User talk: RGloucester

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

Campaignbox Ukraine[edit]

I have replied at the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
seen you and Львівське on the Ukraine unrest page a lot, keep it up Retartist (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]


Considering the claimed large death toll today and the notable events, coupled with the events from the previous days, what you say about an article titled Mariupol standoff? EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A large death toll doesn't necessitate a new article. We already have an article for Donetsk-related events, that is Donetsk People's Republic, in addition to the main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. As far as I can see, we have no need for a Mariupol article yet. If the violence continues in the way it is doing so at present, then I could see justification. RGloucester 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the death toll ONLY. I was referring to all of the events from the previous days and weeks where we have the exactly SAME situation as Kramatorsk. An assault on the National guard base, three dead; attempted security forces recapture of city hall; second attempted security forces recapture of city hall; today's attack on the police headquarters, 3-21 dead. P.S. Today's events were not in the Donetsk people's republic article as you said, I only just now added them since apparently nobody else did. EkoGraf (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure they were. Perhaps it was in the timeline. Regardless, I just don't see the need for Mariupol article right now. There is no reason why it can't be covered in Donetsk People's Republic. If the violence continues over the next few days, then I'd advocate for an article. RGloucester 20:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OSCE observers[edit]

Have the Russian terrorists in Ukraine (or separatists) not kidnapped the OSCE observers? Also, you said that you are not interested in the infobox. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A few observers being kidnapped does not imply that organisation has suddenly become a party to the conflict and taken the Ukrainian side. That's not even getting to the fact that they were not strictly 'OSCE' observers, but observers from OSCE states travelling under the Vienna Document. You've forced me to become interesting in the infobox! RGloucester 22:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are not answering my question. Have the terrorists kidnapped the OSCE observers? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, also, is that my POV only stating that OSCE observers were kidnapped? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
International military observers from the OSCE members states travelling under the Vienna Document were kidnapped. Whether the people that kidnapped them are 'terrorists' is your point-of-view. The idea that the OSCE has suddenly entered the conflict on the side of Ukraine isn't even POV, it is just nonsense. RGloucester 22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, that was not my question again. Were OSCE observers kidnapped? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The international military observers from OSCE member states were taken hostage by members of the Donetsk People's Republic, led by Ponomaryov. I've said it three times now. RGloucester 23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Previously you were talking about some Vienna Documents which I have no idea how they relate to members of the "Donetsk People's Republic". Also, reading over the article about the Donetsk People's Republic I noticed that the fact is mentioned there, yet it took place during the Russian insurgency in the East Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:ArmijaDonetsk[edit]

I understand. I could have thrown in the personal attack, which I mentioned in the revert, but they're blocked anyway. If you want to let that remark stand that's fine, but I would suggest leaving it at that: this or any further comment is not likely to be of any benefit, I'm afraid. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much. Thanks very much. RGloucester 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You should know though that you are not in the wrong, the wording of terrorists right now is loaded by the media and sure is not a NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


Ok. EkoGraf (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes[edit]

I would compare the use of flags in the infobox for the Pro-Russian conflict to the ones used in World War II article. The WWII article happens to be a GA status article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are definitive, whereas many of the "flags" being used here are unsourced or add nothing to the infobox itself. It isn't a big concern of mine, however. RGloucester 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if they are un-sourced then yeah feel free to remove the images altogether from the article. I am just pointing out that there are articles that use a-lot of flag icons in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course. MOS:FLAG is a guideline, and not every article adheres to it. We evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. RGloucester 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well it might be time to look into the guideline then if articles like WWII are classified as GA status articles. Or if an article like Battle of Midway can be FA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
See the talk page of the guideline. There has been a lot of discussion on the matter. Regardless, as we all know, just because stuff exists doesn't mean it should… RGloucester 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


Why did you delete my inputs on the Russian radical parties? Why did you delete all the references including the one where Dugin instructs Mrs Gubareva on separatist actions? The questionable involvement of the Right Sector is okay, but broad and uncovered involvement of the Russian neo-Nazi parties is not okay. Is that how it is? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They don't belong in the infobox. Put them in the body if you want to add stuff. The infobox is only for the most important parties, not for every random little group or person. RGloucester 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Who decides what is most important and what is random? So, Right Sector is the most important, but Russian National Unity and Alexander Dugin political projects are random. Is that right? What are criteria of importance here? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The BBC mentioned Right Sector, and that's considered a very reliable English source. None of yours were mentioned in very reliable English sources, and given the information war on both sides, consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard said that we should only use Russian or Ukrainian sources if what they say is verified by reliable English sources. Furthermore, direct involvement is quite different than backstage involvement. RGloucester 00:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which article exactly you guys are discussing but reliable English sources have in fact mentioned Dugin's involvement: [1], [2], [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't about Dugin's involvement, but his placement in the infobox. RGloucester 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, like I said in the other comment, I try to stay out of infobox disputes as they tend to be a mess, unless it's something really over the top.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Though you'd be interested [4] --Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As of 1 April, around 3,000 people, mainly women and children, had fled Crimea after its annexation by the Russian Federation, out of fear for their own safety and future status. Eighty percent of these were Crimean Tatars.

