Jump to content

User talk: RGloucester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 7 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Since you probably know this subject better, would you support such edit? My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of commotion on List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country and List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010 by a biased User:Endukiejunta who is continually pushing pro-Russian POV edits, while regarding the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as that of a "coup." Please visit the talk pages here and here to set the discussion straight. § DDima 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Lugansk People's Republic - article name

I am sorry, but what I have done has probably annoyed you. I have listed your proposal for a change of name for the article on "Lugansk People's Republic" on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have worded this in a neutral way. I think it should have been done that way all along. The move discussion initiated by your request for comment has revealed a good case based on English-language usage for the move (almost as strong as the essentially similar case for Sievierodonetsk → Severodonetsk). The case against both moves is based on the primacy of the native language argument - and if we allowed that argument we would rename Germany: Deutschland.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a move discussion. If you want to move the article, why don't you start your own? RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 passed ; see Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:29, 1 March 2015 (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) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Battle of Debaltseve

Really, I don't understand you. Must there be everywhere ″they said" or ″he said"? What is the problem with ″the separatists claimed"? You are not entitled to revert everything. This page is not only for you, but for all editors, if you like it or not. So when I have time, I will try to find a new wording according to the specification that you gave to me. But then I expect your cooperation and not repeated reverts. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything must simply say "they/he/she said". "Said" is the only neutral word, as it is a simply statement of fact. Words like "informed", "claimed", &c. make implications that are non-neutral. We only accept neutral statements of fact, which is why the MoS says what it says. No new wording will work. Only "said" is appropriate. If you continue to use non-neutral wording, I will continue to revert you in line with our MoS. Prose is used to assign veracity to statements, based on reliable sources. Weaselling around with "claims" is unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you questioning RGloucester about this, Zbrnajsem? I left you a clear message regarding this issue on your talk page on 1 March. Again, please read WP:WORDS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes

You have gone far enough. You were blocked twice (or thrice if separate blocks count regardless of reason). Please let people comment on the recent RM, okay? And enough of ownership behaviours. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I shan't do. I don't let disruptive editors get their way. I'm not that type of person. Until you recognise the error of your ways, you shan't see much acquiescence from me. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you got what you wanted: two separate articles. Well, I don't count December bombings as independently notable because its article is a stub. And I will see the fit of your errors. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want anything. Apparently, the only one that wants something is you, considering that you keep launching disruptive move requests for no reason. What it is that you want, however, is a different matter. There should not be a December bombing article, because I haven't published my draft yet. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examples, please. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of what? RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever "disruptive" RMs I've created besides the one we are talking about. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original Odessa clashes one is a good example. A similar example is your "RfC" at Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the Ukrainian crisis, or your "RfC" at the Benghazi attack article. I don't know why, but you seem to make RMs and RfCs that are destined to go nowhere, and that simply waste time and cause disorder. Stability, peace, and harmony are essential to one's soul's health. Perhaps you need a dose of those? I don't think you understand the gravity of the situations you are placing yourself in. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus agreed to the original RM. How did you repay? Changing the layout of the article and dealing with administrations trying to clean up the mess that you are solely involved in. Also, you think I'll be blocked for things that are considered disruptive? Wait and see when I'll report you about your recent actions. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did exactly what the RM participants wanted, which was to have an expanded scope article. There was no mess. Whether anyone will be blocked is irrelevant, and I couldn't care less. I do know that I'm certainly being less disruptive than you here, even if others don't see it my way. Today I wrote an article on Nelya Shtepa. Her's is a story that I think people should know. I'm quite pro-Ukraine/Europe, but even I see the absurd nature of what's happened to this poor women. The Nemtsov shooting, for example, got a ton of press, but the abduction and murder of Shtepa's main defence witness got none. Instead of messing around with petty rubbish to make a point, like you, I'm actually writing articles and making maps. I'm sorry that you're sad that no one responded to your RfC there, but perhaps there is a reason for that. Perhaps you should take that meaning onboard. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, you've been reported again on ANI. --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelya Shtepa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Vyacheslav Ponomarev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said, claimed etc.

RGloucester, please read the following carefully.

"Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#WP:CLAIM

So there is no reason for me or anybody else to evade expressions like "they stated", "New York Times wrote", "he described the situation like", "according to Mr. XY", etc. All these expressions are equal with "to say". Next time please give me exact informations. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times cannot "write", as it isn't a person. Are you a native of speaker of English? It seems you have trouble with using English as it is used by people that speak it. "expressed themselves" was a particularly peculiar addition, as it doesn't make any sense. Changing "that" to "who" is inappropriate per MOS:RETAIN. In British English, "that" and "who" are considered interchangeable. The article is written in BrE. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of your language has always been considered good or at least sufficient. I spent together four months in England and Scotland in my youth. English Wikipedia is not limited only to native speakers of English, it is a global project. Please do not give me advice for everything. In the said article, there is very probably the following expression: "The New York Times said" (I read NYT on internet frequently). According to you, a daily cannot say or wrote anything. What is to be written instead? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) And yet this: "Who" is certainly better than "that" from the stylistic point of view. Why cannot this be improved? Improvements of wordings are by no means forbidden by Wikipedia rules, dear colleague. And thus you have no right whatsoever to revert everything what I write. Only in cases like "They expressed themselves" maybe, but please evade complete reverts. I am editor of Wikipedia since 2011, and I know most of the rules. They could be applied in my favour. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the verb "to say" is acceptable, because it has a metaphorical meaning that can be applied to objects. Oxford Dictionaries describes this meaning as: "(Of a text or a symbolic representation) convey specified information or instructions". "To write", on the other hand, has no such meaning, and can only be applied to people. Newspapers cannot "write", but they can "say". You fail to recognise the distinction between the two verbs. "Who" is not considered better than "that" in British English. That's only the case in American English, where the distinction between the two is much more firm. Per MOS:RETAIN, the existing variety is retained, meaning that the British English remains. If you were actually improving the wording, that'd be true. However, you are not. You are making it incomprehensible and wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Synecdoche Rhoark (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this might be quite correct - in your view. I am surprised that everything concerning the language in the said article should be really unchangeable. There is nothing like this in say German Wikipedia.

OK, I found this: Consistency within articles: While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

Very nice. I see that this rule has been written in American English. How do I know that the article on Battle of Debaltseve was written in British English? Of course, I suppose you are British (a Briton - would it be correct like this?), and you have as I guess written a substantial part of the article. So I apologize to have remarked that the said article had a dull language. I am sorry, but I felt so. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is dull, but it is dull intentionally. I could easily inject flourishes. I naturally speak in a very over-enriched way. We are not supposed to do that, however. Speaking plainly is the only way to speak neutrally, which is what we are obligated to do by our policy on WP:NPOV. The language is not unchangeable, but changes that violate our policies and guidelines will be reverted by someone, if not me. I started the article. The variety of English used by the starter of the article is maintained, unless there is some reason why it should not be, such as WP:TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, RGloucester. What I see is that this said article is really neutral in its content. If there were such a neutrality everywhere in Wikipedia, it would be a blessing. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not News

Is not among the reasons for speedy deletion, because it is to some extent a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Comment

Your comment directed at me seems unfair and a bit inappropriate. I did not say or imply that those 2 google scholar hits are reliable sources that would be useful to use in the article under discussion; I was explicitly looking for references that had some distance from the subject. And while I didn't detect that one plagiarized from Wikipedia as you suggest it did, I did check them both and was aware that the other only mentioned the Odessa clashes as an item in a tabulation of such events (which seems to be a good example of what I was looking for). Who are you to judge which persons are suitable to participate in a Requested Move discussion (which calls for uninvolved editors to come help make a decision)? Please, that is uncalled for and personally directed, unnecessarily. I respond here rather than at the discussion as this is getting off-topic. sincerely, --doncram 21:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions dictate my response. Carry yourself well, and you shan't have any issues with me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wari

b hapi. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the question that one must ask is "What is ending?" Regardless, the Wikipedia capability for vertical script is quite limited. Sad, no? RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could override their css with my own. What is ending? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a change of outlook, an adjustment of the angle of approach. Nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posthumanism is the mother of reinvention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dude, either you're a propagandist or I don't know what

