, but because you have more important things to do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There's just too much stupidity to handle. Perhaps that's "uncivil", though I don't think it is. The reality is, we have a lot of stupidity floating around here these days. The whole business of the "Cultural Marxism" article was the tip of the iceberg. At least in the case of Martin, he was incapable of realising what he was doing. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing. I'm doing it is because there needs to be some challenge to a culture that tolerates and encourages stupidity. When I say "stupidity", I don't mean something innate to a person. I mean pure happenstance, something that everyone is capable of (e.g.). People can ignore sources for hours on end, they can invent nonsense out of thin air, they can canvas tens of off-Wikipedia activists to support their indefensible cause, they can pretend to be civil and neutral when they are clearly not (Cheers!), they can misuse sources, repeat arguments over and over again. All for what? So Mr Wales can intercede on their behalf and enshrine stupidity in a reliquary that we as Wikipedia editors should all worship? It's just nonsense. Absolute and total. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
There are challenges and then there are effective challenges. If your argument can be dismissed due to civility or pointiness then (I'd argue) it's not as effective as it could be. If you think it best that you nail yourself to the mast over this, that's absolutely your right to do so. As a possible alternative, I'm willing to take a look at "Cultural Marxism" and see if I can help. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind it. I've washed my hands of that article. At present, I attempted to deal with editors who want to eliminate the word "government" in various contexts on the basis that no one understands what it means, contrary to reliable sources and common sense. Never mind that, though. I hardly want to be accused of "canvassing" again, so spare me the trouble. "Civility" should not serve as a bulwark for stupidity, the unencyclopaedic, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. You've done a lot of good work here, and I hope you come across another topic soon where the stupidity quotient is lower. Be well. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Warm fuzzy

Hang in there, my friend, this too shall pass... Carrite (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? RGloucester — ☎ 00:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
All the Cultural Marxism-related angst... Carrite (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree - you're the person providing sensible and cited arguments, while everyone else is basically misusing calls of fallacy and otherwise being obtuse to try and shut you down. Good on you for sticking to the high road! Tesseraction (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

More riots

I ran out of space at the 30-article limit for my request to undo your reverts of my maintenance moves, and left out a few such as the three Harlem riots: Harlem Riot of 1943, Harlem Riot of 1935, Harlem Riot of 1964. As far as I can find, these are uniformly lowercase in sources except when they appear in citations to the 1977 book Capeci, The Harlem Riot of 1943 or the 1944 article Kenneth B. Clark, "Group Violence: A Preliminary Study of the Attitudinal Pattern of Its Acceptance and Rejection: A Study of the 1943 Harlem Riot." So can we just fix them, or do you need another big to-do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And on Houston Riot (1917) it's almost as stark; I'd remove the unneeded parenthetical, too. Someone was just following a pattern they'd seen. See book search trying to exclude the titles and another; compared to all the caps you see this way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I support decapitalisation of the 1943, 1964, and 1935 riots, per the Britannica. Go ahead with those. I do not support decapitalisation of the Houston Riot of 1917, per these variety of sources. This one appears to be predominantly capitalised. I definitely do not support dropping the year, either. It seems that "Houston riot" in many of your search results is referring descriptively to the event, rather than using its name. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll move the 3 and note that you are willing to give weight to web pages over books. Sheesh. Books like this one use it lower case even with 1917; the ones you're seeing are mostly titles of books and a thesis, which does not imply the event has an accepted title. The only book I saw using it capitalized in a sentence was a compendium of rebellions, a perfect example of expert style, capitalizing their own stuff; oh, and the Jim Crow Encyclopedia, a classic. We can take it up later. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Look, Mr Lyon. You're asking me to take cursory glances, here. If I take a cursory glance and see vaguely reputable sources using capitalisation, I'm going to say it should go through RM. This decapitalisation matter is clearly controversial, as you saw at the mass RM. Let the process work. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I try to avoid controversy and just do uncontroversial moves; so I'm trying to at least get the noncontroversial ones taken care of. RMs are a pain, and bring out all manner of stupidity. I started a discussion at that page; maybe it will reveal a noncontroversial alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lists of British ministers

At Talk:Cameron ministry#Requested move 12 December 2014 you posted at 15.49 today that "prior to the late 19th century, there were many fewer posts in the ministry than there are now, meaning that often all members would be in the cabinet". I simply cannot understand why you would make such a statement when it is so demonstrably untrue. Yes, there are a lot more MPs on the Government payroll now than there used to be. 20th Century British Political Facts (page 71) gives a total of 106 paid government posts at 1 January 2000, of whom 22 were in the Cabinet, compared to 60 paid government posts, of whom 19 were in the Cabinet, at 1 January 1900.

But still during the nineteenth century, for every Cabinet minister, there would be numerous junior ministers. Every Secretary of State had at least one Under-Secretary; for every President of a Board there was a Secretary to the Board. For every First Lord of the Treasury there were several Junior Lords. And that's just the ministers who were directly involved in running the country: the law officers and all the political posts in the Royal Household like the Vice-Chamberlain and the Master of the Buckhounds were all ministers but were not in the Cabinet. If you look at the Whig Government 1835–1841, for example, there are about 15 Cabinet ministers, but about 65 office-holders in the ministry in total. This is definitely "prior to the late 19th century".

Going even further back into the eighteenth century, it could be argued that even minor posts in the Royal Household like Gentleman of the Bedchamber should be included in "the ministry", as they were political appointments made by the government of the day. It has never been the case that all—or even most—government ministers have been in the Cabinet, for as long as Cabinet government has existed (i.e. since about the time of Queen Anne). Opera hat (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that there were no junior ministers. Merely that ministries overall were smaller, and that the structure of junior ministers was less labyrinthine and important than it is today. I'm referring to ministers proper, of course. Many of the earlier "ministerial" posts do not bear a resemblance to the work of a modern minister. Whilst what you say is true about such Royal Household posts, they can hardly be called "ministers" in the modern sense. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency 2014 Timeline

There is big problem. The whole section is constantly outdated, and everything is very decentralized not in a good way, your help would be appreciated if you have the time--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to help, I'm not that interested in the Near East. I don't think I'd be that useful. I was convinced months ago that the whole way that Wikipedia deals with the current conflict in the Levant and Mesopotamia is a mess, lacking any central articles or form of organisation. However, I'm not sure what can be done on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay then.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Pennsylvania shootings

Leave the page alone. You have no crystal ball. You can't possibly know anything about the longer term impact of the story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone, as I don't particularly care. However, it is representative of the corruption of our purpose that ITN creates. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GAR

Russo-Georgian_War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments and tone

I don't know how you can prove your point on naming and notability as you did in Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests and WP:articles for deletion/Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings. Perhaps you have gotten rebuttals, and sometimes you succeed. Nevertheless, I don't know how you connect well with others such as me. I can't advise you to take a wikibreak and see the world. However, no offense, but perhaps you should slowly adjust your views and arguments to look less silly. Maybe I should do the same too. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm a silly person. Regardless, all of my arguments at that discussion are based in policy and guidelines. As usual, though, people are content to ignore them to turn Wikipedia into a blog. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, some people, including serious ones, don't get your humour. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't humour. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you call it if it's not sarcasm either? --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't refer to it as "anything", other than an argument that is based in our policies and guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ITN Criteria

Perhaps you could propose a new criteria for ITN, that we should not post newly created articles. I think this might address your WP:NOTNEWS concern. What I think you've been arguing is that we should showcase articles that come into the news, not articles that are recently written in order to chase the news. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That encapsulates my view, Jehochman. I shall think of something to propose. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

reply

left a reply on my page, forgot how to do the user@ reply thing to get you a notification --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let 'em have it

Just allow the Neo-Nazis to have the page, then Jimbo's actions can reflect their true nature. Allow the intro to mirror the Metapedia page, and use Lind(someone designated by the SPLC as pushing the Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory) to be the main source. It fits right into the trend on the Talk page anyway, and Wikipedia will get what it deserves. Dave Dial (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User: Speccy4Eyes may need to be informed about the policy on units for UK articles.

Hi RGloucester, User Speccy4Eyes may need to be informed about the policy on UK units. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Units_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Please see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Richard_Wright_(footballer) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Speccy4Eyes

Michael Glass (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can issue notifications, Mr Glass, as long as you follow the procedure specified. I've done so. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

"Ongoing"

Hey RGloucester. On the project page is this policy (which I helped draft) for those stories in the Ongoing section of ITN on the front page. I hope this helps clarify what I mean, if I've not done a good job on the talk page! doktorb wordsdeeds 18:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article listed as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness."

That is not a "right". Regardless, do not comment here. Comment at the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You are out of touch

Seriously. If you are still so confused about your involvement in closing anything related to the topic, I really think you shouldn't edit any topic. You are completely out of touch with how this whole thing works. --Onorem (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "confused" about anything. A proper action is a proper action, no matter who takes the action. I did what needed to be done in the circumstances at hand, and I've explained myself numerous times in that regard. The only reason I was forced to do what I did was because of administrator intransigence. RGloucester — ☎ 05:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If what is proper is so obvious, then let someone else close. You were involved from the moment the discussion started. I'm not saying you weren't right. I'm saying you fucked everything up by closing when you were so obviously biased and involved. You made this worse. --Onorem (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Probably. But it was frustrating that an admin forced the Merge vote after it was obvious to most that there was no such thing(sans the conspiracy theory and UK cultural studies) as the article suggested, and then allowed SPAs and anon ips to overrun the Talk page for over a month without closing the darn thing. Frustration probably got the better of Robert. He made the right close, but shouldn't have been the one to do it. Dave Dial (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that I wasn't the person that should've done it. I only did so because everyone else refused. Again, if an administrator had closed it when I had asked them to, no problems would've arisen. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You keep using the term "SPA" for anyone who disagrees with you. What does it mean? 174.125.123.193 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't use the term for "anyone that disagrees with me". I use it for accounts canvassed from off-Wikipedia advocacy websites for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I just want you to know I appreciate your dedication to the project, reliable sources and reality. But I would suggest to let the 'article' be now. And to others who have tried to help to do the same. The SPLC and others are watching this, which is being organized by Neo-Nazis at Metapedia, Stormfront and /pol/ from 8chan. So let the decisions that are allowing an antisemitic canard become a legitimate article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Pullman Strike and Homestead Strike decapitalization effort

Hi. I've enjoyed your comments in the decapitalization effort. Didn't see a comment from you on the talk page of Pullman Strike, which is undergoing a decapitalization effort, so if you don't know about it you may have an interest. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:32 21 December, 2014 (UTC)

I've withdrawn from all such matters. There is no point in fighting the endless tide of Lyon. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no fight, because as an editor he has a right to his say and is doing all of this, in his own mind, for good reasons (hence, assume good faith). But you and I and others have a right to our say as well, and giving up on that is worse than the issues themselves. I only found out about all of the decapitalization attempts when Dicklyon changed the capitalization of several Civil Rights Movement pages, trying to decapitalize Wikipedia's African-American Civil Rights Movement article collection (which is very good and, very arguably, the best on the web). On the Pullman Strike and the Homestead Strike I point out that all anyone has to do is Google or Bing the terms, lower case, to see that the common names are capitalized. In any case, the best of holidays to you, and may Santa bring you many treats and other goodies. Randy Kryn 13:12 22 December, 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion

