User talk: RGloucester

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


Nurse[edit]

I have watered down the sentence, so its not giving too much undue weight to the nurse, for sake of compromise. Since you want to exclusivaly focus on the military aspect of the standoff, I established there were clashes beetween the rebels and the military which left one civilian dead. Nothing more, nothing less, not giving any weight to the person who died, just noting what was the fatalities result of the military clash. EkoGraf (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: That's an appropriate solution. Thanks very much. RGloucester 05:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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]

Mariupol[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)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

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)

Reply[edit]

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)

Dugin[edit]

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)

OSCE[edit]

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)

Mercenaries[edit]

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 [http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - 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. Bild.de 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)

[edit]

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)

Invitation[edit]

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)

OSCE[edit]

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.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140221071310/http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv/ukraine-death-toll-rising-on-feb-20-with-at-least-42-people-killed-most-by-gunshots-from-police-live-updates-video-337236.html

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU

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:


https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=bQ6IU52ZFcHJ4ASy1YDgBQ&ved=0CBIQ1S4#q=german+documentary+exposes+snipers+kiev+

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=bQ6IU52ZFcHJ4ASy1YDgBQ&ved=0CBIQ1S4#q=german+documentary++Who+where+the+maidan+snipers

or use these:

http://orientalreview.org/2014/04/03/kiev-snipers-the-regime-and-yanukovych/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26284100

The complete video by the BBC team online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3R_BSz0Cc


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=http://rt.com/news/kiev-clashes-rioters-police-571/|title=
  • Donetsk, the office of the "Red Cross" was attacked and seven hostages were seized''], 10 May 2014.]</ref><ref name= DeutcheWelle10May >[http://www.dw.de/red-cross-hostages-freed-in-donetsk-eastern-

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)

Marixist![edit]

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)

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)

AN3[edit]

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)

WT:MOSNUM[edit]

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;

to

  • 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 83.202.113.90 The user 83.202.113.90 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 (83.202.51.170), 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=http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-orthodox-church-confirms-
  • Donetsk, the office of the "Red Cross" was attacked and seven hostages were seized''], 10 May 2014.]</ref><ref name= DeutcheWelle10May >[http://www.dw.de/red-cross-hostages-freed-in-donetsk-eastern-

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine

http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/570250/--Baba Mica (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the U.S. began supplying the Ukrainian army?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/17/hagel-says-us-to-send-non-lethal-military-aid-to-ukraine/

http://rt.com/news/163564-obama-ukraine-military-aid/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/05/us-sending-advisers-gear-to-ukraine-/10046845/--Baba 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. 194.165.0.6 (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)
194.165.0.6, 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]

L'Aquotique[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)

Rollback[edit]

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)

Cluestick[edit]

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. —201.252.4.163 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[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)

Draft[edit]

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 208.54.5.240 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[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)

Shaktarsk[edit]

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)

Euromaidan

2014 Ukrainian revolution

2014 Crimean crisis

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siege of Donetsk?[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)

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)

Barnstar[edit]

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)

Illovaisk[edit]

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

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

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

Izvaryne[edit]

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)