I haven't read the whole thing, yet. However, it seems a historic crime is being repeated. RGloucester 04:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we were talking Luhansk earlier, this is the only mention of it in the report, and it's kind of frightening

activists in Luhansk have reported receiving threats on social networks. In addition to a list of addresses and telephone numbers of activists appearing on social media, films and pictures of an abusive nature were allegedly posted online by members of anti-Maidan groups. Furthermore, they reported that leaflets and stickers with derogatory content have appeared near the homes of activists, depicting them as criminals and drugs users, and alleging their actual or perceived sexual orientation. In addition, they reported an incident in late March, in which unknown individuals sprayed abusive graffiti on walls next to the office of their organization.36 Reportedly, several activists found posters affixed to the doors of their homes that called them “terrorists”, “agents of the US State Department”, and revealed sensitive private information. According to the interviewees, reports to the police about these incidents did not result in any investigations.

--Львівське (говорити) 04:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Does this source check out? [5] --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes, as long as attribution is given. RGloucester 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
the more I look the more the IB Times India link above the more it looks like an RT copy paste job. No article in the US or UK editions is suspect to me..UK says "Russia Today is repeating claims made in the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper that US mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater) are helping Ukrainian forces around Slaviansk." and here is the RT article the IB Times India one is based on it seems. Your thoughts? --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [ - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd say that, given the coverage in the IB Times, regardless of sourcing, it would be worth it to discuss the claims in the article, along with the original German source and the denial by Academi. RGloucester 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
even though IBTI lied? Does the India Edition have the same "RS" factor as the US/UK version would? —Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Presumably it does have the same "RS factor", though that's not a question for me, but for the RS noticeboard. However, I'm more thinking that the best way to deal with this that keeps cropping up is to place it in the article and provide adequate refutation, rather than to keep removing it. RGloucester 20:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the original source for this story so I have nothing to directly source or quote. has no mention of it but Google is showing up for "bild academi" mostly things like infowars and voiceofrussia. Reddit thread seems to denounce it [6] as coming from a "notorious tabloid" that should come with a grain of salt. It's clear to me now that this original story got spun out and re-sourced to give it credibility (DW or DS, or as RT called it "German media" altogether) but do we credit a tabloid article second hand in a wiki? —Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the best way to deal with it is this:
American mercenary firm Academi denied reports that they had been operating in Ukraine.
With a link to [7]RGloucester 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm being told now that Bild didn't start the story, it came from RIA originally [8]. So Russian news started the story and then through a game of international telephone, RT reported "German media" was the source. Clever. —Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Tricky on their part. This whole thing gives me a headache. RGloucester 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
sorry for flooding your talk page, I'm going to keep looking into this. Agreed on headache. —Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Is someone trying to force it into some article? RGloucester 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you both think things are in order for a while on the current Ukrainian events pages - long enough for some copy editing? I have been getting more concerned as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine has ballooned in the last two weeks, and was waiting until a lull in the "discussions" before I started a copyedit. I am proposing to start on it later today as it has been on the front page a cpl of times now (news/current events), but only if you both think things are stable enough there for a while?
I also noticed that although Russians_in_Ukraine#Pro-Russian_movements_in_Ukraine has a hatlink to the article, there is nothing in that section post 2009. It could do with a brief summary of events in adding to it; I don't have enough of a handle on all of the events/weighting to write that myself unfortunately. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be fine to start. What exactly are you going to copyedit? I can help as well, if you need it. RGloucester 15:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The whole article from top to bottom. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I more meant, what specifically are the problems you intend to address, and how can I help address them? RGloucester 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, had an RL issue develop half an hour after I left my last message, then took a quick look at it last night and saw all the goings on. I'll prob have a look tonight, it was mostly just grammar and prose. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It is fully protected now, for quite awhile. RGloucester 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Too many complications with the Issue With No Name tonight since 18:00 UTC, and couldn't edit without issues, so will try again tomorrow afternoon when I get back. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


I uploaded a blue vector version of the Police Scotland logo to replace the low quality blue version added by another user, which they uploaded onto commons and therefore will certainly be deleted. I'm not sure whether the blue or colour version is most appropriate for the article. I like the colour version more, but the blue version does appear more recognisable due to it's predominate usage. I do however think moving the text to the right of the symbols, as in some examples would be more appropriate for the infobox. Also I'm not sure whether having multiple Police Scotland logos uploaded here is allowed per fair use policy. We currently have 4 non free logos, when from what I can see, only one is allowed for 'visual identification at the top of the article'. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe should use the colour one, as that is the original from which the others are derived, and makes the most sense. I've put it back in. RGloucester 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oligarch (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) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, RGloucester. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the position of the image on the 2014 pro-Russian unrest article[edit]

You've got a point, but the text is squeezed in a such narrow space that it makes a bit less comfortable to read it.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Volnovakha checkpoint attack for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Volnovakha checkpoint attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volnovakha checkpoint attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


RGloucester, I invite you to visit my User Page and to comment abou it. It's not very elaborated at all, taking into account the tools of Wikipedia, but I had some difficulties.... In the start, there was not a single page of Latin users, which I found amazing! (Not Latin-Americans, I'm Latin-European). So then, I just went on, but the flags are too huge, anyway! Thanks for watching, and I welcome any eventual reccommendation!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm NE Ent. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Federal State of New Russia (2014) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You've been around long enough to know calling another editor a "fool" isn't acceptable. NE Ent 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Now that the DPR is holding 4 actual indisputable OSCE observers, which article does that go in? —Львівське (говорити) 06:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Either the New Russia page or the DPR page. I'm not clear as to which one, but I think the DPR still exists, so I'd vouch for that one. RGloucester 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
just realized its Ponomarev again, so I guess the Sloviansk article with all his other hostages. Oy. --Львівське (говорити) 14:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Sloviansk (formerly Sloviansk standoff)[edit]

I've opened a thread here about this article; it's impossible to properly copyedit an article as unstable as this one is now. Please relist it when the dust settles. All the best, Miniapolis 23:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution[edit]

Please remove the blatant propaganda lie posted on the 2014 Ukrainian revolution page.