  • this suggestion. Please realize: this is not about articles and content, but about users. If you file a request, you must specify all users/parties of the case and demonstrate with diffs in your request their problematic behavior. Whoever they are (you did not tell it yet), there might be a "retaliation". For example, they can collect all diffs where you reverted someone to show that you are an "edit warrior", etc. So, I still advise you against it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As I haven't edited the article, it hardly matters what I've done. I don't really care. The problem must be solved. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I too could not care less because I probably will not be around. When you submit a case, you do not really know what will be the scope, if it is to be taken. For example, if you tell that user "X" is a party to the case, arbs could wish to examine his behavior in the whole project, rather than in specific article. Same is about the filer of the case: arbs normally examine all parties. You made a lot of reverts on various pages. That will be a matter of scrutiny. Simply looking at your edit history and talk page, I can see people who were disappointed with you. They might show up with evidence against you. But this all hypothetical, because the case will probably be rejected. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care. Threatening me isn't a way forward. I'm not filing any case, yet. As I said, I would prefer that an uninvolved party file it. I have nothing to do with the Malaysia Airlines article, which is the scope of the dispute. If you are going to continue with threats, I suggest you get off my talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 05:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think MVBW is threatening you. They're just stating the sad fact - based on experience - that during an ArbCom case all the worst trolls and grudge-holders come out of the woodwork. Even if somehow the ArbCom arrives at a reasonable decision in the end - and that's an "IF" the size of Texas - it's usually after months and months of serious nastiness. All kinds of opportunist usually show up to get their kicks and and complain about something you might have done months ago which pissed them off. Bored teenagers make an appearance and troll basically everyone trying to amp up the drama. Busybodies who like to stick their nose in to everyone's business come running and pontificate, accuse, and generally irritate all. Folks who like to play "lawyer" on Wikipedia consider these cases as some kind of "practice" for the bar exam that they'll never take. In short, 9 times out of 10 ArbCom cases, even when justified, are not worth it. Especially when there are other avenues. Which there are here, since the article is already covered by an ArbCom case, and that's conscientious use of WP:Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE) which has not been done.
If this gets accepted it will be a huggggggeeeeeee waste of time. I don't want to have my time wasted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In all sincerity, unless this is filed by someone who hasn't been involved in any of the articles surrounding events in Ukraine (and that person has long time clout), it's going to bring in all of those elements and more. It's not one for the likes of regulars who have a high enough profile to have made serious enemies to apply to ArbCom. No matter how carefully and tightly it's presented, it'll be off the charts once the POV-ers and generally misguided get wind of a potential carcass. It's better to beat the pots and pans on the article's talk page and let them pick themselves off. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Having done research on how these cases go, Iryna, I can say that I do not think that this will be a problem. Whilst I'm obviously aware of the Malaysia Airlines article, I'm not particularly involved in it. If I don't file the case it won't be filed. I'm perfectly willing to be collateral damage, if that's what happens. We'll see what happens. If I have enemies, it is because I deserve to. There isn't much to be done. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(since you asked on my talk page). Please keep in mind that by including editor X in the list of parties for an arbitration [and without any serious reasons, I believe!] you create him a lot of trouble. I responded on Arbitration page only because you included me as a party, and that was my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to say that you are not a party given your heavy involvement in the article...there won't be any trouble if you've not done anything wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I advised you not to submit the entire case. That would save you and others a lot of time and nerves. Yes, I made 46 edits on this page [28], just about as many as you did. Yes, that makes me "involved", just as you are. But this is merely an example that all your statements during arbitration will be a matter of scrutiny. Please be more careful in the future. Fortunately, I will be out for a few weeks. Happy holidays! My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
All my edits were at the start in July, and were only copyediting. Those had nothing to do with the dispute, whereas you have been heavily involved the in the talk page dispute and the DRN case. Not submitting the case would be to allow this problem not to be solved, and to allow continued disruption. There is no reason to allow it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
By filing a case without merit you did not solve, but created disruption. If you really wanted to minimize disruption through administrative intervention, rather than through collegial discussion (and believed this is the way to go), you had to do the following: (a) to identify the person who you think creates disruption; (b) to report him/her to WP:AE. That is what I said you a month ago. Why are you not following my advice? My best guess: you would like to avoid responsibility, because filing an WP:AE case about someone else would make you a possible subject for sanctions, while filing an arbitration request and pretending to be "an uninvolved party" would be safer. This is not going to work. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I haven't filed an AE case because all the editors involved need to be evaluated. It is a systemic problem, not one of an individual editor. I have no fear of being sanctioned, as I've not done anything with regard to the dispute or the article. Please desist. By the way, if you think I should be sanctioned, please file an AE case. I'm happy to submit to your all-seeing eye. Given that I've not done anything at the article in question, let alone edited it, I'm happy to be the subject of scrutiny. I don't see how I'm involved in a dispute at an article that I have not edited since August. The only edits I made were copyedits. How exactly does that render me "involved" in this dispute? RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism deletion

I know you're probably tired to hell of the horde of psychopathically ideology-driven SPAs and sockpuppets pouring across the fields like the Mongols to sap the life from the nation, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(2nd_nomination) is up if you're still interested in debating the topic. At this point you might as well write a single rebuttal document, tag each clause and have your entire argument be made of comments pointing out the exact clause their argument applies to. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Request

Please do not post a comment on my talk page again unless you are specfically required to do so by Wikipedia policy. I do not accept comments from editors such as yourself. Thank you. BMK (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply

In reply to your notice here, I must tell that, yes, if you arbitrarily included people to the list of the "parties" (as you did), I assume that you want them be sanctioned. That is my interpretation. My very best wishes (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't arbitrary. I included everyone that was either active in the DRN case, or active at the talk page. You were active at both. I don't want any parties sanctioned. All it means to be listed as a party is that you are a party to the dispute, which you are. If I've missed anyone important, feel free to add them as a party. The purpose of arbitration is not to eliminate editors. It is to solve disputes, i.e. arbitrate them. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the only purpose to include people to the "parties" is to have some of them sanctioned (because what else Abcome can possibly do in the subject area already covered by discretionary sanctions?). You probably assume that all decisions by Arbcom are fair. No, this is not the case. In fact, the current WP:AE procedure (with administrators who work there) is significantly quicker and fair than arbitration. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the purpose of the committee is to arbitrate the dispute. To decide whether people's behaviour fell below par, how to resolve the dispute, whether to impose 1RR or other article-level sanctions, or whether to impose sanctions on editors. Their goal is not to "sanction" editors, but to resolve the dispute. If that means that they need to sanction someone, after reviewing the evidence, they'll do it. AE cannot possibly be quicker or fairer, nor can the ARBEE sanctions be said to have worked. If they had, we wouldn't be here now. That DRN case would not've happened, and TParis would not've said that he was "afraid" to enforce ARBEE, and this dispute would not've continued over months. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is nothing special. A lot of administrators do not want to take part in AE enforcement. We have a lot of disputes in a lot of articles. This article is actually in a good shape, and the dispute has been de facto resolved per WP:Consensus. There is no need for DRN or administrative intervention. What happens are a few contributors (I think only two, not counting SPA) who want to get an upper hand in a content dispute by mobilizing administrators and editors like you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If a few contributors are making a mess of the article and have prevented peace for months, that's worthy of arbitration. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Ministers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello RGloucester, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
UA Victory (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's greetings aren't complete without a carol: a Ukrainian one for your festive pleasure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Iryna! RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Arbitration request

I probably should reply to your last comment on my talk page. Here are my points:

  1. I do not know if arbitrators will accept your reasoning for submitting this case (rather than using WP:AE), but I do not.
  2. You did a very bad thing by submitting this case, contrary to recommendations by several users. This is bad because such requests do not really resolve anything, but only increase tensions, and two examples are your recent discussions with Beyond My Ken and Bdell. This is the reason why unreasonable/battleground requests can be a reason for sanctions per se.
  3. Merely including me in the list of parties, for example, can be enough for me to stop editing here, temporarily or permanently. No, this is not because I did something wrong. Simply being tired from animosities on this site is a good reason, although I also have others.My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I modified my statement in line with your suggestion above. Happy New Year! And I am going to make a New Year present for myself: stop editing here... In addition, I will be on a real life trip for a few weeks without internet access. I hope everything will be finished by then. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, MVBW. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for your attempted intervention in the MH17 article. As you may recall, I joked at one point that you were smart for staying out of this article. It is truly a nest of vipers. – Herzen (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can not agree. Asking to sanction a number of named parties in this request (what else Arbcom can possibly do in the area already under discretionary sanctions?) and providing no diffs to support problematic behavior by specific users was a typical battleground request, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash

Can you withdraw the AFD? I think you've done enough nominating events that occurred recently. Maybe wait for twelve months? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Articles on non-notable events must be deleted. They corrupt the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You nominated Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings for deletion, which failed for now. Why not nominate you didn't build that for deletion, which failed thrice or twice? --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what "you didn't build that" is, and I don't care about it. I care about the non-notable events that have articles. These articles must be deleted. It isn't my fault some people can't see the guidelines in front of them, or that the administrators that close the discussions don't bother to read the arguments. The articles must be deleted. They will be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 20:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The arrogance of yours is a contribution factor to your rushed nominations on decently developed articles. Also, it's a factor to your inability to judge how notable "you didn't build that" is. It's a stupid phrase, overly used by lame politicians, that should have never had its own article in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop it both of you. George, there is no point in bickering with RGloucester. And clearly the article will not be deleted and the users are not in favor of deleting the article, so the bickering will not lead to anything good my friend. To uer RGcloucester, comments like "They corrupt the encylopaedia.", and "it isn't my fault some people can't see the guidelines in front of them, or that the administrators that close the discussions don't bother to read the arguments." - they seem to be over the top. Come on, for example in the mentioned AfD every single user disagrees with you. I am not saying that you are always wrong but in this particular case you clearly are. Sometimes a withdrawal and co-operation with improving articles can be a better option. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You are always wrong, BabbaQ, and you have no argument at each and every AfD you participate in. You don't care about guidelines. You admit that you don't agree with the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. You don't care about the encylopaedia. I have no words for you. Do not comment on my talk page. As for you, Mr Ho, none of my nominations are rushed. I will delete this articles. They are not notable. They will be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
RG, the attitude of "I don't care, they will be deleted, that's that" is against the Wikipedia ethos of cooperation and consensus. I've noticed you like citing policy as though it's scripture. I remind you that Wikipedia works off precedent as much as rules; that policy can (and does) get ignored; that what is 'hard and fast' for one circumstance can be 'flexible' in another. In short, you don't always get what you want; you must be willing to ignore rules/policy, compromise, and cooperate; you must show willingness to accept criticism, argument, and alternatives to rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've not seen much of this "Wikipedia ethos of co-operation", and "consensus" is rooted in our policies and guidelines, not in some false ideal of democracy. They are clear, on this matter. It is not a matter of gospel, it is a matter of simple reality. Regardless, I mustn't do anything. You must stop supporting corruption, then we'll talk. Until then, I shan't be tolerating such tripe spread across our pages. Anyone that does not take WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT to heart ought not make a message on this page. I fear that my poor front room will be dirtied. RGloucester — ☎ 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated articles for deletion before, but sometimes I made wrong nominations on wrong articles for wrong reasons. That got me blocked before I got second chance. Therefore, I turned my life around and realize that Wikipedia is a tool for good... and evil. At least I clearly have seen that cooperation, teamwork, and stuff are most effective ways of improving Wikipedia. Too bad Wikipedia has flaws too. With teamwork, we'll do our best to alleviate the web's flaws with policies and guideline, like WP:consensus, WP:CIVIL, and WP:IAR. Perhaps when this is over, with teamwork, you may add complaints in WP:VPP or WT:NOT. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, believe me, I've seen the good that collaboration can do. I've seen good articles written as a result. However, the simple reality is that some people in this world are not worth collaborating with. One must make the best effort one can, but if there are no results, one cannot keep at the same thing. One must do what works, not what fails. The thing is, you lot are misinterpreting the guidelines and policies, such as WP:IAR, and WP:CONSENSUS, to your own benefit. That's not wise. Regardless, if you'd like to write a blog, or write newspaper articles, please do go to some other place. RGloucester — ☎ 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What are examples please? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:IAR does not mean guidelines and policies can be ignored wholesale, nor does WP:CONSENSUS mean that the majority rules in AfDs/RMs regardless of what policy says. As WP:CONLIMITED says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". In other words, just because a few people say "sources indicate notability" with nothing to back it up, that doesn't mean that policy or guidelines can be overridden. If people don't agree with the guidelines or the policies, they need to go rewrite those policies and guidelines. Until that's done, they can't ignore them. RGloucester — ☎ 07:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
RG, I agree that IAU does not mean rules can be ignored wholesale. But you know what, policies *in general* don't have to be followed wholesale either. As it happens, I've been at the recent receiving end of a whole glut of unsuccessful AfDs and I'd rather they had been successful. I felt a bit put out and grumpy as a result of losing so many arguments. Now, though, I just carry on and hope that I can make constructive changes elsewhere. If your proposed ITN draft doesn't get accepted (and as it's a draft you won't permit amendments for, I think that's gone somewhat stale in any case), don't take it as a personal slight. Don't take this AfD as a personal slight either: as I said in the discussion over there, the London helicopter crash article was saved via an unsuccessful AfD and as such can be used as a precedent for similar events to have articles written and retained. This is how Wikipedia works - not through your rather brusque and belligerent attitude. I wanted to work with you on a basis of compromise only a few weeks ago: I'm not sure, reading your posts here and elsewhere, that you're able to meet other people half-way. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I told you not to make another comment here. Do not do it again. Secondly, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. I will delete these articles. Now, if you please, get off my talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried advocating changes on WP:IUP without avail. One editor found changing the policy unnecessary. Okay, I'll ask another question: which situations, like an AFD or a requested move, follow what you describe? Was it Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests or some AFD? --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not referring to any particular situation, nor am I advocating any changes. I'm only asking for the enforcement of the existing guidelines. They will be enforced, at some point. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As for enforcing, there are banning, blocking, protection, and administration in Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies. Oh... there is WP:PAG#Enforcement. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
George, you have my full support in trying to find a middle ground with RG. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe I said something to you about making messages here. I don't do the wishy-washy middle. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German nationalism in Austria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German nationalism in Austria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism AfD for someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia's process =

I noticed on the AfD page for Cultural Marxism you announced "A panel of three uninvolved administrators has been organised to close this discussion. These are: Spartaz, Huon, and Samwalton9. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)" I was wondering what you could tell me about how these administrators were organised (as uninvolved administrators) and how you were informed about it - is it the case that these three just saw the article on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and elected themselves (deciding for themselves that they were uninvolved), or was there a more formal process to it? I ask as I feel questions will be raised elsewhere on the net, and I want to understand the process before I defend it. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is common to request a panel for contentious closures. In this case, I made a request at the administrators' noticeboard. The first three administrators that answered the request formed the panel. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this information, I'm glad to hear wikipedia has helpful participants like you contributing and helping others (specifically me) to understand these things better.--60.241.86.130 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about Cultural Marxism and GamerGate

These two topics are more than likely ones you never want to look at again for some time. But, noticing how you were the creator of Template:Gamergate sanctions, I'm wondering if you can answer me this question. Now that Cultural Marxism is currently redirected to the Frankfurt School, does that mean the sanctions template would need to be added onto the talk page? And, seeing how there are talks about it not being directed to the right page to begin with, or being deleted was the right choice (different can of worms I know), would any future redirection dictate the sanctions template be placed on their talk page as well? GamerPro64 07:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the sanctions do not apply to any of these articles. However, you'd need to ask at WP:AN to see what administrators think. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German nationalism in Austria

The article German nationalism in Austria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German nationalism in Austria for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year RGloucester!

