Jump to content

User talk:RGloucester: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nunamiut (talk | contribs)
1,307 edits
Nunamiut (talk | contribs)
1,307 edits
Line 620: Line 620:


https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=bQ6IU52ZFcHJ4ASy1YDgBQ&ved=0CBIQ1S4#q=german+documentary++Who+where+the+maidan+snipers
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://orientalreview.org/2014/04/03/kiev-snipers-the-regime-and-yanukovych/
Line 631: Line 633:


if you fail to find the BBC Newsnight reportage with google, I will aid you or supply the links myself.
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.
Now you have more than TWO reputable links (check google results) that document the falsehoods of the Kyiv post statement.

Revision as of 05:19, 30 May 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Mediation?

I see you’re a socially-conforming person who know how obtain the favour of a superior. It’s not so bad currently. Rather than to blame me for my (perceived) faults, you could try to mediate (with Dennis) the end of the conflict. After his “amendment” the fate of the infamous “short-lived country merger” discussion is not particularly important (the article even may be eventually restored in spite of Dennis’ opinion, after a year or so). But I insist on a severe admonishment to Dpmuk in exchange of a possibility for Dennis to save his face. It is my primary condition. I do not know how admins decide who is an alpha and who may be slaughtered (if necessary), and I do not want to learn it, but you can. When sysopped boys/girls will see that they aren’t protected by the tribe in the case of a costly mistake, they will be more reluctant to attack users on the first call of a brass hat next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the second thought, I do not know who namely makes serious decisions here (except Jimbo and ArbCom). I’d appreciate your help if you have some thoughts on it, but if you haven’t, you may drop it completely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first place one usually goes is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation After that, if it fails, one goes to WP:ARBCOM. However, the aggrieved party must make the appeal. However, I'm not sure how it will turn out. Requests for mediation usually go fairly well, and are neutral. I'd expect that that place would be the best place to start. RGloucester — ☎ 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You seem to have deleted my support.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I beg your pardon. There were a series of edit conflicts, and that must've accidentally resulted in the destruction of your comment. Please restore it. My apologies. RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it seems Zarcadia is taking care of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, I got an edit conflict myself as I was restoring. It's back on there now. Zarcadia (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your good edits at Crimea

Hi RGlouceswter: Earlier today I saw your good edits on the Crimea page dealing with Politics. This morning when I looked at the page it was marked with templates and requests to clarify the current military occupation in Crimea and various U.N. votes regarding Crimea. User:DeC appears to be saying that this is the best we can do, "Sometime in 2014 the Russians entered Crimea"? This seems substantially short of the mark. I support your good edit and would support you in returning it in some useful way. FelixRosch (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea edit

The referendum was done by non legit officials with nonlegit procedure etc.The whole world is telling that was not legit. So this is not even neutral. If 100countries are telling that it was not legit and 3countries are telling that it is legit because of the corruption. It is not neutral. It would be with different coralation at least 70/30. My opinion.

We can't take opinions here, that's the point. It doesn't matter whether I believe the referendum was legitimate (I do not). The fact of the matter is, we have to present both sides. Please discuss this on the article talk page, not on my user page. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diet of Galicia and Lodomeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland (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 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Good job on the draft, I'll try to help. It seems you already have an IP vandal…that was fast. --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising. I've never seen more PoV pushers than with these Ukraine articles, as of late. It is absolutely ridiculous. I appreciate the help. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Single purpose IP that just appeared to come on these articles and push this Russian conspiracy stuff. That he's citing wiki policy like WP:CIVIL and NPOV leads me to believe it's some sockpuppet. Good grief. Sorry for reverting on your draft though, it's just frustrating. (do drafts count as your sandbox or is this public?) —Львівське (говорити) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered public, so anyone can edit it. No ownership. I don't think edit warring is tolerated, though. However, I've never seen an instance of edit-warring on a draft before… RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
first time for everything ;) --Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to decide where to edit and i dont want to do double the work. maybe this article should be a very parred down version of the DPR article until we decide? --Львівське (говорити) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it should be left alone, as it demonstrates how unnecessary it is to have separate article. If you'd like to pare it down, go ahead, though. Editorial judgement, and all that. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


regarding your new map, and this was brought up on the talk before, but should there not be a cutoff for what constitutes a protest zone? the issue was that kherson's largest protest was 400 people, which was relatively small --Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This map doesn't differentiate between protest size. As long as there was a notable pro-Russian protest of some size, I believe it should be noted. The table can provide details on specific numbers. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in which case, is that one protest notable?