The following line:

By 13:00 on 20 February at least 34 protesters more had been shot dead by police, with reporters verifying the bodies (15 at the Kozatsky Hotel, 12 at the Ukraine Hotel, 7 at the Central Post Office).[159]

Source given is : "Ukraine death toll rising on Feb. 20 with at least 42 people killed, most by gunshots from police". Kyiv Post. 20 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014.

The source says 35 death toll and does not even claim to be able to identify the police as the responsible.

the article even states clearly:

Most of the victims APPEARED to have been victims of gunshot wounds from police and shot near October Palace this morning as protesters advanced on police.

If you feel you're admin enough to remove entries on talk pages, you should have enough honesty to correct blatant lies when you get them pointed out to you as well. The BBC Newsnight team and the German documentary on the fact that fire on the demonstrators contain incontrovertible evidence that fire came from the Maidan controlled Hotel and radio recordings of the police conversations on radio shows they do not know who is firing and the firing is coming from other buildings. No written order to fire on the demonstrators exists and no one in the Yanukovic government would have dared put their name on such a document - none of the Police accepted or could accept anything but written orders for such firing or risk getting accused of and jailed for carrying out actions they had no authority to carry out. These are now KNOWN facts _throughout_ western academia and will be part of ALL official political institutes publications. Please show some absolute bare minimum and remove the claim I referred to as the source has been proven both wrong and not a credible source anymore. Or do you suggest we use Nazi newspapers from WWII as credible sources on the invasion and occupation of Poland and all the other occupied countries. Please do not try to stifle actual facts. As a Marxist you should find it easy to support accuracy and reliability as well as finding it easy to remove inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events. Also the _claim_ in Kyiv Post that Police shot and killed 34 people does not make it so, is not enough as source - it does not constitute a serious criminal investigation and it is at best hearsay. Please act as an adult or refrain from trying to re-edit when I remove the erroneous entry myself tomorrow if the entry has not been corrected. I will post your edits or lack of such along with this post to you and other admins accross usenet and academic sites if you fail to bother complying to your own (Wikipedia) rules, guidelines and policies here as admin patrolling that page and the talk page.

Broadcast on german state television on the 10.4.2014 this investigative report presents evidence for their having been snipers from among the ranks of the opposition, shooting at their own people at Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. The show is called Monitor, and it was screened on WDR which is part of the state broadcaster ARD. With english subtitles.

You can choose your own reliable sources from Google:

or use these:

The complete video by the BBC team online:

if you fail to find the BBC Newsnight reportage with google, I will aid you or supply the links myself. (already supplied above)

Now you have more than TWO reputable links (check google results) that document the falsehoods of the Kyiv post statement.

I trust you take the appropriate action that any decent adult would do with any bare minimum of honesty and integrity left in him or her. That is if you really are a half decent Marxist as you say on your page and not just a paid cover and a left gatekeeper. I trust you set your honesty and dignity higher if you are not. I wont bother listening to, reading or wasting time replying to juvenile retorts, attempts at discrediting sources or any other dishonest attempts at "disqualifying" me. Posts to my page will be deleted if they contain any such juvenile crap. Please stay on topic, refrain from doing anything or do what is honorable. I have nothing further to discuss or communicate with you.

Good day to you sir.

Nunamiut (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't even edited that page. Take your rants elsewhere. RGloucester 05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Neither has he, he went to your talk page before going to the article itself. Maybe he's from the future? ಠ_ಠ --Львівське (говорити) 20:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a discussion on the talk page on that topic - thus preventing actual discussion, inputs and fixing of the issue. And if you feel and think adherence to accuracy, honesty, reliable facts and truth is "ranting" to you you have ZERO business being on or editing Wikipedia on ANY serious topic. I see you have no care for any of them - thus you are no Marxist as I am one myself and have been a socialist for 25 years. This is my last reply to you: do NOT pretend you can "patrol" the talk page of 2014 Ukrainian revolution on which I am discussing the above mentioned issue again unless you plan to contribute, defend your position and provide adult factual and rational arguments to the talk page and discussing issues. If someone has been misusing your username/account I suggest you look into it - as I have no way of distinguishing you from a fraud as long as the wiki username "nick" is identical. Nunamiut (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I never edited that page, or removed anything from any talk pages. I do not know what you are talking about. Could you please provide diffs? I have not even watched that page. RGloucester 14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You, RGloucester, are no Marxist. He is one and has been a socialist for 25 years.--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Edinburgh Trams[edit]

Couple of points:

1) My edit summary stated: 'Lead → rewrite',[9] no mention of 'update' as you have asserted

2) There was no stealth, merely an attempt to improve the article.