It saddens me that thise whole "reliable source" business is being used to crush reasonable logical arguments. I've made this point all over Wikipedia, not only here. It tends to be the way that massmedia outlets trump scientific or official sources in general. (I'm mostly active in various sociological discussions). So I see you're clamping down on the Illovaisk battle thing. Not sure why, since you seem to be getting alot of acknowledgement bout your historical expertise and such. You should know if you've done any amount of personal research about this subject, checked out some videos, read som witness statements from Ukranian soldiers that they tried to break out. Yet you insist that Wikipedia should accept the WSJ account of what happened just becaus the newspaper tends to be reliable. It's basically out there that the FSB, CIA, MI5 and such have operatives in just about all major outlets of respective country and they tend to use their influence by writing editorials like this. Wouldn't you agree? That's not to say that the man or woman who wrote for the WSJ is one, alot of people also benefit indirectly from following the official policy and the polciies of said countries think tanks and institutions. Just that foreign and domestic intelligence services have their hand in things nowdays. Anyway, the point is more about that if you've done some research you should see that the WSJ article is incorrect, no? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks?78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No original research. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay look. I'm asking you if you beleive it yourself or not? It's not my video btw, it's the vide of a Ukranian soldier....78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing to note about Wikipedia is that it doesn't matter what we all believe. We can all believe what we want, but it has no relevance on what we write. At least, it is not supposed to do. I don't know who's video it is, but it doesn't matter. We don't know where it came from, or anything about whether it is verifiable. We only have reliable sources, which tell us what is verifiable. They have a burden for fact-checking, and that's what makes them reliable. If the Wall Street Journal and the other reliable sources used in the article assessed the sources that they had available, and came to the conclusion that they did, we can assume that that conclusion is correct. That's because the organisations are well-known as purveyors of facts. On the other hand, we have no RS supporting what you're saying. Therefore, what you are saying is irrelevant and WP:OR observation of videos of unknown veracity. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you have a very biased and occidental view of what is reliable and not. I have started several discussions on this subject and on the general unverifiability of news sources in both the west and the east. Check the talkpage of the battle for links to them. But this is not even about that. The social media in Ukraine is ablaze with discussions on this subject. Soldiers have said these things in various interviews. They are not taken up by western media. But at the same time you see that WSJ sources contradict official Ukranian death tolls. Not only the 1000 figure that you choose to ignore for some reason but even the figure in the article.
I would think the best way to resolve this would be to actually check the agreements contents and then counter check the supposed claims of an armored breakthrough with losses on the various Russian and Ukranian sites that keep track of armored casualties by filming them and adding geo-trackings to them. But it's alot of work. Sill I would like to hear your personal opinion. To me who is watching and researching this it seems so clear. So for me it is problematic that a source I know is not telling the truth is included because of its prior record, primarilly on financial reports. (WSJ doesn't have a dispatch of their own in the field in Ukraine to my knoweldge). Do you see my concern? And if you've resarched this subject you should know that I am right so I would like to ask you why you arent concerned.78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ does have reporters in the field, which will be apparent if you've read the article in question. Keep in mind that this isn't just WSJ. It is also Reuters, Kyiv Post, and a smattering of other sources. I added the 1,000 figure originally, and it is still there. However, newer reports revised the figure down. I'm not in charges of statistics. EkoGraf does them, and he's the one that's verified that the 1,000 figure is considered outdated. Ask him if you have a problem with it. If something is not taken-up by RS, that means that it is likely unverifiable and useless. I'll also have you know that the WSJ articles extensively cites soldiers on the ground. I'm sorry if you think RS are "generally unverifiable". That means you ought find another project to spend your time on. Wikipedia is not here to report "truth", or to right wrongs within the media. It is here to report what RS say on a subject in an encyclopaedic manner. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in one of the discussions I have started the entire western media except for a few major outlets with clear political leanings (and thus for the wrong reasons) refused to investigate what later proved to be falsified reasons for war with Iraq. Your statement that it is likely unverfiable if it's not taken up is not true. There is as I mentioned a clear agenda that is being pushed. And sadly it's even worse with independent media outlets because they tend to be even more dependent on other types of funding and contacts/sources that are conditional. Nothing that media does is verifiable. Media prints subjective accounts of things. Thus every source isn't scientific. It may be generally reliable but only if said outlet doesn't have a policy of attacking or criticizing one party of the conflict. I haven't seen a single interview by WSJ of anyone except the president on the 20th of January so I doubt that they have any active representatives in Ukraine. But it may be. To me it doesn't make logical sense that a force would encircle a group and then refuse them surrender. It's never been done in the history of war so I can't accept it.And it's a problem that you do. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies. WP:RS. WP:V. The definition of what is "verifiable" is clear on Wikipedia. If you do not like that definition, there is not much else to be said. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I'm obviously talking English and not Wikipedian. Verifiable is not Reliable. Indeed it is what you said Wikipedia does not do: "...to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination" (dictionary) so it's Wikipedia that has a problem then, not me. It is amazing to me that you refuse to answer anything about your own personal opinions about this on a subject you seem interested in while I am eager to engage you in a conversation, why? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is not relevant, as I'm not a reliable source for anything. We are here to build an encylopaedia, not discuss our own canards. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No point in expending your valuable energy on talking to socks, RGloucester. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Reference Errors on 12 March