This article implies that the issues in Kherson are notable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war

And now the user UA_Victory starts correcting the casualties and losses according to his POV and deleting the sources. 2-5 lost in battle https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses here you have the pictures of for sure more destroyed tanks a more clear source you won't find... 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything he has done has been sourced. I can't read Russian, so I don't know what your website says. However, destroyed tanks do not equate to human casualties. Regardless, there is nothing I can do about it. You have to constructively discuss the changes you disagree with on the talk page, without making personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless the tanks, he is reconstructing the whole article. This guy is using figures from "blogs" which even the Georgian government sees higher -> see the casualties. This guy is a joke and probably even paid just look at the last edits. I'am not interested in discussion with him, anyway this is the best example of propaganda on Wikipedia. It's a real shame about Wikipedia. --Wrant (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has been sourced but he just uses other figures than mentioned in the sources.--Wrant (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern, but you have to remain civil. Making personal attacks, for example, accusing people of being 'paid' or of promoting 'propaganda' is not going to get anyone to listen to you on Wikipedia. If you really are concerned that the user in question has a conflict of interest, then the proper thing to do is to report him at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The instructions on how to do this are located at that page. If you really are concerned, if your concern is genuine, then you must remain civil, and avoid making accusations that are unfounded. Provide links to the specific edits that you consider to be a problem, and why. Administrators will then be able to evaluate the claims you are making. This is the best help I can provide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pro-russia article

Just a heads up, but Cmoibenlepro is adding fake stats (or at least, its not in the sources hes citing) to the public opinion section. The section already cites the IRI stats, and his links go to the new york times, neither mention "identifying as citizens of donetsk" or whatever, it's just made up stuff it seems to me. Good stats from the IRI could be integrated into the above section.--Львівське (говорити) 17:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out the references, and they are verifiable. I'll integrate them, and adjust sourcing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i'm confused, i checked and it didnt pass the sniff test to me. What page is the 'residents of donbass' thing? --Львівське (говорити) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ohh, i think the way he combined the nyt and iri stuff made me think he was only talking about the iri --Львівське (говорити) 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it got all muddled up. I tried to parse them out better, so the separate polls have their own paragraphs. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you da man --Львівське (говорити) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Stop editing in a manner that is not supported by Wikipedia rules. Obey to process! ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What process? I have the ability to revert changes I do not think are appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you have that ability. That is the reason why I asked you to obey to Wikipedia process, e.g. change content guidelines if you want to forbid red links. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting out of hand

The discussion at Donetsk People's Republic has gone litterally out of hand. It has become the receptable of any kind of comments, really a forum. Where is the line where the freedom to contribute should have an end. I am concerned because giving the right to exist to such an article would equate to give right to exist to everything. Is this right? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't based on precedent, so you have nothing to worry about. Haven't you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? While I agree that the creation of the article was premature, it has now be realised that the events in Donetsk deserve an article, considering their detail. I don't think the article should be titled Donetsk People's Republic', but an article on the events should. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I give a look to it. Never heard before. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkut (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, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I finally responded... (you can read now why so)

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

*drum roll*

The Ukraine Barnstar of National Merit
Thanks for doing what you do. – Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated content removal

STOP THIS. You did it with link, you were told about it above. Now again [2]. Are you an Anti-European deleter? ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you on about? I had had a previous discussion whereby we decided that consensus was against inclusion in the main article, and should instead be included in the timeline. However, as there was a disagreement, I added right back in. I don't know what it is you are talking about, but I hope you can remain civil. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning included "hoax", but also a hoax is content. Read WP:NPOV. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the closing administrator did not agree, as he deleted the article. I was not the only one to propose that idea. Please stop targeting me for things I have not done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Oh, and be prepared for a boomerang when you post to ANI. Somehow or other, they'll twist your words or take diffs out of context to make you look bad.