Happy New Year!

RGloucester,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
@Iryna Harpy: I wish you the same! Let's hope this year is better than the last one. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 request for arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Committee. The arbitrators felt that they would rather see this issue brought to WP:AE for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions which are already authorised for the topic area. Please see the the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Help please

You gave me the big warning about English player heights so are you the uninvolved administrator? If you are will you please give sanctions to Michael Glass for systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus and to PeeJay2K3 and Qed237 for edit-wars over such a change. They keep stressing me for trying to stick to the rules you warned me about. Or is this all a big joke on me? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the following link is worth reviewing: [29]
Note the belligerent tone in this diff: [30]
Also this link: [31]
Ditto Speccy4eyes" edit history [32]

It appears that all but one of his edits on player height, except the first, have been reversed.

I have tried to be polite to Speccy4eyes at all times and I have never reverted one of his edits. Nevertheless, I note that he has targeted me by name in several edit summaries. Something funny is going on here. Speccy4eyes' behaviour is very reminiscent of DeFacto's sockpuppets, including the personal targeting. Michael Glass (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts Sir Richard! I'm afraid to edit any more on this as it seems that they they can change units and are always right where I can't and am always wrong. Why am I warned and they aren't and why isn't Mr Glass given sanctions? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My proper style is that of "grace", i.e. "Your Grace". Regardless, this is not a matter I can do anything about. If you have a complaint about an editor within the scope of the sanctions, please place it at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Page moves

Why are you moving all of the articles back? What do you mean by "finished event"? Dustin (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Those pages are about the protests, i.e. finished events. Only the war is ongoing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for the clarification. It looks like 2013–15 Ukrainian Crisis will need to be expanded by at least some amount. It currently does not appear to provide sufficient summaries of the events it goes over. Those are just my thoughts. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'm trying to reorient the articles so that the chronology makes sense. The crisis article is a summary article, and the 2014 article is for the protests. That'll make life easier, I think. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S. and Iryna Harpy: I think I've rationalised the structure of the articles appropriately. Have I missed anything? Do you think it makes more sense this way? RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The changes you've made so far make sense. Whatever has been missed (particularly splits still in need of development and those being developed even though there's OR being used to depict them as ongoing) will be picked up on quickly enough. I think focussing on the main articles is the best place to start. Trying to unravel everything simultaneously is an exercise in futility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, the changes you have made so far appear to make sense. 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis is now referenced with greater frequency and is still in need of expansion, including more in-depth summaries, but everything appears to be working out at the moment. We can work out any problems (if they arise) via talk page discussions in the future. I hope I did not complicate things with my many page moves yesterday (which for me was January 2). Thank you for going to the trouble of working with all of these page titles. Dustin (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, is "Ukrainian Crisis" ever used as a proper noun? Some users seem to disagree on whether to write it as "crisis" or "Crisis". Dustin (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In so far as grammatical accuracy, no 'Ukrainian Crisis' is not a proper noun (nor does its usage have anything to do with proper nouns like Thames Valley, Victorian Brewing Company, etc.). 'The Great War', for example, is not a proper noun. Regarding the latter, it has become a signifier for an historical period. Using 'Ukrainian Crisis' is merely mimicking this naming convention to designate events. In the context of significant coverage, it isn't really OR to use it for titles but, per MOS, it's tipping the scales. Certainly, for text in the body of articles, it should be depicted as Ukrainian crisis (or, more accurately and dependent on context, the crisis in Ukraine). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I've put those in lowercase, to match the main article. My personal preference, no doubt, is for titles to be uppercased for aesthetic reasons, as has been done for centuries. That's what I was doing at the time I wrote the summary article. However, now being more familiar with the MoS's position on this matter, it is clear that it should be lowercased. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I'm 'old school' and tend to bypass such 'mistakes' when I proof articles (er, copyedit) simply because that's the convention for titles. Title should be titles... but this is Wikipedia. Compromises must be made despite ones abhorrence for Newspeak. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course. We may not be a print encylopaedia, but I do think it would help to pay a bit more attention to how sloppy and useless many of our article titles look. RGloucester — ☎ 05:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
While the most widespread way of writing titles would involve it being written as "2013–15 Ukrainian Crisis", Wikipedia does have some of its own standards. At the same time, I notice that many sources appear to be using "Ukraine Crisis" to refer to the subject, with the "C" capitalized. Take "Korean War". The war is referred to as such as that is the name given to the war. Otherwise, it would be "Korean war". I believe a similar situation may apply here at some point, but until there is enough widespread usage of "Ukraine Crisis" or "Ukrainian Crisis" to refer to the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis, we will have to follow Wikipedia's standard naming conventions. Sorry if I repeated much of what was said above. Dustin (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Dustin. I'm now well aware of what MOS:CAPS says on the subject. RGloucester — ☎ 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

you are skewing the writing up of the sources

'Witnesses also said that separatist fighters abducted, tortured, and killed their neighbours.' - but this, and much else, is ignored in your version of the sources you cite. you are cherrypicking. witnesses also said the separatists - from the first paragraph - 'Ukrainian militia and separatist forces are responsible for war crimes, Amnesty International said today. The organisation accused Russia of fuelling separatist crimes as it revealed satellite images indicating a build-up of Russian armour and artillery in eastern Ukraine. ' - it s the very sources 'guilty' of 'geval' - please read your 3 sources carefully before knee-jerk reverting my edits at least. Sayerslle (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "cherrypicking". The separatist crimes are mentioned elsewhere, and all across the article. That paragraph is only supposed to be a summary of pro-Ukrainian battalion crimes. Playing this tit-for-tat game is WP:GEVAL. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The lead is the lead - and you are not using those sources scrupulously enough imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I am using them "scrupulously". The lead is divided into paragraphs, to summarise the whole article. Each paragraph summarises a different aspect of the article. The pro-Ukrainian government crimes are in one paragraph, and the separatist crimes are in other paragraphs. There is nothing confusing about this. I know exactly what the sources say. They are referenced below, in the rest of the article. The lead is not the place for the body. It is a summary, an introduction. RGloucester — ☎ 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
' An Amnesty International investigation into allegations of execution-style and other deliberate killings by pro-Russian separatists and pro-Kyiv forces has found evidence of isolated incidents attributable to both sides, but not on the scale reported by Russian media and authorities.' - one gets absolutely no sense of this conclusion from your text however. it is skewed pov disemboweling of the sources. whether it is elsewhere is beside the point imo - you are not using the 3 sources scrupulously in this section . anyhow I agree to disagree. Sayerslle (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be there, because it is mentioned elsewhere. That lead paragraph is only a summary for pro-Ukrainian government crimes. I don't see how this is hard to understanding. It is basic article writing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading the lead only one would believe Amnesty International had criticized only one side - when the sources, sources you are citing and have provided, paint a very different picture. So you are misrepresenting - badly - the position of Amnesty in the lead ' I don't see how this is hard to understanding' - (sic). Sayerslle (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Read the paragraph prior. No one reading this paragraph would think that the separatists were pure as angels. RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Policy Brutality Protests in the United States

Hi. You mentioned that you moved User:OR drohowa/sandbox/2014 civil rights protests in the United States to 2014 policy brutality protests in the United States but I am not able to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? OR drohowa (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't in the mainspace. It is still in your sandbox. Click the link you just linked. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

AFD Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis

Result of AFD on Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis is consensus of keep/strong keep - OK to remove the AFD tag? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Delete. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

Hey I just want to say that I have thought many times to get rid of stuff here on Wikipedia that just isn't needed or doesn't comply with policies, unfortunately when it comes to hot current events you are going to have lots of eyeballs on the pages involved. In short, I recommend you wait a week or so before you start an AfD for a current event unless you are sure the article would be deleted even if it were expended upon. I am saying this to you as all of these AfDs closing as snow keeps must be frustrating to watch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't frustrating. I'm well aware that people are content to revel in recentism. That's the way it is. It is the greatest disease of the digital age, and it will be quashed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this change...

...I believe that may have been a mistake considering that it occurred immediately after moving the page to the proper target. It is not particularly importance; I just thought I should point that out. Dustin (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Dustin. It seems that I'm actually the one that made the initial error with WP:DATERANGE (not sure how I managed that). Fancy that. At least I've fixed it now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2013–2015 Ukrainian crisis

I have started an discussion on the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis talk page to discuss the move that we dealt with a couple of days ago. I'd love for you to participate in the spirit of cooperative editing. - SantiLak (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies. This was a misclick. I tried to self-revert, but you beat me to it. TDL (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Stop icon with clock
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.

The reason for this block is this particular edit, [33], a completely baseless personal attack. This is viewed against the backdrop of your WP:POINT violating behavior as explained at WP:ANI. permalink. When the block expires, please tone down your criticism and extreme positions. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. You must unblock me at once. That was not a "personal attack". It is a simple reality, and completely warranted following various attacks, including accusing me of making a deletion nomination that "is arguably pointy". This user simply disagreed with my decision to delete that article, which I do believe should be deleted. His attacks and harassment on my talk page were unacceptable, and hence I ignored him. I have no extreme positions. In fact, I'd argue that you are not fit to block me even If I should've been blocked, given that you've been WP:INVOLVED in a dispute with me on this very same subject matter. The fact that you call my positions "extreme" when they are supported by policy, and then block me for them, is unacceptable. In of itself, that is a personal attack on my character. It is absolutely unacceptable. Unblock me at once, and let someone WP:UNINVOLVED block me if they see fit. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't make yourself immune to administrator action by fighting with every admin you meet. I have no involvement in the instant dispute, and any past interactions between us were minor and forgettable. You may not use an edit summary to accuse another good faith editor of being a person who "encourage[s] the corruption the encyclopedia", unless you have strong evidence to back up that accusation. A mere editorial disagreement is not evidence of corruption. If you agree not to do this again, I will unblock you, because I find blocks of good faith contributors to be odious (though occasionally necessary). Do you agree? If you don't want to deal with me, please post an unblock request (per the above templated message that I carefully included) and somebody else will come along and consider your appeal. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "immune" to anything. If I commit a crime, I will be punished by both God and fate, no doubt. It is hard to say that you have "no involvement" when a large part of the AN/I "discussion" consisted of editors that disagree with my position on the events notability criteria having a bit of fun and a bit of sport. Considering that you and I have engaged in that dispute, as is demonstrated by the link above, this block could be considered an act of vengeance on your part. I do have "strong evidence" that his views are embodied by what Wikipedia is not. So are the views of many other editors. I do not doubt that they defy these principles in good faith, but good faith or not, our principles must be defended. Or must they? I suppose we can simply ignore them. That doesn't seem right to me, but if you think it is what we should do, I guess we've not much choice. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to have their opinion, you and I included. Do you want to grandstand or do you want to convince people to see things your way? If I remember correctly, I took away from our discussion a view that was more closely aligned with yours: that we should consider the importance of topics before posting to ITN. You made a good point. It is important to be friendly, understanding and assume good faith. As soon as you accuse another editor of corruption, blank their message and tell them to never post to your page again, the opportunity for teaching or convincing them is over, and they run to AN/I. Will you consider improving your interaction with other editors? If so I will unblock you immediately. You do good work and have good potential, but I really need to convince you to not attack other editors' integrity without basis. You might quickly agree, or you might contemplate it for 23.5 hours or so. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe people do not change, and that a person's perspective is an innate and unchanging element of the soul, which is created and raised by the material circumstances of a person's existence. An "artificial soul", in the words of Dickens' Mr Bumble. There is no "convincing" anyone of anything. It is simply impossible. Either people understand, or they do not. That's the way the world has always worked.
Regardless, there is no obligation to be friendly (this is not a "social media"). Certain people are worth ignoring, and the fellow that started this inquisition is one of those people. I am perfectly within my power to remove his comments from my page. I do not believe that he was acting in good faith. I simply do not. He wasn't, quite clearly. He was attempting to remove an obstacle, and he succeeded. It is all a matter of strategy. We must assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we must be ignorant of bad faith. I find it hard to believe you can block me for "harassment" when I've never engaged with this editor, at all. I refused to do so. If anything, his behaviour was harassment. He made trumped-up charges on my talk page, continually posted here despite my wishes to the contrary, and then ran to AN/I with no basis whatsoever. There are no grounds for a block of any kind, and that is simple. You must unblock me at once. RGloucester — ☎ 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