3) At the end of the day you have reinstated the article back as originally proposed,[10] no idea why you decided to pick a fight in the first place. Appreciate your recent efforts have been focussed on editing pages to do with the Russian crisis (rather you than me, is almost as mad as the crisis itself), but can you please maintain a degree of civility when posting on other articles. Mo7838 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an attempt to improve the article by reverting the sentence to the way it was before I edited it earlier! Quite right, that's not a revert at all. I'm civil as can be. Don't hide behind "rewrite" when you are really reverting changes others have made. Your wording is not an improvement, but that isn't a matter for my talk page. RGloucester 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
So I delete the comma,[11] you reinstate,[12] and then you delete it.[13] End result is you have adopted my proposal, so what was the point? The assertion that I reversed your post by stealth is with respect incorrect. Mo7838 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Not the comma, the sentence structure. RGloucester 03:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

Endorsing what?[edit]

Can you please specify which view you endorse. PS I do not want anyone to be blocked or banned. I would just like that Director stops insulting me. He can do what he want, filing RfC, report me to AN/I but not insulting me. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified. RGloucester 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

About your post in my talk page[edit]

I just exposed my generic position about any kind of issue, actually. Am I guilty of what? To say that Lvivsky is a Canadian, when he is? To disagree with him about political positions, when we obviously do? Well... As I've said to him, as he keeps being objective, for me it's fine! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Volnovakha checkpoint attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | place = [[Volnovakha]], Donetsk Oblast, [Ukraine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • publisher=Euronews|date=14 April 2014|accessdate=14 April 2014}}</ref>ref name=gorlovkaeuronews/><ref name="rtapril14">{{cite news|url=|title=
  • Donetsk, the office of the "Red Cross" was attacked and seven hostages were seized''], 10 May 2014.]</ref><ref name= DeutcheWelle10May >[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Wow, that's interesting. I wouldn't have pegged you for that! What are your thoughts on Thomas Picketty's book? Do you favor reforms such as mincome, or are you an accelerationist?—Atlantictire (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more of what one would call a "cultural Marxist", but not merely so. Economics don't interest me. RGloucester 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh you mean in the way Marx said that every group of peoples should have the right in a socialist society to create their cultural identity and guard such a one? Or that Engels wished to see ethnic minorities (as an entity) exterminated in favor of clear cut collectives which create harmony and protect the revolution better? If not, please stop calling yourself a marxist. Read and educate yourself: You see what worries me is that you so called "Cultural Marxists" have goten the whole thing upside down. If anything the drive was for one world culture of the workingclass , guided by one system of values and identities. The other version being the typ of thing that was attempted in the USSR with clear homelands/republics for each group. You seem to instead thrive in an environment of social disharmony. You would perhaps call it exchange but an exchange happens volountarily and is not forced upon you from all directions at once. I don't really stand by any ideology and like being confronted with a degree of cultural ambiguity. But yeah, you folks seem to have your own stuff mixed up. (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

About the map[edit]

RGloucester, this is the map at the peak of the situation! And I emphasized I tried to emphasize the tragic events in Odessa, while triying to minimize the events in regions where the situations were not severe, like Dniepropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv or Kherson. I think there is a humanitary reason to emphasize Odessa! It still keeps the previous information and adds more information! Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no benefit. The criteria for the map already exist. What happened in Odessa were a few protests turned bad. Nothing more severe. There is no consensus to give WP:UNDUE weight to one day in May. It is highly misleading, and inappropriate. RGloucester 02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know if what happened in Odessa was so irrelevant as you're trying to point out in your WP:UNDUE. Well, for whoever was aware what really happened there was anything but pointless. It was a humanitary disgrace! I'm not cold hearted, as you may have noticed. And I don't think that the situation in Odessa should be compared to the situation in Dniepropetrovsk! Don't forget that there were retaliations in the Donbass because of what happened in Odessa! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. That's not what the map is about. The maps is about telling people the basics about the level unrest in each area. There have only been protests in Odessa, nothing else, and we can't blow that out of proportion, which would be WP:UNDUE. Just because one set of protests went bad on one day doesn't mean we provide a special colour in the map, regardless of how much a tragedy the events might've been. RGloucester 02:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of regions of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (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) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Please read my warning at this report at AN3. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

ip lock[edit]

we may need to get protection again, the IPs are getting a bit crazy with the warring and propaganda —LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely go for it. I've had enough of this for a while, and I've already been "warned" for reverting IP nonsense, so I'm staying out for a bit. RGloucester 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


In the discussion, you use the wording "I oppose the changes mentioned above for the same reasons as Kahastok", which appears to be suggesting that a proposal to change

  • the main units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;


  • the main units for road distances, road vehicle speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;

to bring the guideline more into line with actual usage is correctly characterized by your comment

"the idea of "metricating" Wikipedia in this content for the sake of it is an example of righting great wrongs, something that is opposed by policy."?