And both sides are equally wrong. That's ANI's version of evenhanded. After all, they can't be bothered to look into the history or context of a dispute.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally

I merely think you've gotten too close to the argument. Your contributions are valued.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please refer to the talking page

and don't delete user contributes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk referendum article

There is a deletion discussion going on at the Donetsk referendum page --Львівське (говорити) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

RGloucester, what do you mean the Party of Regions does not condone? The majority of the Supreme Council of Crimea had 80 council members out of 100 total who voted for secession from Ukraine. The Party of Regions never condemned the issue. Majority in regional councils the party has in the East Ukraine regions. It seems like a similar instance (as in Crimea) may happen in the eastern regions. Here is another claim that members of Party of Regions talked about some time before the "independence of Crimea" and preservation from "fascism": Party of Regions MP: Crimea not going to secede from Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The party has never supported separatism, even if some MPs have done so. For example, see this statement asking the occupiers of the various RSAs to leave at once. There is no possible way that it makes sense to put the PoR in the infobox as supporting the protesters. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Your opinion

Your opinion about this will be greatly appreciated. Hope you will give a useful advice. --UA Victory (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Luhansk People's Republic

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Luhansk People's Republic solely on the basis that I do not believe deletion of this article is uncontroversial. Feel free to take it to AfD if you still wish to pursue deletion. I will most likely not !vote in such an AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuyabribri: I've taken the liberty of redirecting the page to a section in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Escalation. The information there had been copied from that page. Until more happens to justify an independent article, I think it should remain like this. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Please Help Update File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.svg in Wikimedia

Sorry for the disrupt but I've posted the request in Wikimedia Commons. In case you can't see it timely, I post it here again. I myself don't know how to do that. Thanks a lot!霎起林野间 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
In belated recognition of your fine work on Edinburgh Trams. Thanks. John (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I didn't expect that! I'm not sure I deserve it, but thanks. I apologise if I appeared abrasive. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it is I who was abrasive. I think the article looks a lot better now, and I am sure it will continue to grow, thanks in no small part to your work. —John (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I appreciate it very much. Thanks again. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sobornaya Square clashes

Hey, check the stuff Herzen is putting in. I've seen nothing from the Guardian saying the fire was started by "pro-Kiev" people, and the spanish source he used makes zero mention of who started the fire. Seems like inserting false disinfo (user has a record of being highly pro-Russian) --Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the 'pro-Kiev', but only from Russia Today. The Spanish paper has nothing about that in it, nor the Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. when he said "claim was not reported as fact but as reports made by two newspapers; the deleted text accurately represents those reports" I started to think I was losing my mind or something. --Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist insurgency vs Separatist / Federalist (or autonomist) insurgency

Yes, the references say the insurgents are pro-Russian, but does it mean necessarily that all of them want to belong to Russia? To be "pro-American" means that a person wants that its country belongs to USA? Or just a country with close ties with USA? The sources clearly say that several or many insurgents are demanding autonomy or federalism, not necessarily union with Russia. So, the word "separatism" seems to me to be only partly correct, not entirely correct. Shouldn't it be considered a separatist / federalist (or autonomist) insurgency, rather than simply a separatist insurgency? (is it NPOV? by the way? jusk asking... I've undone both biased pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian edits here, as you can confirm). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The insurgency itself is separatist, as the insurgency is only perpetrated by the Donetsk People's Republic. There are other pro-Russian groups which are not insurgents, and those might not be separatist. However, the insurgency is only a small part of the actual unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Dictionaries: Definition of insurgent in English: noun: A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary; Definition of fight in English: 1.Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons; 2.Struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent. I don't find obvious that the definition of insurgent is restricted to the armed people of the Donetsk People's Republic. According to the Ofxford Dictionary, the protesters could be considered insurgents? It's not obvious for me that they have to be armed.