An outside opinion. I respect both User:RGloucester and User:Jehochman. While I have no opinion on the current dispute, my observation - that RGloucester is more often right (even if he may express his points of view quite strongly) than wrong - is irrelevant to the point that WP handles "civility blocks' neither well nor with consistency. I don't consider Jehochman involved in the formal sense, but neither do I consider RGloucester to have reached a blockable level of incivility, particularly when compared to some of our other strong content contributors. My suggestion is that RGloucester vow to dial back the tone of his comments (including those in edit summaries), and that in response Jehochman unblock. Without the former, however (which is easy, and a reasonable request), the latter should not be expected. With kindest regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, is there a reason why this Andrewa fellow is allowed to call my AfD nomination "ridiculous" in edit summaries and in discussion elsewhere despite it being based in policy? I specifically ignored the AN/I discussion as I did not want to engage in this tit-for-tat uselessness. However, you've forced me to lower myself to his level. Please explain why this editor can make such comments as these, clearly not assuming good faith of any sort (I've had no prior interaction with this editor), and then come to my talk page and accuse me of various things, and then go to AN/I to launch an inquisition amongst various editors who have a bone to pick with me. Please explain why I am then blocked for "harassment" and "personal attacks". How was I supposed to respond to being called "ridiculous"? RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes, there is a reason. The word "ridiculous" is not a personal attack per se, and AGF does not automatically preclude the possibility of someone making a dubious call or engaging in problematic editing for some reason. So, while so far as I can see you personally were never called "ridiculous," your action was, and, unfortunately, many, probably most, of us do things around here once in a while which might be called ridiculous. Considering it was not you as a person that was called "ridiculous," you probably should have tried, hard as it often is, to overlook the word and edit normally. It is hard, but sometimes that is the only way to avoid escalation. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I did edit normally, and I did overlook it. I ignored that editor from then on, and did not engage with him. I did not respond to any of his queries, and said that I would not accept any comments from him here. Please notice that I did not respond to his comment in the AfD, despite its content. Please notice that I did not launch an AN/I tirade against him. Please notice that I did no so much as speak to the editor ONCE. I did what I should've done. My behaviour was correct. I took the least aggressive route. I did not "harrass" him in any way. I did not even engage with him once. My actions are open to view, and it is clear that there were no grounds for a block. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As a practical matter, if you ban an editor from your talk page and accuse them of corruption, their next step is almost always going to be to file a complaint on ANI. If somebody posts here and you disagree, you can choose to debate them, or you can choose to ignore them, or you can even remove their post with a non-hostile edit summary like "noted" or "I disagree". If somebody reposts you can say, "I don't want to talk with you, please don't post here again". I agree that "ridiculous" is a word to be avoided, because nobody should be ridiculed for anything they say on Wikipedia. If they are wrong, they should be refuted, or if they are trolling they should be ignored or reverted. Ridicule is never productive. Now, would you like to be unblocked? If so, please confirm that you won't accuse other editors of corruption without evidence. That's all I ask. Jehochman Talk 17:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I maintain my position that the editor in question holds views that embody what Wikipedia is not. The "evidence" is present for all to see. I will not prostrate myself before him. There were no grounds for a block of any variety, a fact that has no doubt been recorded by God in his daily analysis of worldly goings-on. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but, even if we accept your position completely ("that the editor in question holds views that embody what Wikipedia is not)", that is not corruption. Please just acknowledge that you will not henceforth accuse other editors of corruption without evidence. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not say that the editor was "corrupt". I said that his behaviour and positions expressed in the recent AfD encourage the corruption of the encylopaedia, which they do. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguing for the correctness of your position based on your own opinion and analysis with the support of the judgement of God does not make it sound like you are getting the point of what the block is intended to do, which is prevent further disruptive behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There was no disruptive behaviour, and that's quite rich coming from you. Please do me a favour and do not comment here again. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking you to admit that you did anything wrong. What I want you to do to get unblocked is to agree with this general purpose statement: "Editors may not accuse others of corruption without evidence." Jehochman Talk 18:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the statement, but I disagree that it applies here. I refuse to be unblocked if such an unblocking implies that I "accused others of corruption without evidence". RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. You understood the nuance of what I was getting at. The unblocking implies that you understand policy and agree to follow it; nothing else. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not consent to being unblocked. I will not accept being unblocked unless you state that you were wrong in issuing the block. Please either reblock me, or make this statement. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that. I now demand an indefinite block for myself, to be issued at once. There is no room for both me and this Andrewa fellow on this project, and I'm the one that needs to be locked up. Please do so at once. RGloucester — ☎ 19:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, you are a useful editor, and we really don't need this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no desire to be a useful editor. I am "not here" to participate in this theatre of absurdity, and I've had enough of this nonsense. If I need to get into a phoney edit war to get myself blocked, I will. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That is one completely undeserved block. Up there with the worst I've seen. It's the user's own talk page ffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO User:Jehochman has veered pretty close to a personal attack himself above, if he hasn't crossed the line outright. There are repeated accusations above that RGloucester described another editor as 'corrupt' or guilty of 'corruption'. This never happened; these terms mean something very different to 'corruption of the encyclopaedia', which seems to me synonymous with 'damage to the encyclopaedia'. At the very least, he needs to retract these accusations; an apology for the block is likely also in order. GoldenRing (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No kidding. And again, it was RGloucester's own talk page, they are within their rights to remove comments by others they deem as harassing. Complete bullshit, and gratuitous, block, worthy of taking away the tools.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks

Hi, RG. That really wasn't a good block, I don't blame you for being upset. Probably noone is willing to block you indefinitely. I'll point out, though, that there's the option of a self-requested block. The admins who're willing to impose such blocks are listed here. I'm on the list; please see this page for my conditions. I won't do indefinite blocks, and I don't think any of the other admins on the list will either. Please don't ask if you're not serious. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

If no one will block me now, I'll start edit-warring and making personal attacks. That seems like the best way forward! Or, of course, to stop disruption to Wikipedia processes, you could just block me now for conspiracy to commit disruption! RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
RG, please just do yourself a favor and take the night off. I can understand why what you perceive as an unfair block has upset you, but it'll end and you'll have more clarity tomorrow. It's trivial. Go watch a great film, or read a classic, listen to music, or whatever. You're obviously a passionate and skilled editor, but you might not be your most rational self right now. We need you and your kind, so just chill out until you feel centered, and come back when you do. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You should have revoked their talk page access for the duration of the block, not indeffed them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the above, RGloucester should take a few days to have a break here. @Rationalobserver: Indef does not mean forever it sounds like it will only be for a few days at most, the history was that RGloucester was blocked for 24 hrs, unblocked when it was determined that the 24 hr block was too hasty and then reblocked indef. There was no block in place for a period of time in between the two blocks so revoking talk page access would not have made sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, Knowledgekid87, and even if indeffs are not exactly indefinite, it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't be given 72 hours to get their head straight. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Im not sure about that one but my thought on it is that when someone is upset and they ask for something like an indef block maybe the easier thing would be to just give what they want rather than saying no this is what you are getting and going on with the argument. RGloucester, I really hope you come back in a day or two once you are all set, your edits are great here as have been pointed out by so many editors just take time to clear your head is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, folks, I think this discussion is better suited to another venue, perhaps a village pump for the general issue or my talk page for the specific matter at hand. Let's leave RG in peace so he can take a break from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a nasty way of chewing people up and spitting them out, and there's no shame in somebody taking a break, long or short, to help them remember what it is they liked about it in the first place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Your right, Wikipedia does have a habit of chewing up editors and spitting them out, but its not the project that needs blame here. The blame here falls squarely on the shoulders of Jehochman who decided to perform an extremely poor block with no warnings or escalations. Naturally anyone would be upset about that. Whats further disturbing is that yet again, several people, admins included agree the block was bad and yet nothing is done about it to the admin that performed it, just the editor who got the block. Because the editor is helpless here and no one wants to do what needs to be done and slap Jehochmans little hand for doing something stupid to a dedicated and positive contributor. That weak will of dealing with problems like that, while allowing an admin to abuse an editor with impunity is why people leave, not just a simple block. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: – If you are amenable, I would request an unblocking. I simply will disallow any Wikipedia-brand politicking on my talk page, and will not even attempt to engage in such politicking elsewhere. I have a bit of work to do on the Ukrainian crisis article, and I'd prefer if it did not fall into disrepair. Thanks very much for your previous understanding, which was much appreciated by me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RfA?

If no one will block me now, I'll start edit-warring and making personal attacks. That seems like the best way forward!

That's only if you're on the admin track. The best way to get blocked is to revert vandalism and improve content. Everyone knows that. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Great analysis. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (List of Indian union ministries) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of Indian union ministries, RGloucester!

Wikipedia editor Legacypac just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

article has had serious attention from an experienced editor. Clearing from the unreviewed cue

To reply, leave a comment on Legacypac's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Welcome back

Just a friendly welcome back message hope you are feeling better =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
On the editing side of things, I was thinking maybe a merger between Novorossiya (confederation) into the Donetsk People's Republic/Lugansk People's Republic would be better? I feel the current status of the Novorossiya article is in limbo and don't know how it can be improved upon given the recent developments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I stated my opinion in the deletion discussion. I think, essentially, that the New Russia confederation article should be deleted. It has no valuable content, and much of it comes from non-RS, primary sources, outdated sources, or original research. The "concept" of a New Russia confederation can be described in the existing article on the subject, i.e. Novorossiya. It is a concept, nothing more, and it must be described as such using RS, not obscure Russian or Ukrainian sources. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back also. We don't always agree, but you are a valuable editor and have great potential.

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Hi, apologies for the accidental revert at AN - misclicked while reading watch list on iPhone. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

WP:CSD G4

WP:CSD#G4 clearly says "content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement" is exempt. No consensus is needed to make a draft. Once a speedy deletion is declined you may not make the same one again. Please read WP:CSD before continuing. Chillum 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is required to overturned the "delete" decision. The result of the AfD was not "convert to draft" or "userfy", and hence no such action can be taken sans a deletion review. Therefore, G4 does apply. However, as you intend to overturn consensus, I've been forced to nominate it for MfD. This is unacceptable. Content deleted by consensus must remain deleted. Please do not defy Wikipedia policies. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding things. It is allowed to take a deleted article and restore it in draft in an attempt to make an article that passes our criteria. No consensus is needed to attempt to improve a deleted article. Your MfD is without basis and will fail.

The consensus to delete was a consensus to remove it from main space not a consensus that nobody can ever work on the subject again. Frankly you don't know enough about Wikipedia policies to be going around enforcing them. If you insist on being both forceful about policies and ignorant about them at the same time it will likely end poorly. Chillum 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I know exactly what WP:DEL says. It says "Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view". All these versions are now publicly accessible, meaning that the article has not been "deleted" as was decided by the AfD. A new article on the subject could be created, but it would've needed to have been entirely new, and should not contain the deleted edit history. As WP:DEL says "if an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review". That would be acceptable, according to policy. However, restoring the deleted content sans a deletion review is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. Please read WP:DEL. This flouting of policy is extraordinary. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the will power to educate you right now but please understand that you are cherry picking parts of the policy and then interpreting them in a way that supports what you already want to believe. If you don't believe me then you can just see what the response to your MfD is. Chillum 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not doing anything, other than enforcing policy that you are content to flout. The definition of deletion on Wikipedia is clear. The response to my MfD is irrelevant, because I'm correct regardless. The article will remain deleted, as demanded by Wikipedia policy, until a deletion review determines otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have had a coffee and have summoned some will. Where you have gone wrong in your interpretation is that this was not deleted for lacking content or "having inappropriate content". In this context inappropriate content would refer to anything we could not publish like BLP violations or copyright infringement. This was deleted for not meeting our inclusion criteria and as such is eligible for recreation in draft or user space for the purpose of improvement.

I apologize for being short in my prior message. Chillum 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it was deleted for having inappropriate content, and being based in WP:OR. IT MUST REMAIN DELETED. IT WILL. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly nothing I can say will change your mind. As such I will make my arguments at the MfD where at least others will hear me. Using capital letters and speaking in the imperative is probably not going to change anyone's mind. Chillum 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reality is clear, no matter what people say. DELETE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Must be nice to have such a clear view of reality. Chillum 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is. I feel sorry for those muddling through a world steeped in liberalism, one with no purpose or reason. It is tragic, for them. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
FINALLY! At long last, the true POV political motives for your death-war against the "Cultural Marxism" article comes out, after weeks and weeks (and weeks) of your maintaining the (completely unbelievable) stance that you didn't care about the subject matter at all. Hallelujah! It's so good to see some real truth coming from you at long last.

A pox on you and your fairy-stories, sir, you have dishonored yourself. BMK (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no "POV political motives". I don't believe in the concept of politics. I don't care about the subject matter, and I maintain that position. That's because there is no subject matter. I do, however, feel sorry for those steeped in a liberal muddle. It is quite tragic, to be so lost and without meaning. I am waging no "death-war". I'm simply doing what policies demand. If I truly had a political motive, I would be much more subtle. I don't, however, so I have no need for such fripperies, nor any need for allies or friends. RGloucester — ☎ 05:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You are so incredibly full of it. As always, all the actions you take taken belie the words you write.

No matter, though, you slipped and dropped the mask. You'll never again be able to credibly pretend that you're anything but a POV warrior. As time goes on, you'll start to relish the role, and revel in it -- and down that path lies banishment.

I can hardly wait. BMK (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your vitriolic nature is astonishing. You're lucky I'm willing to respond to you. I'm no "POV warrior". What exactly is my POV, If I'm a "POV warrior"? I'm no warrior for anything. It is quite obvious, in fact, because if I were a warrior, I'd be much more tactful. I use no tact, here. No subversion. No gathering of allies on off-Wikipedia canvassing websites, nor any manipulative kissing of shoes. I call a spade a spade, and that's all. If you do not like it, I feel sorry for you. All I meant by that was to say that I feel sorry for those who do not have a strong sense of right or wrong, who do not feel the permanence of their station in the continuum of existence. This is a matter of culture, not of politics. Regardless, if you wish to eliminate me from this encylopaedia, feel free. I nearly voluntarily eliminated myself earlier this week. Sadly, one crisis was followed by another. It seems this is a sad, chaotic place. That's the muddle, for you. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A friendly note

You seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing your friends from your enemies here. I'm not your enemy, neither is Chillum or any of the other old-timers. Most of us have been around for a lot longer than you and we know that when a group of people is determined to have an article, simply deleting it rarely shuts them up.

It's also our experience, almost universally, that when an editor falls into crusading mode and takes the existence or non-existence of a particular article as a personal effront, then that editor rapidly becomes a problem over and above that of the battleground article.