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) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2014 Odessa clashes

If I report you again at ANI, drama will rise, especially with me and Beyond My Ken bickering at you. I don't know what is going on between you and him, but have you done enough at the talk page and the draft page. Re-tagging it as copyvio? Have you stooped so low to make me feel bad? I've done all I can, and this is the thanks I get? Maybe you are skilled, but you appear thankless because you feel thankless by everyone. Perhaps ArbCom will do? --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ho, as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. The page is a copyvio. I wasn't the one that added the tag, which should be enough proof for you. Until you remedy the situation, it will remain a copyvio. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else did for me, no thanks to you. Now grow up and take responsibilities (or co-responsibilities). --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine casualties claims

The number of claimed casualties by ether side has gone into the bizarre I think at this point with a Kiev Donetsk official today claiming 14,600 Russian fighters have died, while the UN has registered no more than 6,000 deaths overall. So I think the current government claim of separatist casualties, and the separatist claim of government casualties, that are in the infobox should be removed and just leave the two sides claims of their own respective casualties that fall within the range of deaths according to the UN. Because I think Wikipedia should be an encyclopidia that presents facts and not unverified propaganda fiction. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on this. Whilst the UN has said "6,000 deaths", it said that this was a "very conservative estimate" based on "available data", and that casualties were greatly underestimated. However, I wouldn't disagree with such a removal, as those particular numbers are unverifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you way in on this issue User talk:Kyrylkov#War in Donbass casualties? User Kyrylkov removed the Kyivpost count (7,577) of pro-Russian casualties and replaced it with a figure double in size (14,600) from a source which original came via a tweet of one government Donetsk official. When I reinserted the lower figure, but left the higher one as well to represent both claimed numbers he removed the lower one again saying incorrect info citing Kyivpost article about Ukrainian casualties as those suffered by pro-Russian fighters. When I confronted him that the source clearly says the casualties in the table of the Kyivpost source are Russian/separatist soldiers killed and not Ukrainian casualties he changed his story and said the Kyivpost article did not say what their source was for the figure, despite the sources for the figures being listed right below the table (mostly government ministries). He further said he doesn't take it as a reliable source. I pointed out for him the sources Kyivpost cites and that he can not make edits based on his POV and if he thinks Kyivpost is unreliable he needs to file a motion with Wikipedia to list it as such. EkoGraf (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Anglophone RS

I kindly ask for your input here: Talk:Minsk_II. There is no Wikipedia policy which says that only English language sources may be used to cite an event, particularly when I only used the Russian sources to cite official government statements. Esn (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that only English sources were required. I said that, per WP:REDFLAG, we need multiple high quality sources, including English sources, to include this exceptional claim. Until this is verifiable, it should not appear in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

read this and do not touch the paper *Crimea*'S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.9 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms and initialisms

Following the discussion you initiated on this, I have made edits at the MOS, MOS:Caps and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, to clarify as per the discussion. I believe these edits now resolve any confusion where 'acronym' includes initialisms. It also clarifies the range of 'case' options and provides guidance on selecting/determining case and punctuation. There should now be consistent an unambiguous language across these three pages. Please let me know if I have not tidied up all of the loose ends. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

DYK for Nelya Shtepa

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you behave as such a donkey?