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious, because 'fighting' implies being armed. Only armed insurrection is considered insurgency. Please see the Wikipedia article on the subject for further information. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just consulted the Oxford Dictionary and it isn't obvious according to it that it has to be armed. But I'm not a native English speaker, so, who am I to question you? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going against the Oxford Dictionary. 'Fighting' means 'fighting' with arms. Protesters 'protest against' a government, they do not 'fight' it. Fighting implies violence to a native English speaker. I can imagine a non-native speaker coming to the conclusion you did, but insurgency always means 'armed'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the Odessa clashes

I found the image on Google Images, from RT. What do I need to do more for it to be fine? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I discovered that the image actually belongs to Stringer/Reuters. Now, if it's possible, I wouldn't like that any political motive would restrict the image to be displayed. The name of the file that I displayed previously was the description provided by RT. I can rename it. Is there a way to display it? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. We can't use any image owned by anyone. Only images released into the public domain. Basically, unless you took a picture yourself and released the copyright, the likelihood is that we can't use. Please read WP:UPI. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have cited the wrong policy by mistake

I read your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Russian insurgency in Donetsk region. In your comment you cited WP:FORK. I think you meant Wikipedia:Content forking. If you read the two documents you will see what I mean.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Thanks very much! I wasn't paying attention. RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa

Please, you can not remove the neutrality message until the dispute is resolved. Hhmb (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was resolved on the talk page. If there is a new dispute, place a new template. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Book

The Russian Federation has just issued a "White Book" document. I thought you might find it interesting and could use some of the information from there. http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/%24FILE/ATTLUY3T.pdf/White_book.pdf AzraeL9128 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this publication of the Russian Government about Ukraine is covered by WP:SELFSOURCE. It is not appropriate to use this kind of source because it involves "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". It is at best a source about what the Russian Government claims.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

luhansk republic

deserves its own article now. Regional council is behind the separatist referendum and have granted the 'people's governor' actual authority. This is the most legit republic yet since it has actual authorities behind it. —Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I haven't seen any of that in the papers. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
news for today [3] --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's that, then. Haven't seen it in any western sources. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as usual, gotta give it time to filter in --Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[4] the regional council is also telling Kiev to pull out of its territory and leave the separatists alone, I guess this seals it --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question, should it be called the 'Lughansk' republic instead, considering that I imagine their only 'official' language is Russian? Or do we stick with the usual Wikipedia Ukrainian standard? RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is (or should be) what is it called in English media? I suspect that using both spelling is best. btw no "h" in Lugansk.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the page, all there is currently is a small mention on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I feel WP:TOOSOON applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge of list

Thought this was the best solution. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

osce

the OSCE released a report today, did you see it?--Львівське (говорити) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I linked it in the Odessa article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're being talked about

Here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Map of the pro-Ukrainian protests

I was trying to fix the map of pro-Ukrainian protests, but I'm having some problems with it. Do you suggest any action? Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mondolkiri1: What's broken? RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see with the correction using my username. I've log out and it's ok, but not with my username.

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any Wikipedia gadgets enabled? Try shutting them off. Also, try deleting your cache/temp internet files. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

odessa

the battle has shifted to the list of massacres article [5] --Львівське (говорити) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we're socks [6] --Львівське (говорити) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert anymore, but I warned him about personal attacks on his talk page. Presumably an administrator will take note and do something about it. I'm getting tired of this proliferation of bad faith and stupidity. It seems to have increased since the Odessa incident. As horrific as the whole situation was, this constant campaign of socks is absolutely ridiculous. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pew