If your comment does in fact refer to my contribution, it would appear to me to imply - incorrectly and inappropriately - that I am in breach of policy. If so, we need to discuss this further, along with some of your other comments. Before replying, please consider what you think is the main unit of length in the UK, and then look at the current wording of the guideline. Perhaps it would make for less drama if you reverted the recent addition of the word "length", which inadvertently (assuming good faith) seems to make the mile the main unit of length in the UK. Rather than objecting to any suggested changes and making unwarranted assumptions about others motives, please take the trouble to read and digest what is being suggested. --Boson (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that addition as inappropriate. However, I do not think that there is a main unit of "length" in Britain. Both are used to a similar degree. As such, my comment refers to the idea of switching to metric merely because it is used in some areas, by some people (as is Imperial) is "for the sake of it", and inappropriate. RGloucester 17:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I take that to mean that you did not intend to characterize my suggestions as doing anything of the sort. Perhaps you could make that clearer in the discussion.
The guideline is simply badly worded and badly thought through. The addition of "length" typifies the problem. In an attempt to "defend" imperial measures we end up stating that "length" is specified primarily in miles - no restrictions, so the guideline ends up with us having to invoke WP:IAR to justify not specifying the length of a plank in miles. That does not encourage compliance. If you think about it, the same is true - to a lesser extent - with distance. Not all distances are specified in miles. Road distances should normally be specified in miles or yards (not mentioned) and must be so specified on traffic signs (though footpath signs often give metric distances – to agree with the OS maps – until the activists from Active Resistance to Metrication fire up the Batmobile); many other distances are usually specified in kilometres. A few other distances are usually specified in miles (such as distances between towns), and for many other distances usage varies. Generally though, colloquial and journalistic usage disproportionately favour imperial measures, and the guideline is trying to push us in this direction. Where else do we follow the usage of newspapers rather than non-fiction prose in books? I am afraid the toxic atmosphere that has been generated around this topic by a few users (some of whom are no longer with us) is preventing a dispassionate look at the real problems, and any suggestions for improvement are met with inappropriate reactions.
I am hoping that you will help fix this guideline. For a start, as well as removing length, "yards" need to be mentioned and the blanket "distance" needs qualifying. However it is almost impossible to work co-operatively to arrive at a sensible solution when any attempt is met with edit-warring or a barrage of defence of the current version, however obvious its faults are. —Boson (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to get more specific. I feel that the vaguer the guidelines, the better. Usage is too much of a mess to sort out through a style guide. Newspapers can choose what they want, as that is their prerogative. I wish we could do that, and just settle on imperial or metric, or whatever. However, that will never achieve consensus. The second best option is to provide a flexible guideline that challenges the notion of a "straitjacket" whereby one must use a particular unit in a particular instance, unless, of course, there is good reason for such a rule, as there is with distance and speed. RGloucester 19:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

SVG versus PNG image on 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine[edit]

I noticed that there is an SVG version of the main image for 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine at File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.svg. Why hasn't it been getting updated and why haven't we been using it? I wanted to update the title for File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.png to reflect the name change, but I couldn't because it was a PNG. I would have thought it preferred to use an SVG where available, but this one appears to have been forgotten a long time ago. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

PNGs can be easily edited, much more easily than SVGs, for most people, as demonstrated by those who keep editing it. The SVG version doesn't allow us to use a good font, and has sizing issues, and hence the PNG is preferred in this instance. RGloucester 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
How do you edit a PNG? I know how to edit the SVGs but not the PNGs. What software do you use? The SVG font limitation is a fault of MediaWiki's, but I guess that doesn't make a difference. Dustin (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Federal State of Novorossiya[edit]

I saw on the talkpage that a result had been reached, if it had stayed at "New Russia" and someone made the change to the article lead to Novorossiya I am sure you would have undone the edit too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the title of the article, "Novorossiya" remains as transliterated Russian, and not English. It is misleading to state otherwise. RGloucester 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

Should articles entirely sourced from news limited in size?[edit]

Dear RGloucester, you are an experienced editor so you can perhaps explain me. I am quite concerned for the direction that Wikipedia is taking in the respect of the events in Ukraine. Is Wikipedia an Encyclopedia or a newspaper? In principle something that is not yet in secondary sources should not be here. Or at least the articles should have a limited size. What is your view? —Silvio1973 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You know what the answer is, Silvio. We are WP:NOTNEWS. I've tried on and on to remove newspaper sensationalism from our articles, to stop the creation of articles that don't meet WP:PERSISTENCE, and which are examples of WP:RECENTISM. However, I've failed at almost every turn. Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus, and sadly, it seems like the large influx of single purpose accounts has been able to turn our Ukraine coverage into a sort of index of tabloid articles. There isn't very much you or I can do about it, other than remove the offending stuff and argue our position on the talk pages. RGloucester 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
For God's sake... consensus. I did not believe rules could be overriden because 5 or 10 people decide to push a POV. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not the way it is supposed to work. We're not supposed to be a democracy. The best argument is supposed to "win". However, any time an administrator tries to enact such a judgement, as they did with, for example, the recent move discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, they take heavy flak. I feel like most administrators are therefore afraid of making such decisions, for fear of reprisals by angry mobs of editors. RGloucester 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Deletion of posts[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Don't delete not your posts. [14] [15] NickSt (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm...? Sorry, but that does not appear to be RGloucester's post. Dustin (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • He had removed my posts two times. Links are shown. NickSt (talk)
  • Wait, that says "don't delete 'not' your posts". Dustin (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
He states on his talk page that his English level is "intermediate", so you can give him some slack in that regard. However, my removing of the RM is because it is improperly formatted. You don't start an RM you oppose on behalf of someone else who doesn't want an RM. That is incorrect formatting. RGloucester 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't about Nickst's English, it was that I originally read it as "Don't delete your posts". Dustin (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It presently says "Don't delete not your posts". RGloucester 19:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my "grammar error". It means "my posts". Incorrect formatting or not, agree or not agree, it's a not a reason to delete the post. Really nonsense. I never seen it before. NickSt (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Because you said it was on my behalf, as I linked at that discussion. I haven't given you consent to take action on my behalf. RGloucester 19:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Really strange. You want to rename articles but don't want to take part in official discussion about renaming. I started RM section but you removed it. I don't understand you. NickSt (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to rename the article, which I've said fifty times. There is no such thing as "official" on Wikipedia. RGloucester 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to an IP user that keeps making the same unsourced changes in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine[edit]

There is an IP user that has kept making the same changes (or very similar) concerning to the number of casualties among Ukrainian servicemen killed during the conflict, in the infobox, in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. Concerning to that user, I wrote to EkoGraf, the following: For your information - uncivil edit summaries about you and Iryna Harpy by the user The user has written the following edit summaries in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article in response to you and Iryna Harpy:

  • Undid revision 614010666 by EkoGraf (talk)I'am right, you are wrong, you are know for your propaganda : End of the discussion ! + 3 crew of a mi-8 on the 22 june.
  • Undid revision 614071797 by Iryna Harpy (talk)You should look for beer......or for glasses.........
  • I don't understand why EkoGraf and his gang haven't be block a long time ago....