Please chill. Right now, you are behaving in a way that pretty much never ends well. See WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No. I'm not going to listen to someone who defies policies, and who restored a deleted article for the sole purpose of circumventing deletion review at Mr Wales' request. Please, go away. There would be no problems at all if you'd follow the proper policies and asked whoever wanted to restore the article's history to file a deletion review, as appropriate. You didn't, and you should pay for it. I'd remove your administrative tools, if I had the ability. Now, please, go away. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed: Free Donbass

You restored a A7 tag that I had removed. (the admin deleted it anyway, and I've queried him also). Shouldn't you have rather sent it to AfD? FWIW, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

Information icon 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.

Also: pull a stunt like this again and I think you are extremely likely to find yourself blocked. There is a draft, which you have XFD'd before it has a chance of being turned into a better article. The XfD has not run, it is not only legitimate to maintain a talk page for discussion of new sources, but redirecting the talk page to remove reference to new sources indicates an approach orthogonal to the Wikipedia values. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read edit summaries before you yourself "go off the deep end". We were already discussing that source, and the "draft", at the talk page I redirected it to. There was no need to split up the discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New Articles

Are there any notable subjects in the ukraine war we have no or little coverage on? Would there be any notable articles?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing that we don't have an article on, but that might be interesting, is that concept of the "Cyborg", referring to Ukrainian troops. That term seems to have taken on a life of its own. As far as individual battles are concerned, I think we're stuck with Donetsk Airport for the time being. I'm going to start working on cleaning up that article in the next few days, presuming that EkoGraf gives his permission. RGloucester — ☎ 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The term is repeated here in this specific article using the cyborg term as a "hook". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29793696 Ukraine conflict. The "cyborg" defenders of Donetsky airport. Hope this is of some use. Regards Irondome (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:World War I infobox

The current list of dominions and India alongside the UK (as if they were equal) greatly unbalances the list. The dominions did not declare war and did not have independent foreign relations. What is your basis for including them? Likewise the component crowns of the German Empire? Why aren't we listing Austria and Hungary separately if this is the way we're going to do it? Srnec (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary had a unified armed forces. The German states that are listed had their own armed forces. Likewise, the Dominions, whilst part of the Empire, did have some power to determine their level of involvement in the war. Not including the Dominions is misleading in of itself, because it implies a unified "British Empire" force. The governor-general of Canada, for instance, did declare war "between Canada and the German Empire". Regardless, India is a more difficult case, but India had its own army, and hence really deserves to be considered separate as well. RGloucester — ☎ 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So are we listing armies or belligerents? Yes, the dominions possessed separate armies, but they were not belligerents—public proclamations concerning a fait accompli notwithstanding. Austria and Hungary had their own armies in addition to the joint army. The German Army was a unified whole, even with the different states possessing their own armies within the army. Srnec (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
A "unified command" is not the same as a "unified army", and Canada or New Zealand are not "armies", but largely self-governing dominions. Regardless, this is the status quo ordering. I suggest you attain consensus on the talk page if you want to change it. What prompted me to restore the old version was that another editor restored Canada, but with the modern flag. That was clearly wrong, but removing Canada altogether seems wrong too. Therefore, I put the status quo back so it could be worked out on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Airport

If you feel the need that some corrections to the form of the text need to be made go ahead. EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-arranged just a few things. Per the sources, the initial rebel advance stalled after they had captured the hangars, outbuildings, control center, hotel and police station, right before the old terminal. This would be all 2 October. They paused after taking the hangars and outbuildings to set up their artillery but than moved out again after that and took the center, hotel and police station. They managed to advance again 3 October into the old terminal after which later in the day they were pushed back from half of the building. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And please, do not simply revert me but ask what I did. I did not make any edits on the text you still have to go through. Only the ones you already went through. So please do not revert me again. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until I'm done, so I don't have to rearrange things. RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
And again. :( EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't mess with stuff whilst I'm working. If you have objections to particular things, take it to the talk page. I can't do ten things at once. I'm going to fix the timing thing you mention in a second. RGloucester — ☎ 23:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, don't think that I don't appreciate your work, as I do. Once I'm in the zone, though, I don't like being thwarted. This is a lot of work. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @EkoGraf: I've finished every section, except for the government counter-offensive one. I'm going to do that later. If I made any errors or there is anything you dislike, please tell me so that we can resolve these problems collaboratively. If I've made a change, there was probably a reason for it, so ask me before we end up in another stupid revert war. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make the changes I wanted earlier so when I do you look them over and tell me what you like and dislike. EkoGraf (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. I reverted those for a reason. Discuss here or at the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, do not change the titling, per WP:BOLDTITLE. What happens in other articles doesn't matter. The MoS is clear. Adding awkward phrasing that sounds like it went through a meat grinder is not the way to write an article. Describing it, in instances such as these, is what the MoS calls for. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What happens in other articles doesn't matter? 95 percent of all battle articles on Wikipedia start out in that manner. That's the accepted form of introduction for all battle articles on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me check it out. And WP:BOLDTITLE clearly says if its the formal name of the subject than it should be displayed in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. And we even provided a source for the name of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not disregarding anything and this has nothing to do with prose, this is about the generally accepted way of introduction of a battle article by Wikipedia's standards... Besides, I thought you would be happy, I acknowledged most of your changes except a few minor ones. The only major one is the first lead paragraph which I wrote per Wikipedia standards. EkoGraf (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:BOLDTITLE: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it". It simply does not work. It ruins the fluency of the prose, and results in redundancy (i.e. repeating Donetsk airport). There is also the clunkiness of "earlier one", the introduction of PoV language, the removal of sourced context ("worst losses"), the breaking of references, the introduction of the incorrect "than". It is a disaster. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" is not an accepted "formal title". It is WP:NDESC. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen, first, I am not trying to get you blocked, I am writing per WP standards (even the one you pointed to). So please stop, there is no need for edit warring and getting yourself blocked. All Wikipedia battle articles start out in this way (with the name of the battle). Whether it ruins the fluency in your opinion doesn't matter. As for the clunkiness of "earlier one" I intentionally changed it from battle to one because you were actually repeating the word battle as much as Donetsk airport was being stated. And your assertion that it is not the accepted formal title is in-correct because like I already told you a source for the name has already been provided. EkoGraf (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be blocked now. You are not writing "WP standards". You are ignore WP:BOLDTITLE, and not bothering to read. Maybe it is because you are not a native English speaker. I don't know. Anyway, the "source" you provided is exactly one source, and does not use "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" as a proper name. In fact, it says "so-called", which implies that the name isn't even valid. Why the heck are you removing sourced content, anyway? Or destroying the prose? Huh? RGloucester — ☎ 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed what sources? I did not remove any sources AT ALL, unlike how you removed the source for the name of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE. There are not supposed to be sources in the lead, and anyway, like I said above, that source doesn't support the title. One source with "so-called" attached does not equal "proper name" status. You removed "DPR forces suffered their worst losses since the start of the 5 September ceasefire agreement during this offensive". You also introduced PoV language (i.e. "rebel"), and you also removed the NSDC from the guy's title. Destruction. Pure destruction. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could tone it down a bit and assume a bit of good faith? First, you did not cite the sources I allegedly removed. Second the source in the lead was put there following an earlier discussion we had with an editor who requested a source for the name. Third, whether you like the name or not, we already had several discussions on the name and the result was always the same. If you don't like the name, request a name change, that's the procedure. Fourth, I removed "DPR forces suffered their worst losses since the start of the 5 September ceasefire agreement during this offensive" because you stated it as fact and forgot the part where it was actually a claim by the Ukrainian military and not a verified thing. Fifth, I put the word rebel because it is one of the common neutral names used by reliable sources. DPR in conflict situations is used only by Russia and the DPR itself and on occasion by the Ukrainians when they are not calling them terrorists. Rebel, separatist or militant is the mostly common name given to them by the neutral media. And I removed NSDC because it was too long, Wikipedia requests we be short and clear. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I will not tone it down. I specifically asked for your permission to copyedit the article. Instead of allowing me to do that, you've destroyed all the work I spent hours doing. I have no problem with the name, but it should not appear in the prose per WP:BOLDTITLE. "Rebel" is not neutral. It is value-laden, and must be removed, per our Manual of Style. What newspapers do doesn't matter. What matters is our MoS. "DPR" is a neutral designation, and also more WP:CONCISE. Your WP:OR about who uses the term is irrelevant. By your logic, we should call them "terrorists", which is the equivalent of "rebel". There is no difference. "NSDC" is not "too long". At first introduction, acronyms need to be spelled out, and a link provided. Removing information is never proper. If you have a problem with the Reuters-sourced statement, add attribution to whoever said it, don't remove it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to work with you here and even help you but as always you are uncompromising. First, saying you won't tone it down is another thing that can lead to your block, friendly warning. Second, I did not destroy ALL of your work as you accuse me of. In fact, I literally only made somewhat larger changes to two paragraphs you edited, while leaving intact half a dozen others you edited. So literally accusing me of vandalism is not nice. And lastly, you saying what newspapers do doesn't matter is your personal opinion that you have every right to but as far as Wikipedia is concerned what the reliable sources (like those newspapers) say is considered the ultimate designator for us. Per WP policy we write per the reliable sources. You may not like it but that's your thing. And the statement was from a military spokesman (non-neutral party). EkoGraf (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For matters of style, we have a manual of style. We do not use sources for style issues (unless specified by the MoS). Please WP:MOS, and also WP:NPOV, and WP:LABEL. Newspaper style guides are not our style guides. The statement was reported in Reuters, which is RS. They would not report it if they did not think it was verifiable. Attribute it, sure, but don't remove it. Fine, block the hell out of me. I don't care. I won't let you destroy the prose. RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Now you're the one that has broken WP:3RR. I won't write you up, though, because I'm not a legalistic person like many around here. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First I would like to say that I was about to reinsert the statement about the worst losses BUT with proper attribution and not presenting it as fact before you reverted again as part of a further compromise. Second, I only reverted an obvious unsourced non-neutral edit by an anonymous IP editor that could have possibly been vandalism (which is usually considered an exemption under 3RR). And third you committed your 4th full revert which is grounds for a block. EkoGraf (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I already asked User:HJ Mitchell to block me. He should be around shortly, to save you the trouble. If you revert again, I'll do so too. I won't let the prose be destroyed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you bothered to check you would have seen that I rearanged the sentence for it to be more to your liking but I guess attempts at compromise don't mean anything to you. Which is sad. Also, threatening to continue edit warring/reverting after you are unblocked can get you longer or indefinetly blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It was still wrong, per WP:BOLDTITLE, and read poorly. Like I said before, it felt as if you put the words through a meat grinder. The only "compromise" is to follow WP:BOLDTITLE, and write something that sounds fluent. Regardless, please, block me for however long is necessary. At least I'll be on the right side of the prose. RGloucester — ☎ 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Listen I don't care how you write your prose. If you had only put the bolded title of the battle/article name in the lead sentence as Wikipedia requests from us we would have been OK. I think if you bothered to rearange your prose for the sake of that a bit this could have worked out. EkoGraf (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I would only bold the title if WP:BOLDTITLE demanded it. WP:BOLDTITLE made clear it should not've been bolded, and that it should've been written in prose. There was nothing to work out. Why don't you start writing a paragraph for the "abandonment" of Donetsk airport by Ukrainian forces? That's more productive than continuing here. I'm a dead fish. RGloucester — ☎ 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The article has been blocked thanks to your reverts so nobody can edit it now. And WP:BOLDTITLE does not demand prose above everything else as you claim. In fact the first two rules it states to be applied are: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence or Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. Both of these you seemed to have ignored and continued to pursue your view point. EkoGraf (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You've not demonstrated a "formal or widely accepted name". You have one source that uses it lowercased with "so-called" attached, which is not an indication of "widely acceptedness" or "formality". The title cannot be easily accommodated in normal English prose, because if one uses it in the first sentence, it results in meat grinder cadence. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Except for your grievance about the word rebel which is the commonly accepted name (as Wikipedia dictates) did you even bother to check all of my other edits that you accuse me of destroying your prose? For instance [34] here I only literally quoted the official while, like I said in the edit summary, the 12 dead mentioned were for the previous day when they already made an initial report of 10 dead. So 12 is their updated number. Per WP policy newer info trumps older. Here [35] I moved an unsourced sentence so it would fit beside the proper source. And here [36], like I also said in the edit summary, Washington Post article is not the source for the old terminal building battle, the BBC is. EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I agree with those edits (though I disagree with your moving of a sentence behind a citation inappropriately). If you hadn't tampered with "rebels", I wouldn't complain. It doesn't matter, though, because that counts as a revert. If you don't want me to report us both, then I suggest you revert yourself with regard to the "rebel" nonsense. Don't say anything about "commonly accepted name". That's not how it works. If you don't revert yourself, we're both going to blockland. RGloucester — ☎ 05:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll give you the chance to revert yourself with regard to the "rebels", and open a talk page discussion at that article about it. That's the only positive way forward. Otherwise, blockland. RGloucester — ☎ 05:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And in what way that not how it works? Curious. Because I've been on Wikipedia for half a decade and we always looked at the common names/terms. PS In what way did I move the sentence inappropriately? The sentence was already inappropriately placed behind its source/citation and left without a source. Proper procedure is to place the appropriate source/citation at the end of the source, which I did. EkoGraf (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, because there are two sentences cited to that source. The way I had, the sentences before and after the citation were cited to it, with the priority given to the sentence with direct quotes. That's how it should be done. Now it looks like the first sentence with the direct quotes has no citation. As for "how it works", I've explained it numerous times to you, and I'm not going to do it again. Revert yourself, open a talk page discussion, or I'm making a god-damned report, because I'm tired of this rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You actually never explained it beside saying that's how its done. But never mind. As for the sentences, the way you described it that's not the way we cite information. If we write multiple sentences side-by-side (like here) based on one source we cite that source at the end of the last sentence. That's how its always been done since the beginning of Wikipedia. Back to the term rebel. Ok, I'll change it back from rebel, but not to insurgent. In fact, if we are to talk about inappropriate terms insurgent is also inappropriate. First, because its almost never used by reliable sources. And second, per WP definition an insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. And the pro-Russians are most definetely recognised as belligerents and they have their own regular armed forces. Hardly insurgents. So, will change it all to DPR. Unless you are going to object to that too? EkoGraf (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't change anything other than the ones you just changed to "rebel", otherwise that might be considered a revert. As long as it isn't "rebel" or "terrorist", I won't complain. The OSCE, the neutral observer in this conflict, and the monitor of the ceasefire, refers to them as "insurgents". There is no shortage of sources referring to them as "insurgents", and these are usually more neutral sources. They are not considered belligerents (in the formal sense) by Ukraine, but there is no need to get into that.RGloucester — ☎ 05:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So not rebel or terrorist. Ok. Remember that. EkoGraf (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There [37] no rebel. Even wrote then instead of than so you wouldn't be annoyed. Everything cool? EkoGraf (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not okay, as you reverted my wording again. Please restore the existing wording with the new "militants", or that's another revert. How many reverts can you possibly make? It should look like this "Militants broke into the airport's old terminal building by using smoke bombs for cover. According to a spokesman for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the DPR advance had been supported by "Russian drones". Their tanks turned their guns on the new terminal building, the main stronghold for Ukrainian soldiers at the airport", or whatever. The only thing you should've changed was the "insurgents/rebels/militants/whatever". RGloucester — ☎ 06:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand what a revert actually is? I did not revert your wording! If I had it would have been the same as it was before you implemented your version of the sentence. I simply: added two words the and then, moved the part about the drones forward by one sentence, and shortened spokesman for the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Ukrainian spokesman. Where is the revert? EkoGraf (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Mr I've been here for half a decade should know that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". That's what you've done. I told you only to touch the "rebel", instead you've made a total mess. Restore the wording, or report it is. I want to be done with this, so can you please stop messing with stuff, fix this, and be done. RGloucester — ☎ 06:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I made no such kind of revert. I changed the position of one sentence to a place where it never was before you and I showed up (not revert), added two words that weren't there before (not revert) and shortened the title of one guy (not revert). So again, where is the revert? EkoGraf (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been making changes to that phrase since the start, such as here. It is a "revert", because you reverted my revert of your changes. The change is different this time "Ukrainian" instead of "military", but it is still a change of the same manner. Now, restore the original wording, or a report is being filed. This isn't that hard. I told you specifically only to change the "rebel" business, not to mess with anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 06:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, your primary problem is with me shortening his title and not with the addition of the two words or the moving of the sentence forward by one? Is that right? EkoGraf (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that you changed " Insurgents broke into the airport's old terminal building by using smoke bombs for cover. According to a spokesman for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the rebel advance had been supported by "Russian drones". Rebel tanks turned their guns on the new terminal building, the main stronghold for Ukrainian soldiers at the airport" to "According to a Ukrainian spokesman, the militant advance had been supported by "Russian drones". The militants broke into the airport's old terminal building by using smoke bombs for cover. Their tanks then started opening fire on the new terminal building, the main stronghold for Ukrainian soldiers at the airport". You should've only changed the stuff that says "rebel" or "insurgent". You should not've changed the spokesman's title, or "turned their guns", or anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 06:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, your rational is I made a revert of your wording for his title because I changed it already in the past. But now the "turned their guns" comes in. In what way is it a revert if I did not change that wording at any point before until now? What difference does it make if it says turned their guns or started opening fire? Why do the guns now matter to you? EkoGraf (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The guns matter to me because that was what was written, and you should not've changed it, as it counts as a revert of my edit. Now, restore the god-damned wording and let's find something better to do. RGloucester — ☎ 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So what you write is set in stone and cann't be changed by others? You are aware of WP's first rule that editors don't have copy-right claims and their edits can be changed at any time by others. You know what, never mind. At this point I think you are simply messing with me while wanting to finish this of your way that your beautiful version of the paragraph stays the way you wrote it for all eternity. Doesn't matter anymore, I have a temperature of 102F and need to drink my pill and lie down and don't have the concentration or energy to fight with you anymore. There, you are the victor Mr defender of the English language. Hope you are happy. I've been feeling sick all night and if I stay and try to debate this with you anymore I think I'm going to puke because I already did a few times today. Simply don't have any more nervs to fight. EkoGraf (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't set in stone. However, three reverts per 24 hours, fellow. That's how it goes. RGloucester — ☎ 07:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, what happened to you not being a legalistic person and instead asking to be blocked after conducting 4 reverts intentionally?...Doesn't matter, like I said, enjoy. EkoGraf (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Notice that I didn't write you up, and that I opened my self up to a private artillery bombardment. Notice that I asked for permission before making any changes to the article. I do not play games with AN/I. If there is a problem, it should be resolved here. However, after my compromise, it was a shock to see you continuing to revert. I figured we were done with this nonsense. The smarter thing to do, of course, would've been to have a made a thread on the article talk-page and asked for outside input, as I said at the start. I don't know why you are averse to such threads. RGloucester — ☎ 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Better before