Your revert of my routine case fixes in December netted nothing but a huge amount of work for everyone; we eventually repaired the mess you made. I thought you had learned that that was just stupid, yet you're back at it. What are you hoping to accomplish by this asinine behavior? Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same of you. What are you hoping to accomplish by this asinine behaviour? RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to continue to smoothly move articles toward closer compliance with guidelines. And you? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to continue to smoothy maintain articles in close compliance with the guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, both of you, why not file request for arbitration enforcement? Sounds better, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I do feel extremely uncomfortable on this site for a number of reasons that were partly explained on my user page. Good bye! My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavement

In the article Curb, an American English article, pavement is the road surface, while sidewalk is the area on the side of the road upon which pedestrians walk. Switching to British english midway through an American English article is confusing. Normally, the subjugated english variant is listed once, and then not again. In this case, it doesn't make sense to put pavement in an article about roads, where the road is the pavement and the pavement is the road.... Cheers, ~ip user90.201.191.33 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED

I recall you having access to the Oxford English Dictionary, so I was wondering whether its definition of "pro-" backs this edit in an article which was intended to be about "cultural appreciation". I had to refer to this and Wiktionary for that purpose. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His edit is acceptable. "Pro" simply means having a "favourable view" of a certain group or idea. I would probably scratch the "love", but there is nothing wrong with "fondness". A synyonym is "Pakiphilia". RGloucester — ☎ 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian civil war

Concerning [1] this, the existing redirect has no more to exist than any of the other two, like War in Donbass. DAB was the best solution, and because of your edit-warring I will likely support a topic ban for you next time it will be put on the table. Please next time you need smth done look for another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, Ymblanter? It is a simple matter. I can understand the desire for a dab page, but dab pages have strict guidelines for when they can be enacted. Reverting "once" is hardly edit-warring. Please read WP:DPAGE. Dab pages are only used when multiple articles have the same name, or where minor typographical variants exist. They are not used for pages that do not have same name. The three pages specified do not have the same name. In fact, we have no pages titled "Ukrainian Civil War". Hence, a Dab page is against the Dab page policy. The original redirect was appropriate per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and there was already a hatnote (as the guidelines recommend) in place at Ukrainian War of Independence, directing people to War in Donbass if they were looking for it. In fact, there is a precedent for this very matter, given that a similar fake dab page, Russo-Ukrainian War, was deleted for the exact same reasons. Please reconsider your actions here, and read the appropriate guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment

Hey there,

You accidentally removed my comment, and I'd appreciate it if you restored it. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 18:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your removed comment on Dicklyon

You said that you must have exceeded 500 words when removing the message. Right now I wonder if you received permission from an administrator to exceed the limit. I have seen your further replies at WP:AE. Care to explain? Will you re-add that removed comment? --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Line - substantial edit - seeking advice

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial [2] edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Second Battle of Donetsk Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

DO NOT recklessly remove others' constructive edits with some vandal's edits, just because you are engaged in an edit war with him. This is destructive behavior (!), do not involve outsiders in your edit vendetta. If I notice that you removed the wikilink to the Donetsk bus shelling incident from the article again, without any constructive reason, I will report about your destructive behavior to an administrator.--85.140.226.137 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic description

Hi RGloucester,

As you first got me thinking about this topic in the discussion at Basques I thought I should let you know of a new discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Presentations and pluralisations of peoples. Your input would be appreciated.

GregKaye 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Notification clause of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes

Hello RGloucester, and thanks for creating this page. In my opinion a fix is needed to the 'Log of notification' sections. You have a link to WP:AC/DS in:

The appropriate procedure for notifying editors of the existence of these sanctions is described here.