Now another IP user (, along with Coltonrsmith0320, who I suppose are all the same, have also made the same changes. The IP user indicated in the edit summary the Kievpost as a source, as well as the url, but didn't edit the url. I undid the edits, and I told him to edit it, if it had a divergent figure, and told him that if he didn't know how to do it, to ask for help. Can you do anything about this problem?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: Please report the IP at WP:AIV. After that, I'd recommend you request page protection for the article at WP:RPP. I don't have time to do this myself, at the moment, but you should be able to handle it. RGloucester 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor in question has made insulting comments towards multiple editors and unsourced edits at Iraq and Syria related articles. I requested protection for the articles but my request was denied due to the IP guy being eventually blocked due to his abusive behavior so the administrator thought the problem had been dealt with. However, the IP vandal's address changes every day so he is evading the block. I asked the administrator who denied my earlier temporary protection request to reverse his decision because of his block evasion but have yet to get an answer. It would be probably good that one of you makes the temporary protection request at WP:RPP. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I recommend you open a WP:SPI. RGloucester 19:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southport, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfield (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) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine related articles[edit]

Have you any idea about the best way of approaching all of the newly created articles that deal with all of the minutiae of the Ukraine Crisis. I know there was a bit of discussion here however it would appear that efforts to merge/redirect/delete are often unsuccessful. Even International recognition of Lugansk People's Republic was briefly an article. It would appear that WP:RECENT, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, etc. are routinely being breached or ignored. Would it be best perhaps to seek administrator input? It seems to be noticeably missing in what is a relatively controversial area. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lunch for Two: I know that it sounds bad, but there really isn't anything we can do other than use AfD, speedy deletion, merges, and redirects. Administrators won't get involved in content matters. I've been fighting these superfluous articles since day one, and some battles were won. Often, the creators abandon them after the while, and we can deal with them appropriately. However, with regard to the constant "battle" articles being created, there isn't much to do other than try to talk to Arbutus, who has been the chief creator. I've advised him as such, but he hasn't seemed to understand. He's a good and diplomatic editor, though, so I let it slide. Relying on AfDs isn't ideal, though, as it seems people are all to willing to say "meets GNG" without even bothering to think about it, or examine our present coverage. Once again, though, there is nothing we can do other than fight the battle the same way as anyone else. RGloucester 06:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For a good and hard work in the 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk article M.Karelin (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! RGloucester 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Ukraine Views[edit]

