User talk: RGloucester

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

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

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


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

POV pusher on "list of coup" articles, please see links[edit]

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

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Lugansk People's Republic - article name[edit]

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

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

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

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on Battle of Debaltseve[edit]

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

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

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelya Shtepa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Vyacheslav Ponomarev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Said, claimed etc.[edit]

RGloucester, please read the following carefully.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Not News[edit]

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

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]


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

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

Don't wari[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

Reference Errors on 12 March[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:2014 Odessa clashes[edit]

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

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

Ukraine casualties claims[edit]

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

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

No need for Anglophone RS[edit]

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

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

read this and do not touch the paper *Crimea*'S[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms and initialisms[edit]

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

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


DYK for Nelya Shtepa[edit]

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

Why do you behave as such a donkey?[edit]

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

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


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

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]


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


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

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

Ukrainian civil war[edit]

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

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

Removed comment[edit]

Hey there,

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

Your removed comment on Dicklyon[edit]

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

Waverley Line - substantial edit - seeking advice[edit]

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

Edit war[edit]

Stop icon

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

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

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

Ethnic description[edit]

Hi RGloucester,

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

GregKaye 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

Notification clause of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes[edit]

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

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

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

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

MH17 and the Queen's English[edit]

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

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

Eccles mine disaster[edit]

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

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Move warring[edit]

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

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

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

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

Belongs here not there[edit]

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

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

DYK nomination of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire[edit]

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

AfD of melee[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia's position on experts[edit]

Here you go: WP:EXPERTS. Summary: Yes experts exist. Yes Wikipedia is glad to have them. Yes Wikieditors are allowed to refer to themselves as experts. No they don't get special privileges. Conclusion: Yes I do have expertise here. No it's not antithetical to the project. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an essay. It means nothing. RGloucester 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks. The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request clarification closed[edit]

Hi RGloucester, the Arbitration Committee has closed the Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is your chance...[edit] both say what you want the result to be and help in what may be my best shot yet at finding a consensus to resolve this Station quagmire: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Simpler_questions_.2F_concise_survey. Thanks for all your help and support. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So, it was more important to you to spite me than to fix the problem. Got the message. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described 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.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your copyedit of International reactions to the war in Donbass[edit]

Hello RGloucester,

Thanks for contributing to the page on International reactions to the war in Donbass. With this edit you appended 'with the United States' to 'the cross-Atlantic link'. I am unsure if this is suitable. The source does not name the USA, only NATO (where both the USA and Canada are members) and the EU (which is not cross-Atlantic). My interpretation is that the source deliberately leaves the USA unnamed in favour of just a subtle reference to that ally, but regardless of my interpretation the USA is not actually named. Perhaps you would like to reconsider parts of your edit? I am aware that the original source is not in English, and will be glad to help to clear up any questions about its translation to English. Also, I think the position of the non-NATO members Finland and Sweden is important, and will be happy to see an English source regarding the joint Nordic statement (but it seems to not have been widely reported (yet?)). Lastly, no source seems to make a point of the fact that the declaration was brought on April 9, 75 years after the last time Denmark and Norway was invaded. That's a surprise. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite articles[edit]

Regarding this edit: [3], I was taught to use "an on longish words (three or more syllables) beginning with h, where the first syllable isn't accented" [4]. I sadly agree that usage has become less and less common [5]. At least one authority specifically states that "an historic" is simply incorrect [6]. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware. The determination is based on whether one voices the h or not. In the posh accents of the 19th to mid 20th century, the "h" was silent as in French. In other words, one would say "an otel", "an istoric". This is a lingering usage in some areas, but is not common in modern received pronunciation. I speak with the silent hs myself, so "an" makes more sense to me. However, in modern usage, the silent h is rare, and hence it is properly written as "a historic". If one would like to consult a certain delicious source, one might well like this Hansard report of a House of Lords debate on the matter. RGloucester 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


is English. See wikt:moratoria. Actually, I thought you would approve of that, since it's the King's English! bd2412 T 20:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No. That usage is considered deprecated by the OED. RGloucester 20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm an American. Say, since you're in the UK-ish area, did you make it to Wikimania in London? If so, I have a userbox that might interest you. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a North Briton that presently works in America. Regardless, I don't take myself seriously enough to waste time on such fripperous nonsense. RGloucester 01:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A pity - it was a hoot. It's in Mexico this year, if that's closer to where you are. bd2412 T 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC[edit]