Since these are community sanctions not Arbcom sanctions, the notices should be 'by hand' and not be given through the Arbcom system. See WP:GS/SCW for the old type of notification. Long term it might be beneficial to unify the types of notification, but that hasn't happened yet. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but as far as I understand it the rules of awareness still apply, even if the templates are different. That's what was done with Gamergate, and it worked well. I'm going to create a template for the alerts, as I did for GG. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If so, wouldn't you have to make a new entry in Template:Ds/topics/table? Every line item there has a link to an arbitration case. What arb case would you use? EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. I'm not talking about the ArbCom templates, and obviously no Arb case is related. I'm merely saying that the same procedure is used for notifications, i.e. one places the specified template (Template:Gs/Ecig notification), logs the entry, and then that notification is valid for a year. The procedure is the same, as community-authorised DS mimic the procedures of ArbCom DS, with the exception of appeals. That's what it says at WP:General sanctions, and that's how both the SCW/ISIL and GG notifications were done. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MH17 and the Queen's English

Hey, thank you for your feedback on the talk page concerning MOS:ENGVAR. I clearly did not express my initial thoughts all that clearly in starting out the conversation there, which I am sure was at least partly responsible for less than orderly manner in which the conversation progressed. I didn't mean to attack British English, but was looking to find common terms as we now appear to have done. Live and learn, eh?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were attacking "British English" (a funny label, as there are too many completely different dialects to count). I take a hard line on ENGVAR issues, as I don't like how they usually turn out (i.e. badly). I would've defended the use of American English in the article if it had been written in AmE. There have been numerous attempts by editors of either colour to make messes, and break-down MOS:RETAIN, and all of them have been idiotic. Regardless, I would mention that focussing on specific pieces of text is usually more useful than broad philosophical discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eccles mine disaster

I admit that I erred moving this to Eccles Mine disaster. After consulting books, I corrected it. I don't know how I got that wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Move warring

Why do you want to move an article to capitalized title when the only known source uses lowercase? Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. In fact, the "dock" should be downcased as well. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to respect the fact that "Birkenhead Dock" is typically treated as a common name in sources? I'll never figure you out. Is this what God tells you to do by way of admitting you're wrong in such as way as to be able to say that I'm wrong, too? Have a good Easter. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you'd like to collaborate on any other fixes of over-capitalized Disasters, or whether you intend to just keep reverting my work for no good reason. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the RM process, like everyone else. I was thinking that "Birkenhead quay disaster" is actually more common in sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, to be clear, there is no way that "dock" should be capitalised if "disaster" isn't. There is no specific "Birkenhead Dock". The disaster occurred at a dock in Birkenhead, specifically Vittoria Dock, not at a "Birkenhead Dock". If the whole thing is capitalised as a proper name, that's one thing, but if we're going render this a descriptive phrase, "dock" must be downcased. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that; I see that the common caps for Birkenhead Dock are mostly for "Birkenhead Dock Company". Thanks for using sources to help fix over-capitalization. If you want to do more, there are 500 candidates to look at at this list. The vast majority are already correct. A few that I fixed and you reverted are not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs here not there

Comments such as "I just have a low tolerance for obstinate stupidity" are not helping you make your case. It is wisest to avoid inplications that other longstanding, experienced editors such as myself are somehow inferior to you. I am certain you have been aware of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. May want to reread those. And along the way, do not ignore WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS, which is real. Your behavior is very disappointing and frankly, hurts your cause. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However disappointing it may be, it is correct. I know that some people have a fear of truth, and prefer to hide behind niceties. RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And some people are wrong and hide their errors behind arrogance and bullying. Have you looked in a mirror lately? Montanabw(talk) 08:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the only "bullying" being conducted was by you, who feels content to oppose proposals for no substantial reason and to invent false circular logic to try and throw a spanner in the works, all whilst hiding behind a theoretically serene and folksy American facade. RGloucester — ☎ 12:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your views plain. It is obvious that we see things differently. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Easter, by the way! I needn't upset the Fates. RGloucester — ☎ 12:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Happy Easter to you as well. I guess all that can be said is that apparently your opinion of me is about as high as my opinion of you. Perhaps we can meet again under more reasonable circumstances. Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire

Hello! Your submission of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of melee

You voted not to make melee a disambiguation page in a recent move request. Per the discussion, I have suggested the article be deleted due to lack of a relevant, cohesive encyclopedic definition of "melee". Your input would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee.

Peter Isotalo 11:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&oldid=655333778"