There is no "military" of Ukraine Wikipedia definition of Armed Forces of Ukraine - Armed Forces of Ukraine are the military of Ukraine. Besides, we go, per Wikipedia policy, with the most common term (which is military in the news) even though it is not the official name. As for the claim part, sources themselves are saying they claimed. Just one example [16] (from a reliable source) - A Ukrainian government spokesman claimed that more than 300 pro-Russia militants had been killed and at least 500 wounded. So its the reliable sources that are implying falsity as you would put it, not us, and we write per the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the sources says. We don't copy the commentary of the source, only the facts (substance). Our MOS is clear. We don't say WP:CLAIMED. We use "said". "Military" is incorrect, and will revert until I die in that regard. I will maintain neutral point of view, and not allow you to skew things with words like "claimed" or "alleged". They "said" it. That does not imply that they actually did it. Merely that they "said" it. This is a correct and neutral statement, per the MoS. Military is incorrect, and I will not tolerate incorrect translation. RGloucester 04:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the sources says. Actually, per Wikipedia policy it does. If you don't like it its your personal POV that you have a right to but it does not count on Wikipedia. If reliable neutral independent sources imply falsity we also do the same. Presenting it as fact is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality because you are than presenting the figure of one side as something that is factual, and not something that has not been confirmed. You can also claim military is incorrect but Wikipedia disagrees with you, and if you have a problem with that take it up with an administrator. Also, your comments that you will die while pushing a personal POV shows a degree of hostility which is contrary to Wikipedia policy on civility. I would ask you to cool of, assume a bit of good faith and talk for a compromise wording instead of starting and edit war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am really trying here to keep calm and assume good faith on your part but you are really not making it easy for me with accusations such that I am trying to skew things with words like claimed and alleged. First, I never used the term alleged (that was a lie on your part), and second claimed is the term used by independent reliable neutral sources. And again, military is the Wikipedia term for their Armed Forces, if you consider it an incorrect translation take it up first at the Armed Forces article and than with the 90 percent of news sources calling them the military. EkoGraf (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
NO! The MOS is clear. If you can't read, that's not my fault. We do not imply falsity in the words we use. That is not how it works. We are NEUTRAL. We are held to the standards of a tertiary source, because we are WP:NOTNEWS. We are not JOURNALISM. We don't verbatim copy sources. That would be a copyright violation as WP:CLOSE . I am not presenting it as factual. I present it as factual that the Ukrainian guy said that, because that is factual. I do not present his story as factual, just as I do not present the separatist story as factual. Both sides are there, and both sides "said" stuff. I did not "lie". I did not say you use the word "alleged", but it is in the same class of discouraged words as "claimed", as verified by WP:ALLEGED. Military is not the right word. The translation of the Ukrainian is "armed forces", and will not tolerate you failure to accept WP:ENGVAR. The article is written in British English, if you can't handle that, too bad. Drop the stick. RGloucester 04:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Ukraine guy did not say it, the Ukraine guy claimed it, per the source. Claiming that I am doing a verbatim copy is incorrect because claim and say are not the same things. You pushing the word say is not neutral because you are than changing the meaning of what is in the source. However, I will drop the stick (hostile again) on the word since you are uncompromisingly (as always) not in the mood to talk it out. However, I am not dropping the stick in regards of the Armed Forces thing. The British English Wikipedia calls the Armed Forces of Ukraine their MILITARY, as you would put it if you can't handle that, too bad. I will change it back to military, and I would warn you (friendly warning), that if you revert my edit again about the armed forces thing it will be your fourth revert and I will be within my rights to report you for breaking the 3RR rule. I myself will be conducting my 3rd revert of you with this edit and will stop edit warring with you after that because I myself am not looking to break the rule. EkoGraf (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I will revert you until I die. Military is wrong per ENGVAR, and an incorrect translation. I will revert you until I die. If there is one thing I do not tolerate, it is the misuse of language, the corruption of everything I hold dear. I will not allow you do make such a mockery of the English language. Try me. Just to note, by the way, there is no "British English Wikipedia". RGloucester 04:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Its not a translation, its the Wikipedia definition and the common name used by the media. And accusing me of mockery for sticking to Wikipedia's definition and the definition of everybody else is once again contrary to Wikipedia's policy on civility. And it was actually you who used the term British English first. When I said British English Wikipedia I ment the wording, not that Wikipedia itself is British English. And thank you very much for the revert. I am reporting you now and will also note to the administrator your highly temperamental hostile language. EkoGraf (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The title of the body is the "Armed Forces". There is no "military of Ukraine", otherwise the article would be titled as such. In British English, "military" usually only refers to ground forces. Not to all things pertaining to warfare, and usually excluding air forces and navies. Enjoy your little report. At least I will be on the side of the English language. It will haunt you for eternity. RGloucester 05:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
First paragraph, first sentence - The Armed Forces of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Збройні сили України (ЗСУ) Zbroyni Syly Ukrayiny, (ZSU)) are the military of Ukraine. I think that's pretty much clear English as it gets. And haunted? Seriously? EkoGraf (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a spiritual man, and I have always seen the spirit of the English language. It courses through me. It is what makes me live. To see it beaten by people like you is a pain upon my soul. I know that that spirit will haunt you until your last days. The English tongue is a language that never forgets what torment it has endured. You will feel her wrath. RGloucester 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever, you have been reported. EkoGraf (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A coup for you! RGloucester 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever, going to sleep now soundly, without feeling any wrath or that I am haunted. EkoGraf (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 insurgency in Donbass, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Konstantinovka, Vyacheslav Ponomarev and Igor Strelkov (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) 09:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass[edit]

What's the problem? Are we not all equal on Wikipedia?—Baba Mica (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy here. All edits must be reliably sourced. Yours were not. RGloucester 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass[edit]

What's the problem? Are we not all equal on Wikipedia?--Baba Mica (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me help you find a connection between the Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian paramilitariy in this conflict. I know for sure about that. International and political support for the Ukrainian government is very open to the U.S., EU, NATO and other European countries. You can hear it every day. Just turn on the TV or go on the internet portals. I did not lie.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Can this?--Baba Mica (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's okay now. I put some old timers.—Baba Mica (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It is unsourced, again. RGloucester 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donbass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • православного священника - СМИ]</ref> This was confirmed by the Church and the Prosecutor's Office.<<ref>{{cite web|url=
  • Donetsk, the office of the "Red Cross" was attacked and seven hostages were seized''], 10 May 2014.]</ref><ref name= DeutcheWelle10May >[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donbass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass[edit]

What is wrong? I have found reliable sources.

"Globalresearch" is not reliable, firstly. Secondly, none of these belong in the infobox. The infobox is only for direct participants, and none of these are direct participants. RGloucester 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Mr. RGloucester. Neither Russia is not directly involved in the conflict, and is still placed in the template. Conflict on the border has, but the invasion of this part of Ukraine does not yet have. Paramilitaries from Russia likely to exist for them to know. This morning, the Ukrainian government confirmed that her part of the military equipment sent by the United States. --Baba Mica (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Americans have said that they support every move of the Ukrainian government. The first link is a website of President Barack Obama. He signed and gave the United States permission to help the Ukrainian army in supplying military equipment and food. Data about are everywhere. Mica (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the U.S. began supplying the Ukrainian army? Mica (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Americans do not want to give Ukraine military equipment for children to play, but to fight against the pro-Russian rebels in the east of Ukraine.—Baba Mica (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. That is meant for the international response section at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and is already there. It doesn't pertain directly to the insurgency, nor does it ever belong in infobox, which is only for direct parties to the conflict. RGloucester 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As the civil war in Syria, right?—Baba Mica (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Syria, nor do I care about Syria. RGloucester 18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
View article Syrian civil war and see the parallels of American aid Syrian rebels. Concept is very similar. There is interesting information role for Russia to protect the Syrian government and helps politically, financially and militarily. USA in conflict in Ukraine protects the Ukrainian authorities in the same way.—Baba Mica (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's called WP:OR, and I don't really feel like listening to rants. All that I know is that what you put in the infobox doesn't belong there. RGloucester 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Belongs to the 2014 pro-Russian riots in Ukraine, although the Ukrainian government has not yet declared a military conflict. When Ukraine declared a state of war, the pattern must be changed. The title will probably be a War in eastern Ukraine. There should be inserted my changes.--Baba Mica (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing an edit in 1.5 seconds I spent 45 minutes of my night sleep time making is not a nice way to "welcome" me to Wikipedia[edit]