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Hatting discussion at RMs[edit]

This is your final warning. Do not hat those comments again. Please feel free to note your concern that they are socks, point to the SPI, etc, but do not hat them again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to warm me. Why don't you go warn the sockmaster? Who do you think you are? RGloucester 17:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be kind of freaking out and lashing out at your fellow editors right now. May I suggest you take a break, maybe turn off the computer and do something else for a day or two? It can do wonders for your sense of perspective on the relative importance of on-wiki atters. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I will do nothing until the corruption is rooted out. I will not allow this to pass. I will not. It must be stopped. I will not allow this corruption to pass. This corruption MUST be rooted out. MUST. I respected this editor, but I now know that he was not worthy of my respect. To stoop so low as this is disgusting, and shall be dealt with accordingly in line with the collective will of humanity. RGloucester 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
All you are doing is making a fool of yourself. There's still time to pull out of this, but if you persist as you are doing right now I don't see it ending well for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
And what of the sock master, dear Beeblebrox? What shall happen to him, originator of this corruption? Shall he be free to modify the MoS as he pleases, circumventing consensus, as he has done in the past? Shall he be free to ensure that his preferred "style" is enforced with uniformity and false pretences? Shall he continue to circumvent consensus in RMs, as he did before his page move ban? Instead of moving the pages himself, he shall now rely on sock puppetry. Fine. What shall happen to him, dear Beeblebrox? Hang me on a cross, but I shall remain right. RGloucester 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine, you are taking a break whether you want to or not. I've blocked you for two weeks. Looking at your block log I suspect you will continue ranting here and revoking your talk page will probably become necessary as well, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. You can pretend that you blocked me all you like, but someone who is right can never be blocked. It is impossible. Now, I wish that you would do what is right, and go deal with the sock master. It may be too late. You do not want to end up in his grasp. RGloucester 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not blocked? Really? Dude. You need a break. Take one or one will likely be imposed on you. Injustices will eventually be uprooted, if truly rooted they are. The path you are taking now is foolish behavior and reflects badly on you. Please step away from the keyboard and maybe get some sleep. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well that didn't take long, talk page and email revoked. You've managed to talk your way out of previous blocks but it's clear now that you need a serious change in perspective. You are at the crossroads of your wiki-career right now. Take the two weeks off and be welcomed back, or keep up your ranting and raving with socks or whatever and see what that gets you. The choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, it is not permitted to disable both the talk page and the email unless the blockee has abused said processes. Per WP:HARDBLOCK. What talk page abuse and email abuse has their been? Preferably with diffs. This also seems to be a cool down block which is not permitted either. Tutelary (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not a cooldown block, this is a block for very clear disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't notice the WP:AN post about RGloucester's stuff. I do now. However, looking through the history of the talk page and deletion revision logs, it's not clear that he's abused his talk page or his email access, which is a requirement for those options to be disabled while blocking. Tutelary (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that the block-log entry, in full, is "you really, really need to take a break and calm dow", Tutelary seems to have a point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree the block log could have been better worded, the is clearly a WP:disruptive editing block. I don't understand the removal of email, but based on this talk page post, and past behavior I think the removal of talk privileges is somewhat reasonable, though I personally would have waited longer. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone know RGloucester in real life, can they please check on him? Sincerely concerned about this pattern of what appears to be breaks with reality. This is almost worst then his last block related to gender pronouns. :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi RJ. Two weeks is cool, you can probably use a break. I think you made your point with the sockpuppet thing, you've pointed out some interesting editing and geographical patterns, and the IP you pointed to does seem to follow and mimic certain styles, but that doesn't mean it's what you said occurred, and you can't act like it is. The point is - you made your point. That's as far as it can be taken. So please, when you return, maybe back off just a little bit. By overdoing it you might end up permi-banned or topic banned, and that's not for the best of Wikipedia. Yes, some of us know you're valuable to the project, and do sympathize with your frustration at some of the quick and sometimes off-putting changes here. But if you quit, or force the admins hand in banning you, you would then be hurting the project by being removed from it. So enjoy some of the Spring air, aye, and live large the next couple of weeks. See you here soon, Randy Kryn 20:47 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Setting block options, disabling Special:Emailuser access "should be used only in cases of abuse of the 'email this user' feature" (is there any evidence of this?) and "efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the Unblock Ticket Request System) through which s/he can discuss the block" (are they aware of this?). Notwithstanding RGloucester's ranting and rejection of your authority to block, failing to follow blocking policy will only engender further anger and distrust. sroc 💬 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • RGloucester has previously submitted appeals through UTRS, so no worries there. They (wisely) haven't done so yet for this block. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That really doesn't change the fact that disabling talk page access and email with only this talk page comment about refusing to be blocked as to be disruptive. That's not a disruptive comment and not one that violates policy or guidelines. Beeblebrox would do good to re-enable the options which should not have been disabled in the first place without valid abuse in the directed avenue of communications. Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is some history to consider here as well. I might have waited longer and given more "rope", but this certainly wasn't unexpected unfortunately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This user plainly needed to be removed. They were utterly unwilling to listen to reason. Cutting off (nearly) all means of communication in order to try and force them to break off their agressive, nonsensical rants is a move I believe it was within administrative discretion. Polices are there to guide us, they are not there to dictate what absolutely must be done in every single situation. From their block log it was clear to me going in that they had used UTRS before, so they are aware that option is still open to them should they care to waste their time on it, but there was no reason to let what was going on here and at AN continue as it was in the best interest of neither the project nor this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and that certainly qualifies under WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE and the like. What you haven't fully explained is why you decided to restrict talk page as well as email access when there was absolutely no abuse in those avenues of communication. The 'I'm not going to be blocked remark' is not abuse of a talk page. Persistent copyright violations or filling the page with 500 explicit images would be abuse. Honestly, I even agree with the block itself: Just not those two things. There's no outstanding reason to disable those options so you should re-enable them, or demonstrate the diffs of actual abuse and describe the abuse of email that has occurred. Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
When you are blocked for doing something disruptive, i.e. ranting and raving about conspiracies and basically screaming your head off, and then you get blocked and the blocking admin advises you again to cut it out, and instead you just keep going and in fact demonstrate a move even further from a reasonable, realistic position, I believe it is within the realm of administrative discretion to go ahead and cut off lines of communication at that point regardles of whether the behavior meets a strict definition of "talk page abuse". I don't know how much more clear I can be about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocking policy is pretty specific: email should be disabled "only in cases of abuse". It's within the realm of administrative discretion if "administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely". So actually you can be a lot clearer by simply by explaining how the block conforms to policy as it is written, rather than simply saying "you believe" it's in your discretion. Even if you're choosing to ignore that rule as it's written, it's still more helpful than not to explain that. We're not a bureaucracy and there's no need to unnecessarily nitpick your decision to revoke email access, just saying.. Swarm we ♥ our hive 00:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I suppose I could clarify that their block log informed my decision. Given the user's previous record of having their talk page revoked and the increasingly hysterical nature of their remarks I think it did strongly suggest that removing as many avenues of communication as possible was in everyone's best interest. I do not think allowing them to continue their ranting via WP's internail email system would be a good idea for them or for whoever they chose to email. For those same reasons i don't think continuing this discussion here is in anyone's best interest. If anyoner wishes to discuss this further lease use my talk page. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Removing the email access does seem a bit weird. I'll join the others in asking: Is there is evidence that they were abusing the email function? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Previous history may support a longer block period (last time was one week, this time is two weeks) and may even justify blocking talk page access in this case (despite there being no "abuse" here per se this time), but blocking the email feature without a solid justification (i.e., past abuse of this feature or being "extremely likely" that such abuse will occur) is extreme (in fact, looks like a knee-jerk reaction) and should be reversed. This feature, of course, is a method for the user to contact an administrator to request unblocking, and should not be applied lightly. If the user then abuses the feature, then it can be justifiably blocked. sroc 💬 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh come on. After posts such as this, Beeblebrox removed all the user's channels of Wikipedia communication that he could. That showed discretion and was appropriate per WP:IAR. It was in the user's best interests. I hope you realize that RG can still e-mail everybody he has previously e-mailed with, and UTRS, and arbcom, if he should want to? RGloucester, I hope you're OK, you're a useful contributor and a good guy. Please ignore Wikipedia for a few days. To everybody: I think Beeblebrox was also exactly right that continuing this discussion here isn't in anyone's best interest. He has said If anyone wishes to discuss this further please use my talk page. What's so hard? Please use Beeblebrox's talkpage. Let this one have some rest and recuperation. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
User:Bishonen, it's not particularly appreciated for only administrators to be able to cite WP:IAR effectively because it can't be easily retracted. Why should administrators have any aspects of the rules that they should follow? It's just an attempt to get out of the aspects that editors are protected from administrator's extra use of the tools. Case and point: Bishonen as twice removed a well intentioned good faith IP editor citing his own standard of conduct and an essay about wikilawyering. even though in itself is a violation of the talk page guidelines. There is serious administrator misconduct going on this page both in the block and otherwise, and I'm frankly am sick of it. I'm calling it like I see it. Tutelary (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Welcome back![edit]