I found that the article was better before that huge change.

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Hey!

It would be enough to give the article some sources claiming a "second battle began" on either September 28 or 29 (either of these dates). That's the most fundamental claims ("facts") of this article, proving its subject has ever existed - and isn't a Wikipedia hoax. You know the principles of WP:RS and WP:V and WP:SYNTH and others related, right?

But the thing is, such sources don't exist. It's as simple as that. They don't exist. It's literally original research.

And not only pactically every source in any language will not only not confirm these claims, but often will actually say to the contrary. That is that the fighting has continued since May on-and-off (and recently there was a Christmas-New Year truce too), and of course there's a plenty of reports of HEAVY fighting (including ground attacks, not just shelling) before late September. Even if one would only accept just the MOST reliable English langauge media outlets, there's more then enough to disprove the claims of "there was no escalation until the day when a tank shell killed these soldiers". Which was just a completely random event, and nobody reported it otherwise (not even the Ukrainian military, who were the source of this news - and who never talked about a "second battle", just like practically no one did).

So I implore you to look into this yourself. Even if it means just to read through the references that are already used in the article. Start reading just these, and you'll see.

I really hope you will, because I'm tired of this and how nonsensical it is. I don't want to bother anyone, and I'm not going to push it myself anymore, but just take a look and I'm sure you'll understand then. Thanks! --302ET (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is just a simple and convenient division of content based on reports in media, nothing else. RGloucester — ☎ 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

another airport heading

I disagree when it comes to keep details in the War in Donbass article, think it's better to have them in the battle articles when those exist and keep toward summary level, because the History section is getting rather long. The sentences He said "Let our countrymen hear this: We will not just give up our land. We will either take it back peacefully, or like that", referring to the capture of the airport and Ukrainian forces said that there had been "no order to retreat" from the airport, and DPR parliament chairman Andrey Purgin said that while DPR forces had gained control of the terminal buildings, fighting was ongoing because "the Ukrainians have lots of places to hide". are already in the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport article and are not so central. Such an offensive by separatist forces would signal the complete breakdown of the frequently ignored Minsk Protocol, which established a buffer zone between Ukrainian-controlled and separatist-controlled territories. is just a comment, and without a source it's not that helpful. IMHO Narayanese (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced, and it has been sourced (see The Guardian article). I've added another source. It is important to have a summary of the most important battle of the war. Nitty-gritty stuff isn't important for this article, but by statements DPR leaders about potential advances are, because they demonstrate the prospects for the continuance of the war in a larger context. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I looked at the Independent ref and missed the Guardian one. Narayanese (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problem with User:RGloucester. Thank you. RetΔrtist (разговор) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mariupol offensive redirect

The previous discussion that you mentioned did not reach a consensus on this course of action so you can not simply redirect it. Proper procedure is to start a merge request, a move where multiple editors will have a chance to voice their opinions in support or against the merge. In the previous discussion you only had 3 people (including you and me) with 1 for the merge in the end (you), 1 against (me) and 1 for ether way (Arbutus). So, please stick a merge tag at the discussion page and lets see what people think. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You said a merge would be suitable if the events did not advance. They did not. They are already covered in a more detailed way at the timeline. There is no reason for the article to exist. The discussion already happened. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I NEVER said a merge would be suitable if the events did not advance. In fact I said the OPPOSITE. I said to leave the article since the clashes were notable enough in the news during that week that they happened and said to only RENAME the article if it had escalated. I never said to merge. So, I ask again, please, start a proper discussion as WP dictates for a merge and stick a merge tag. If I remember correctly you yourself said three people is not a consensus a few days ago (and that was when we all agreed, which is not the case here). EkoGraf (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is policy, and policy demands deletion. The article is based in an WP:OR collection of events not found in RS, and is a WP:CONTENT FORK of the timeline. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
And you can present that argument in a merge discussion on the talk page and see if the others agree with you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I refuse. Enjoy that pitiful article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine. PS Will look to add a few more sources to the article in the coming days that could confirm that there was an organised offensive against the town at that time. EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The level 2 heading that exists refers only to the events/section from September 6 onwards, while the events/section from 28 August until September 5 doesn't have any heading if you remove it. The level 1 heading (Events) exists for both sections as an overall heading. Do you understand me now? Why leave the heading for section two but leave section one without a heading? EkoGraf (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk airport numbers

Which numbers? EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

All the various casualty estimates. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, nope, not seeing any problems. The acc. Ukraine estimate reference has all the sources for the numbers given by the Ukrainian military for various periods that we know of which come up to 64–95+ soldiers dead as stated. The (acc. DPR) estimate is literal according to its source. And as for the separatist casualties we got two sources for two different periods, one saying 27 dead and the other 16 dead which is 43 as stated. If you were probably referring to the 21–52 killed (15–21 January) in the acc. Ukraine reference I linked three sources for that one. 1st source - 21 dead (15-21 January) per military reports and this represents the lower estimate, 2nd source - 6 dead of the 21 died on 21 January per military report, 3rd source - 37 dead (21 January) per and individual soldier's report. So for a higher estimate of 52 killed we had 15 dead (15-20 January) plus the 37 from 21 January. Hope that cleared it up. If you were not referring to that, tell me specifically what you were referring to.EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That cleared it up, thanks. I do suppose that these are all a bit away from reality. We'll most likely have to wait a while for more verifiable estimates. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think they are away from reality but like you say it will be some time before Kiev states how many cyborgs were killed during the battle, if they ever will that is. PS Thanks for calling my title for the Mariupol article crap, its in no way violating Wikipedia:Civility. In any case, I'm fine with your title as well, as long as it doesn't say First because so far we haven't had a second one, only offensives on the outskirts of the city in the countryside. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the "first" needed to be removed, and I'm glad it is gone. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Casualties article

Going to start an article on the casualties from the Donbass war so a more detailed analysis could be achieved except for the figures we have in the infobox. After I start it you are welcome to improve it as well. EkoGraf (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent prospect. I'll let you carry on. If you've finished it, and it needs a bit of cleaning, do ask. I don't do numbers, myself. They hurt my head. RGloucester — ☎ 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I did what I could with the little data there is. I excluded any information where for example the Ukrainians claim rebel dead and the rebels claim Ukrainian dead since those are most likely unreliable propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

War in Donbass

Unsourced? You only need to turn on the television or read the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no RS agree with your assessment, and talk page discussion has verified this over the course of months. Take it to the talk page, but you'll find yourself dejected. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"foreign questionable sources"

- the most hilarious comment i have ever seen in Wiki! Afraid, stems from inadequate attitude.Axxxion (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to be so pompous as to assume that other people are unable to read if one is unable to read. Google translate, if you cannot read.Axxxion (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Debaltseve

1st, you reverted again to the repetitive control of Ukrainian control. 2nd, read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital letters#Military terms, battle names are capitalised. Also in addition As a rule of thumb, if a battle, war, etc. has its own Wikipedia article with capitalized name, the name should be capitalized in articles linked to it as it is in the article name. 3rd, referring you again to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence rule number 2. If you think the title is not accommodated in normal English, than accommodate it. 4th, its not your draft. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything, you have no copyright claims. EkoGraf (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You must not be able to read. WP:MILTERMS only applies if RS term the event "Battle of Debaltseve", as it says if it is an "accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources". They've not done so. It is a WP:NDESC title that is written as "battle of Debaltseve" (not "Battle of Debaltseve") in the running text, and per MOS:CAPS, must be lowercased. Bold titling is not necessary. I don't need to accommodate it, and in fact, I shouldn't do, as doing so would imply a proper name where none exists in RS. I should write it in proper English, like it says to do. Go the heck away, and stop with your poor English rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
consistent capitalization in sources Here you go [38][39]. And that's just a quick surf through the net. So, bold, capitalise, and accommodate. Go the heck away, and stop with your poor English rubbish. Gross violation of WP: Civility but don't matter really. And I see you nominated your own draft for deletion, talk about having a fit of rage. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Two sources do not make consistent capitalisation, firstly. Mr Lyon could tell you that. What's more, those are in headings, and not in prose, so we don't know if they'd capitalise it in running text, making them useless for determining whether this is a proper name or not. The vast majority of sources do not have a specific name for these events. Those sources are not even Anglophone. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Didn't expect you to acknowledge the sources. Actually I knew you wouldn't and that you would regard them as useless. Because I knew any source I come up with you would disregard to push your POV, because that's simply how you are, I've learned that much. PS not even Anglophone, where does it say on Wikipedia we use only Anglophone sources? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer, doesn't say anywhere) EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