But I know verbatim what you're going to say to me. Sorry, I'm afraid I'll be leaving this craphole instead. (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edits did not conform to Wikipedia policies. There isn't much I can do, but direct you to look at our neutral point of view policy. RGloucester 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC), if you still feel that your edit improved the article, why not start a discussion on Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass? That is what article talk pages are for. You could explain why you think that your edit makes the article better.
Please be aware that "I worked so hard on this edit. Do you really want to put my contribution to waste?" is an argument to avoid in discussions. (The link refers to deletion discussions, but the point is valid here.)
By the way, you will need citations for the link you made between events. You will need to be careful with this - do the citations show that the link is generally accepted, or is it the propaganda of the Russian Government? If you cannot provide suitable citations, it will fail under NPOV policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

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.

German nationalism in Austria
added links pointing to Tyrol, Little Germany and Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye
2014 insurgency in Donbass
added a link pointing to Artemivsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

GOCE drive[edit]

Hey RGloucester, do you mind listing the number of words that you copyedited? Also, if the article was an "old article" from March/April 2013, put *O at the end, and if it was from the requests page, it would be great if you put *R. I'm not one of the coordinators, but I am helping to fix the leaderboards on the copyedit page :D Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]


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)


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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict[edit]

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)

Please read WP:NBSP[edit]

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&nbsp;May", and times such as "1342 UTC" should be written in coding as "1342&nbsp;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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [17], The Local Switzerland's News [18], Reuters [19], Echo Net Daily [20] 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[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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

RE: July 2014[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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?[edit]

Most of the information in the timeline is missing has it been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

Black Future - disruptive editing?[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

What is the difference of this article with these articles?

Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present)


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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

DYK for Deutscher Nationalverband[edit]

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

Updated map[edit]

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 again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Epic Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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[edit]

Trayvon Martin shooting related edits[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


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[edit]

Better than being poked with a cricket stump...[edit]

Current Events Barnstar.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [21]. 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 [22]. And soon after it was reported Novoazovsk had fallen to the separatists, one of the sources being a pro-Kiev volunteer batallion commander [23][24]. 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 [25] a military source confirmed the rebels also captured Savur-Mohyla hill. EkoGraf (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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'[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

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)


Edit barnstar.png 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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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 [26] I left a message for you there Widefox; talk 20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]

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[edit]

Grammar in the Battle of Ilovaisk article[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity on Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014[edit]

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[edit]

Insertion of a ton of links by a user as a pretext to also insert his/her Original Research[edit]

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[edit]

Request for checking 2 pages[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

The Portugal Barnstar

BoNM - Portugal Hires.png 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)
  • Thanks very much! RGloucester 03:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalize "Infratest Dimap"?[edit]

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[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Concerning to the proportion of ethnic Russians and russophones in Donbass[edit]

I've consulted the maps in the Russians in Ukraine and Russian language in Ukraine articles, more precisely the following files: and 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: [27] and [28]. 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. [29] [30]. 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): [31] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And here are the data about the "Oleksandrivsk District": [32] and Bachmut (Artemivsk) District: [33]. 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: [34] 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)
  • @Mondolkiri1: Let's move this discussion to the draft talk page, so that the discussion stays with the content. RGloucester 18:46, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

As promised Yes check.svg 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[edit]

The IP is branching out[edit]

He failed to get his way on various forums so is now going into other articles with his POV-pushing and original research: [35].Faustian (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti[edit]

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. (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Tone of Car/Automobile Discussion[edit]


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)


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


Why did you revert the image back [36]? 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

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

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[edit]

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


Peace Barnstar 6.png 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)


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[edit]

Ukrainian National Award.png 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[edit]

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?[edit]

Or are you going to keep reverting any text I add to your Talk Page? (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, (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. (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - MOS[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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[edit]

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"[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

Hist/page - talkpage?[edit]

Hello RGloucester, you moved United States occupation of Haiti with this change [[37]]. 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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/ and So far I decided to change 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, | 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 and 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)


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[edit]

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....[38]
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"[39] 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[edit]

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[edit]


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)


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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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! Mondolkiri1talk 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism[edit]

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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

please help us ...[edit]

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

  • Thank you! --Q Valda (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of[edit]

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[edit]

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)
  • You edit conflicted with me on my addition of this. Please put in in the list, I'm not playing this long game. Dreadstar 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg 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)


"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[edit]

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)

reverted your revert of a third party editor on technical grounds[edit]

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

Administrator search committee[edit]

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[edit]

Just a note to say that I consider your post [40] 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 [41]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]


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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to Self-determination[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)


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...[edit]

...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[edit]

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)


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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

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[edit]

?!? 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![edit]

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[edit]

Concerning to your messages and edits[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)Mondolkiri1talk 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): .

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

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[edit] . I'm now on ISIS, but I think this is useful for the Ukrainian War informations. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)



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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Editors Barnstar Hires.png 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)