Welcome back from the Gulag! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always been a good prisoner. It is quite leisurely, prison. I can assure you that I've been reformed. RGloucester 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so long as it's understood that the measure was not punitive... Nothing sus to see here, so just move on, folks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is purely just out of my own curiosity so don't worry too much about it, but I'm just wondering why you choose to deliberately not to have a table of contents on your talk page. It's your talk page and your choice of course, but personally I find it kind of annoying to navigate such pages (I use a tablet so navigation is a little different than it is for a user with a mouse, trackball, etc) and I've never understood why some users do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
They are ugly. One cannot expect that another will design his house for one's own peculiar sake. Regardless, the labyrinth that is this page is merely a representation of the impossibility of navigation in general. RGloucester 21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ukrianian conflict[edit]

Why keep spreading lies on the ukrainian conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6C:CD6C:7501:9D0F:AF8B:C100:7745 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: splitting of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

The issue with the page now is that it is so long that some editors wanting to look at it will not even be able to open the page in their browser. I'm open to suggestions about how we can fix this while keeping the discussion together, but I would rather have people be able to read it at all. bd2412 T 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page. RGloucester 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have moved that discussion to Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


I noticed your change here to make Reagan redirect to Reagan (disambiguation) instead of Ronald Reagan. Isn't Ronald Reagan the primary topic, though? Logan Talk Contributions 23:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No. He is not the primary topic of the word "Reagan", only of the phrase "Ronald Reagan". RGloucester 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, right... [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I see no mention of a "Ronald Reagan" in that search. RGloucester 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You see no evidence of content referring the the 40th President of the United States in the search results? Strange - I know that Google search results can vary depending on the location of the person submitting them, but I wasn't aware that they could return results from a parallel universe where Ron remained the passable Hollywood actor he should have done, and Frank Reagan became President instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen Hollywood Hotel? Fine picture. Fine! Mr Reagan had a lovely minor role. I imagine that his political views were shaped by the haze of the gaze of the camera of the early days. RGloucester 00:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, per WP:MALPLACED, a "Foo" title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. Please initiate a requested move to bring the disambiguation page to the undisambiguated title. bd2412 T 13:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


There was recently move debate in which you took part Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015. The debate continues in a slightly different form on the same page, your participation in it might help build a consensus. Please join the debate on whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} in the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.[edit]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Your GA nomination of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)