References

{{2013–15 Ukrainian crisis navbox}}

OR/TE

' The BBC report included a video showing unarmed protesters trying unsuccessfully to stop armoured vehicles from moving into the city, and one unarmed man being shot in the chest.' - the video doesn't show the man shot in the chest at all. - not as far as I could see - and it showed people clambering over vehicles but where does it say 'unarmed' - it is OR - and TE. don't let your political ideology and affinities corrupt your edits. Sayerslle (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "OR". The narrator himself, a BBC reporter, says it. Listen to what he says. What you're doing is OR: looking at the video and making your own determination about what happened. The only non-OR is what the BBC said happened, which is exactly what that sentence says. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
the text you want restored says 'it shows ' - what it doesn't - and where does it say 'unarmed protestors' -it doesn't - you are troll-ing. if you think the sentence says exactly what the report says, and shows, - well, you've got a bloody cheek impugning intelligent students who write reports that get covered by the kyivpost that's all I can say - you can't even follow a bbc 2:13 news report Sayerslle (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you actually listen to what the guys says in the video? Maybe I can go to the section for deaf people, and find a god-damned transcript. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Listen to the damn thing, starting at 29 seconds. What do you here? A guy was shot in the chest. People were in the street, jumping onto an APC to try and stop it. Please listen and look. The fact that you can't understand this is extraordinary. What the heck is wrong with you? RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
give me the time in the report , the exact time , when 'unarmed protestors ' are mentioned. no bluster and flannel - what point in the report. Sayerslle (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say unarmed, as far as I can tell. Remove "unarmed", if you want. The rest of the sentence is valid. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Debaltseve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesti TV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

HCPUNXKID is good. He also did some excellent work on the Syria maps. EkoGraf (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could contact him, about it? We don't have good relations. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
He hasn't been around that much. EkoGraf (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mariupol shelling incident

There seems to be consensus to close that article and rename it so its not an offensive since there has not been an offensive, only the one-day shelling. You want to close it and rename it as you see fit what the proper name should be? EkoGraf (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of January 2015 Mariupol attack, which was accepted by others. Feel free to move it there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. It seems Arbutus is adding new information. Perhaps the name should not change, after all. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to have been an exclusively Ukrainian claim of an attack on the town, no neutral sources confirming. Also, no sources confirming an organised offensive, plus even if it did happen, its been more than 10 days of quiet since the offensive allegedly started. EkoGraf (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

2014 Odessa clashes

I have reverted your removal of the content at 2014 Odessa clashes – you are effectively gaming the outcome of the RM. If you attempt to do so again, this will go to ANI. Number 57 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gaming anything. The scope of the article has changed. Now, as I said in the RM, I have to create a summary article for all the Odessa clashes in 2014, and make individual articles. That's what we knew was going to happen when we expanded the scope of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As promised, a report has been filed at ANI. Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm merely enforcing consensus, which was to expand the scope of the article. I feel you must be off. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57:Now that I've got a good broad summary article up and running, as was demanded by the RM discussion, would you care to assist me in transferring the edit history of the old article to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I must have missed the "bombings" in December, but you cited alternative media as your 'source'. Something tells me that mainstream media don't want to show us the December bombings in Odessa. As for the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, I'm afraid that the article should be about "May 2014 Odessa clashes". Perhaps I'll try to reorganize the layout if you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll put proper sources when I launch the new article on the bombing. I don't see how any of the sources are "alternative". Is Interfax "alternative"? I was just starting with what I had set up. There were no "May clashes", only "2 May" clashes. Don't start making more of a mess. I don't forgive easily. RGloucester — ☎ 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who revamped the whole article before administrators and I cleaned up your tirade. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I was merely doing what people wanted: expanding the scope. Are you going to tell me that writing a new article is bad for the encylopaedia? RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't imply that. Well, why not merge the specific event into one article? I don't see how independently significant the event is per WP:N. I see it as part of the year's clashes. Well, reactions are needed to prove the event's independent notability, but a mere clash doesn't make it more independent from Ukrainian crisis and/or War in Donbass, does it? But if it's independently notable per news media, so be it. --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I considered that, Mr Ho. However, having examined the RS available, and the existing article, it seemed that the structure of the 2014 article would suffer if it was forced to absorb all the 2 May content. The 2 May incident has a special significance in both Ukraine and Odessa, more so than the other events, even the wide-scale clashes during Maidan at Odessa RSA. RS treat the event as separate from the other Odessa events, and allowing a sub-article allows the structure of the summary article to be preserved, without drastically increasing it in length and delving into problems of WP:UNDUE weight. As an example, you may see the international reactions to the 2 May incident, which were significant. No such reactions took place with regard to the other Odessa clashes, or even the bombings. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like where this is heading. I insist that "2" be re-removed for precision's sake. If there are no other notable clashes in May, say so. Reading the "Aftermath" section, if the sources consider following events "clashes", let's consider them clashes. Otherwise, how would an average reader type on a search box to find the article? George Ho (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be removed, or I will have to create many more articles. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead with your "threats" or "promises", which do not frighten me. I'll be brave to see what you are up to and what you will do. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It isn't a threat. It is very simple. I do not understand your obsession with these maters, not merely with regard to this article, but with regard to many. Why do you spend so much time moving articles, or trying to do so? What benefit do you reap? There are some moves that make intuitive sense, but others that don't. Generally, I think people she stay in their own topic area, and only mess with stuff they know about. Yes, you could bring up the "Umbrella" article as an example of me doing just that, but I had planned on working on the article until I realised that the environment wasn't worth bothering with. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are that concerned, try to convert a redirect, May 2014 Odessa clashes, into an article. That way, I don't have to re-request a page move. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I could do that. They question is, why should I have to? What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? What the heck have I done to you to deserve this kind of treatment? If you want to expand the scope of the article, burden is on YOU to encompass the scope within the text. I just don't understand. People are so malicious around here, and lack common sense. It is quite disconcerting, Mr Ho. You are a valuable contributor. Why is it that you insist on making a mess for no reason? RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Making articles easier to search is my intention. Your attitude shows no concern about readers as much as your contributions to make Wikipedia elegant and proper. That's why you requested yourself to be blocked for three days after some mishap block, prompting you to threaten to doing something drastic if you weren't to be blocked. Also, I have a difficult time understanding you, and I am sure that others have problems with you. --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It cannot possible to be "easier to search" for an article on the 2 May clashes if the article is not labeled "2 May clashes", as is standard in English. Labelling an article "May 2014 clashes" does not define the scope of the article. A person will not know what the article is about, because it does not specify. It implies a month-long event when there isn't one. Regardless, redirects exist if there really is a substantial problem, though there isn't. Readers expect everything to be filed away in a common sense manner, i.e. the way we normally file things in our own diaries. That is to say, by date. I'm sure others do have problems with me, but that's no fault of mine. I stand irreproachable in my veracity, in my lack of ulterior motive, and in my stand for Wikipedia policies. If you have difficulty understanding me, all you must do is ask. I'm happy to explain. RGloucester — ☎ 00:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
An event that lasts one or two days shouldn't be titled exactly this way: exempli gratia 2012 Benghazi attack, 2014 NYPD officer killings, October 2013 Volgograd bus bombing, and August 2012 Sinai attack. Are you Ukraine-born, Russia-born, Soviet-born, or what? --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Events should not be titled in that way. That type of construct is unique to Wikipedia (and hence not natural to readers), bad form, and a product of laziness at the hands of those who do not read our title guidelines and who do not understand basic English. I'm not going to try and remedy the situation, as it would be a pointless exercise. However, such titles are a scourge. Regardless, I'm a North Briton. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I was implying. You know what? I'll give you twenty-four hours to create a separate article, "May 2014 Odessa clashes". If you can't at the time, perhaps I'll re-request a move for consistency's sake. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Consistency with what? Consistency with nothing. This is absurdity incarnate. What point are you trying to prove? RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This ain't "September 11 attacks", and other articles don't use exact dates as part of articlestitles. Also, "consistency" is part of WP:CRITERIA. I hope I'm not wasting my breath with you. Otherwise, I'll see whether you are doing so, so I won't re-propose. --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Consistency is a criteria, but it doesn't outweigh the other criteria. If a consistency s not supported by policies or guidelines, it should not be entertained. What is the meaning of this aggression of your part? RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Twenty-five minutes have passed; get moving. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you think I'm going to bow down to threats? Mr Ho, this is uncalled for. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This ain't a threat. If you think so, go to ANI and report me then. Or talk to Magog the Ogre. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't do AN/I. I'm not like that. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Seventy-two minutes have passed; I'm waiting 22 hours and 48 minutes more for your action. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
And you say that I'm hard to understand. Are you sure you think this is a good technique to try on me? RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
2012 Yecheng attack and articles containing "2014" and "attack(s)". See for yourself. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fourteen hours and twenty-four minutes have passed. Can you simply create a stub article about May clashes? --George Ho (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm occupied, presently. We shall see what happens. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
To add a lot of pressure on you, 17 hours and 19 minutes have passed. Yes, you are preoccupied. As discussed below, you've gone too far in other fields. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Over twenty-four hours passed, so what's your final decision? Such choice can lead to consequences. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Ho, my life is not lived at your whims. I've been heavily occupied for most of the day. What "consequences" are you proposing? RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll re-propose a move. --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to be the biggest possible pest, perchance? Would it be possible for you to leave me alone? No? Is there a reason you insist on being a pest? RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions for you

Umbrella Movement is created as a separate article from 2014 Hong Kong protests. The protests ended already at the end of the year. What's the point of creating "Umbrella Revolution" when the events ended this way?

Also, why blocking yourself for just two days after one administrator inappropriately blocked you for a short time? --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said that there should be a separate "Umbrella Revolution" article? My understanding is thus: the "movement" article is the article on the political grouping the formed, whereas the protests article is about the protests that that movement took part in. That's why I think the status quo is quite good, and why I have no desire to change the article title. Regardless, the name of the protests article should've been "revolution", if only because that was the common name of the events at the time, and the most recognisable title. It is preferable over a WP:NDESC title to use a common name, if one is available. Regardless, I think that the status quo was an adequate way to deal with the situation, and I applaud Mr Confucius on working it out that way.
I requested to be blocked because I do not want to submit myself to humiliation at the whim of cowboy administrators. The administrator in question wanted me to beg on my hands and knees to be unblocked, to admit my error. He refused, himself, to admit his own error. He then unblocked me without my consent. His unblocking without admitting his own error was an attempt to force me to acknowledge that he held all the cards. Do you think I'd fall for that trick? And hence, I requested to be blocked permanently. I only allowed myself to be unblocked for pragmatic reasons, namely I don't want to see my work on the Ukrainian articles go to waste. There are too many unsavoury types lurking in the topic area. Without a few people around to ensure that anymous POV-pushing IPs don't get their way, there is no hope for having good articles on eastern European topics. RGloucester — ☎ 00:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh... I really thought you learned your lesson about nominating recent events for deletion too soon. Perhaps you should avoid nominating them until years will have passed. Can you do it for Pete's sake? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should I? Why shouldn't articles on non-notable or unencylopaedic events be deleted? Allowing corruption to fester will years will only allow it to spread. I fear that encylopaedia, however, is already infected to its core at this point, and that there is no going back. I've avoided said area for a while, now, but I can assure you that if I come across an article that should be deleted, I'll nominate it. I simply don't understand. We have principles, haven't we? If the encylopaedia is not meant to be an encylopaedia, the principles should be revised. Until then, should we not abide by them? RGloucester — ☎ 00:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you at least go to either WP:VPP or WP:VPM about the state of "encyclopaedia" or Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are you asking me to go anywhere? What is it that you want me to do, and why? RGloucester — ☎ 01:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You are concerned about rising number of such articles, right? You weren't careful; instead, you nominated such articles for deletion. I just want to you to discuss your concerns with others rather than do something reckless again. (Am I hypocritical on this part?) --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to discuss what has already been discussed. We have guidelines and policies. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, &c. I know a losing battle, though, when I see one. It simply isn't worth while. I'm sure you are aware that the encylopaedia is intransigent. Very little change occurs. Any time a reform is proposed at the VP, it fails. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you proposed one? --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've observed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked your name at archives. Don't give up just because your prior proposals and ideas fail. You can try WP:VPIL again. Otherwise, why not WT:NOT? WP:NOTNEWS redirects to WP:NOT, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the matter with you? First nominating recent events for deletion; then wanting to retain more precision for "accuracy"; then revising your articles. Recently, you withdrew your ITN nomination due to your resentment toward "dominance" of the American dollar. (I don't know what's going on with your private life, but, frankly, I don't see you wanting to confess it privately or publically to stranger or acquaintance, like me.) I don't like what your destiny is heading. Perhaps you'll be re-reported to ANI if my mentors don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Ho, it is very hard to understand you. Do you maybe have a hard time thinking in English? It seems that your thoughts are quite scattered and incoherent. If your talk page is anything to go by, Mr Ogre has pointed this out to you. Can you please lay out your concerns in a plain and comprehensible manner? RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying: what are you really? For what are you aiming in general in Wikipedia? What's your general purpose in Wikipedia? Exempli gratia, why nominating articles for deletion instead of discussing article topics with others? I've already known the "2 May" vs "May" situation, so let's not get there yet. Why nominating one article for ITN and then withdrawing? Why making currency description a big deal in ITN? --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If I had a choice, I'd be writing the Ukrainian articles in peace with no bother from all the assorted pot bangers that seem to have started following me around. I quite despise them. As it is, each time I try to return to peaceful writing, I'm assaulted by various people from all quarters, such as you, Mr Ho. As such, I'm forced to take a tough line. As far as deletion is concerned, the fact remains that non-notable events are being allowed articles, and that this is a problem. I thought I'd have no problem dealing with the situation, as WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS are clear. As it is, it is clear that I shan't be able to get far in that area. As such, I no longer deal with such things unless they appear on my radar. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The topics that you contested are notable in accordance to these rules. But I'm unsure about the 2014 NYPD officer killings, which I nominated for DYK and which got promoted to Main Page. Nevertheless, perhaps you should, as I said, go to WT:NOT and propose stronger enforcement on recent events. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (2015 Hong Kong protests) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2015 Hong Kong protests, RGloucester!

Wikipedia editor Noian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks R :)

To reply, leave a comment on Noian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ITN

Please show where I or anyone "insisted" that a certain currency be used. All I (and other user) did was suggest a course of action; I don't recall "insisting" on anything. It also seems like a poor reason to withdraw a nomination that has wide support.

If you think American currency is "vulgar" that is your business but doesn't seem particularly relevant here. You might wish to speak with your own media which was using dollars first with pounds in parentheses. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is pointing out a simple truth uncouth now? Very disappointing. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is uncouth. Highly uncouth, for you must've known that I'm privy to the facts of the matter. It is a form of gloating, and a disgusting form at that. I shan't have any part in your disgusting currencies. In fact, you yourself must know that the American currency is "vulgar". "Vulgar" merely means "common" (and hence, lowly), after all. I believe that was what you were trying to say, was it not? RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Vulgar means many things which I am pretty sure you know but it doesn't really matter. I cannot speak for others but I was only acting in the way I desribe above, nothing more, nothing less, and I think your reaction to it was grossly overblown when a simple, calm, discussion could have resulted. Again, very disappointing. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I will not tolerate the sullying of my nominations, or my hands, with such vulgarities. Let someone else nominate the picture in question, as you've done. It is better than allowing myself to be brought down to such a low level. RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If discussing what currency to use in a posting is "vulgar" and a "low level", then what isn't? Are you so much better than the rest of us that you don't want to have simple, calm, good faith discussions about concerns that are brought up? 331dot (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no discussion to have. Any currency can be used. A large part of our readership uses pound sterling in their daily life, another large part uses American dollars, and another part Australian dollars, &c. There is no guideline that demands the use of vulgar American dollars, to the disdain of all other currencies. If an editor writes a nomination in a currency, as such, there is absolutely no justification for changing it to American dollars. By that logic, I could demand that all mentions of American dollars be changed to pound sterling or Japanese yen. This is simply another attempt by the cabal to entrench their own dominance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No one suggested it should be changed for the sake of being changed; there were reasons behind the suggestions. There was no effort to be disdainful of any currency. But, it seems you are determined to maintain your anti-American views at the expense of honest, polite, civil discussion. There is really nothing else to be said. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There were no reasons behind it. Any currency can be used to express any quantity, and it doesn't matter which one is used. The same meaning is conveyed. I'm not "anti-American", merely opposed to the people pushing their own world views at the expense of everyone else. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There were reasons, if you'd care to read them, but you seem so set in your view of how Wikipedia should be that you don't want to discuss it. The only reason you offered for your view was (to paraphrase) "I wrote it that way so it should stay that way and no one can change it" which is not very persuasive. The use of the US dollar isn't my or anyone's world view, it's a simple fact- also used by your own BBC. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why what the BBC uses or does not use is relevant. Please go away, and enjoy counting your nickels and dimes. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page does not have a table of contents.

I know this is your talk page, but why did you remove the table of contents? It makes it much more difficult to navigate this talk page. Dustin (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that they look ugly. Hence, I removed it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if they look bad, its a bit of a problem when you have a 540+ kb talk page. That's too bad. Thank you for responding. Dustin (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine crisis casualties

I thought about it and decided to rename the article Casualties of the war in Donbass to something like Casualties of the Ukraine crisis and to have a section for each area of the crisis since it started. Euromaidan, Crimea, Odessa and War in Donbass. It can also help to increase the size of the article so no more requests are made to merge it on that account. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, as long as you keep the numbers separate. I've got some stuff in the pipeline to add, once I have a bit more time. Either way, make sure to use "Ukrainian crisis", as that's the name of the parent article: Ukrainian crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. EkoGraf (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Renamed the article and added the deaths from all theaters of the crisis. EkoGraf (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

new clashes

There's been a new offensive launched by the azov battalion of novoazovsk. If there is enough information and it is notable, should an article be created or it be added to the mariupol offensive?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31357588

For now, stick with the Mariupol article. Let's wait and see what happens before we start creating articles. RGloucester — ☎ 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought you agreed that there was not an offensive on Mariupol, just the attack on January 24. This doesn't seem to be related since the article is only about the single attack. If this is going to be included, the article name should be changed back. TL565 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it should be changed back, now that stuff is happening. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

I just wanted to express my personal gratitude for the article. Your persistence in following on the subject is impressive. Many thanks. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, I would like to invite you for following discussion considering your expertise on the subject. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 10#Template:Donetsk People's Republic topics. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Second battle of donetsk airport

Here's a new source [40] that has some interesting info on the use of tear gas by the rebels and how the two explosions that brought down the terminal roof in two different sections happened and what the results (casualties) were from them. See if you can use any of this material to add it to the article. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That'll be useful. RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Your revert at AE

Do not revert actions by uninvolved administrators at AE. As you know I have some respect for you and I honestly can't believe that this is the second time you have reverted, I'm astonished. Do not do that again. If you'd got a problem with it, ask the admin on their talk page or take the matter to the Committee at ARCA, do not revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I will not allow editors to stymie requests that they do not like. I appreciate that you've now provided an appropriate venue, and I shall issue my request there. However, the insistence of this other fellow on blocking my request with the phrase "wrong venue" was unacceptable. What's more, he didn't even tell me what the appropriate venue was, if that venue was indeed inappropriate. Unacceptable, and I shan't be forced to endure such assaults. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It was an enforcement decision by an uninvolved admin at AE, if you've got a problem with it ask them don't revert because that will get you blocked. I'll also point out that "request review at the arbitration..." doesn't apply as that section starts with only the sanctioned editor can appeal. The issue you want addressed is whether the Committee has happy with IAR especially given that DS can't be used for an indef block (only up to a year) when a normal admin action would have done the job (unlike if it were a TBAN for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with being blocked if I deserve it. Regardless, you are quite right. I don't think it is acceptable to be using the guise of "arbitration enforcement" to indefinitely block an editor that did not deserve an indefinite block by any stretch of the imagination. Like I said on Coffee's talk page, perhaps he could've got away with a normal admin action, even though I think that there was no justification for such an action. However, doing it under the guise of ARBEE makes the situation all the more grievous. I'm no fan of the editor in question, but when I see editors that edit war and post horrific links that require revdeletion get away with a 30 hour or so block, it is absurd to think that this particular fellow was indeffed, despite neither edit-warring nor engaging in any kind of hostility anywhere. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, do not you think that your clarification request to Arbcom was an overkill? What you do reminds me this poem about someone who does everything "right" and therefore obliterates everyone around. I too agree that the block was inappropriate. However, this user only had to politely request to review his block by another admin, and I am sure the unblock would be granted. But if he did not even ask, then who cares? I hope this admin will now unblock himself the user, just to reduce the drama. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not "overkill" to ensure that administrators are held accountable for their actions. To allow such slippages is to nurture a future avalanche. Discretionary sanctions are essential to the smooth functioning of Wikipedia. They are the most effective tool available for dealing with disruption. If such gross abuses of procedure as these were allowed to occur, the system's integrity would be compromised, and so too would be the encylopaedia. The question of the blocked user is not as important as the question of the blocking administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You might be right, but I think it would be fair if you warned/explained him that he may be desysopped by Arbcom after your request.My very best wishes (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That would be extraordinarily unlikely, MVBW. It seems you take a very grave view towards ArbCom. Why is that? RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That is because I have seen a number of good admins desysopped. Yes, he/she can certainly avoid this by behaving properly. My very best wishes (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Police station

That's because the original article was updated. Here's the original story [41]. Going to update with that source. EkoGraf (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the new source. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. EkoGraf (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maya vs Mayan

Please stop changing Maya to Mayan, the Maya form as adjective is well established by WP:ME SO, and is used in many articles, including at GA and FA level. You are not only rendering the article inconsistent, you are also breaking links. This is a mobile edit, so I can't reference you to other dictionaries, but rest assured that the Maya adjectival form is preferred in the vast majority of reliable sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Debaltseve protection

Maybe you should submit a request for protection of the Debaltseve battle article since it seems some IP editors are inserting unsourced information in the last few days. EkoGraf (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Debaltseve Salient

Sir, this technical term is used in all books of military history, military strategy, and by all individuals in the military field. A salient may become a pocket if it is closed, as has happened in this case (and then cauldron is a translation of one of three Soviet military terms for a closed salient), but in speaking of the general situation on the front line that led to a pocket, the term salient must be used, or else the article is trying to describe an event without using the proper and established English terminology for it. I refer you to,[1] the very wikipedia page on the concept itself, which references a considerable list of broadly analogous operational situations!

Mifrc in ri (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, we use what RS describe the battle as. The sources are already provided. None support the term "salient". RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually most call it the Debaltseve pocket. Just wanted to point it out. Not looking to go into an other edit war with you, too time consuming. EkoGraf (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Who calls it a "pocket"? Mainly Ukrainian sources in translation. English sources generally refer to it as a "kettle", and maintain the metaphor. In fact, The New York Times went out of its way to explain the origins of the metaphor. BBC described it as a "wedge". Regardless, whenever I use a term I provide the appropriate sources. "Pocket" is actually the worst translation possible, as it doesn't maintain the nuance of the "kettle". Regardless, none of that matters. I was responding to the fellow above, who wants to call it a "salient", which I'm sure you'll agree is crap. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Who calls it a "pocket"? Mainly Ukrainian sources in translation. Did not know Amnesty International[42], The Telegraph[43] or Business News Europe[44], (just to name a few) are Ukrainian sources. But like I said, doesn't matter. EkoGraf (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Salients,_re-entrants_and_pockets

NSDC spokesman

You are incorrect. I just googled it and he has been THE one and only main spokesman of the NSDC and virtually no other has shown up in the hundreds of NSDC briefings since the war started. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. Going to compromise and leave the first full name of the NSDC. But the second time mentioning of his full name is redundant. EkoGraf (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Chairman. This is a courtesy. Stop refactoring my comments. Next is ANI EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruption of various kinds. 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.  Drmies (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, RGloucester, but this is craziness. Your comments on ANI are way out of line (besides ridiculous), the edit warring on that talk page while removing content from another editor's post is completely unacceptable (you can comment on those individual entries, that's different), and the warnings about NPOV violations on that talk page are silly (to put it nicely). The rant below just confirms it, and makes me wonder if I should remove your talk page access. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a stress reliever

I am here, believe it or not, because I find that editing Wikipedia is a stress reliever.

You may want to revisit that idea! Have you seen the film Chef? You sort of reminded me of that scene in the restaurant when he flips out. Check it out. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, sorry I had no idea on what the current situation was here. I realise you're out of action for a week, so if I put the review on hold I'll leave it for when you come back. Thanks, ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Europe amended

The Arbitration Committee has amended the Eastern Europe case by motion as follows:

On 11 February 2015, Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked an editor relying on the discretionary sanctions provisions for Eastern Europe. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been pre-notified of discretionary sanctions for the topic. Accordingly, the prohibitions on modification do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Unblocked

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

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

Request reason:

Accept reason:

I am unblocking your account (after discussion with Drmies), as per your agreement to the following voluntary (but enforceable) unblock conditions:

  • A TBAN from the "Chairman/Chairperson" discussion and article
  • A TBAN from arguments related to the gender neutrality of nouns/pronouns

These do not have set expiry dates and as with any editing restriction, they can be appealed on WP:AN after a reasonable time. These conditions are offered specifically because we recognize the value of your contributions and we think the project benefits from having you unblocked and active. The above-mentioned topics do not appear to be where most of your content contribution take place, and yet it is (understandably) an area where discussion has escalated and heated up a lot, which leads to the conclusion that it might be better for you to focus on your other preferred topics. We understand that you got a little bit too passionate about stuff (happens to the best of us) and neither me nor Drmies hold any animosity towards you and hope you are doing well. Please make sure to always take care of yourself in priority over some online encyclopedia project. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I liked it better when you said you wanted to be banned forever, and never wanted to edit again. Couldn't you at least have thrown in TBANs on capitalization and English grammar, and on Ukraine-related issues? Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

II am sure that you can find a better use of your time then to leave unhelpful comments. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Debaltseve

If you agree both the DPR and LPR participated in the battle, than why did you remove the mention of the LPR seeking to capture the city as well from this sentence [45]? EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because, as of now, the "vows" that we have sourced are from the DPR. We have multiple such "vows" from early January, where Zakharchenko said he was going to take Debaltseve (and other stuff, like Sloviansk). As far as I can see, we have no such similar "vows" by Plotinsky or LPR officials. Do you have any record of that? LPR has largely remained silent about this battle, despite their participation, presumably because they defer to the DPR on DPR territory. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester/Archive_7&oldid=1149977453"