btw, shocked as I was about the Pew results in Crimea? --Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put them in the article. I'm actually not that shocked. The only people who've had a problem have been Crimean Tatars, as far as I can tell (the Mejils has been accused of 'terrorist acts', and the prosecutor has threatened to dissolve it). Considering that they make up a relatively small portion of the population, and considering that those Ukrainians that are in Crimea speak Russian anyway, and more than likely have no desire for an armed conflict, I can see the results playing out that way. In Donetsk, that would never happen, as I know people from Donetsk who have vowed to fight Russian occupation by 'Spetsnaz' 'to the bitter end'. Even those Donetsk people said that Crimea was a foregone conclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well I guess I was referring moreso to the 'free and fair' part, considering the Tatars are 15% and mostly boycotted it, and if those numbers Forbes and other sources referred to are right (estimates putting turnout incredibly low), how 90% viewed it free and fair during a sizeable boycott rattled me. Also 88% saying Kiev should recognize the results seems shockingly high to me given other pre-vote polls. To have no plurality of opinion among the Ukrainian population just seems weird...I don't know what to make of it. --Львівське (говорити) 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can presume that in the minds of those who said it was 'free and fair', the boycott was also a 'free' choice on behalf of the Tatars. As I said below, it is quite possible that those who did severely dissent fled. I'm sure there were ethnic Ukrainians who would've preferred to be annexed, as well. Let's not forget that, unlike in Donetsk, ambitions to join Russia have been prevalent in Crimea for a good period of time, and there have been periodic protests to that effect. The 88% might be reflective of a certain pragmatism of the population who don't want to see an insurgency mess like in Donetsk, too. De facto is de facto, I suppose, and it is quite clear that Ukraine isn't going to get back Crimea any time soon. Of course, there is also the possibility that people were afraid to answer correctly, but I'm sure Pew would've made note of that if it were the case. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the figures vary from 30-50% or thereabouts, where this is near unanimous. --Львівське (говорити) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Those numbers are usually in the thousands though right? Not really much of a demographic shift, most Tatars still are claiming their land. —Львівське (говорити) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tatars don't seem to have fled, only ethnic Ukrainians. I'm going to read the report in full later, as maybe it can elucidate some of the details. RGloucester — ☎ 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've only glanced it over, need to read the whole thing as well.--Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but here's the twist with Crimea's results: while 88% say Kiev should recognize the referendum to secede, only 54% were in favor of allowing regions to secede from Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 02:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Day Massacre

Since tomorrow in all likelihood will be a gongshow of conflict way bigger than the Odessa incident (even without deaths), what should the title for the potential article be? Assuming there are terrorist acts, riots, or large clashes across the country. (they just arrested 2 in Mykolaiv planning a bombing at the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the Unrest article has a bunch of other arrests for planned Victory Day conflicts...). This obviously would be too big for the timeline article.--Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taking WP:CRYSTAL into account, I'd be wary of 'planning'. However, you may be right that we should have some vague ideas in mind. I'd personally like to follow the 'date clashes/riots/protests in city' format. (I'd also like to change the Odessa one to '2 May 2014 clashes in Odessa'. That's just me being OCD, though. Pay it no mind.) If it is all across Ukraine, I'd imagine it would have to be something like something like '2014 Victory Day clashes in Ukraine', or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean obviously we can't create something until something happens, but just wanted to spitball a neutral, vague name until the dust settles (which may take weeks before a common descriptor is used in the media). As for your suggestion, do we do Victory Day or Memorial Day? The official name is now Memorial Day but I presume Russian press (RT, VoR, etc.) will obviously call it Victory Day --Львівське (говорити) 00:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear that no 'memorialising' would be happening. One could argue for 'Victory Day' merely on the use of the St George ribbon by the protesters. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well knock on wood, today's been relatively par for the week. That said, I know we can't cite facebook but looks like the DPM got another armored carrier [7] --Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Luhansk

I can't remember where you mentioned this saying the OSCE only reported Luhansk as having conflict and no other cities in the region. The Wall st journal showed a map with all conflict cities and I overlaid a map of luhansk oblast to double check and there are a few cities that are occupied [8] --Львівське (говорити) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. It doesn't even tell us what the names of those cities are. I can't find any sources about cities outside of Luhansk proper being occupied. I suppose that map is something, except it hasn't any references or an even an indication of what the cities' names are. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to figure out what cities those dots are and do some googling. The WSJ article didn't mention anything by name, unfortunately and the map was just thrown in at the bottom. —Львівське (говорити) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a Mariupol standoff article now, if you're looking for something to do. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fml I'm burnt out—Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the Luhansk stuff later. It does rather annoy me, though, that the editors that create these articles tend to abandon them, leaving more work for everyone else to do. The article as it stands is rather crap. Regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgot, but Antratsyt is also occupied by Don Cossack mercenaries [13][14][15] --Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse

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)[reply]

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

Irrelevant warning-warring

May 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2014 anti-Yatsenyuk government unrest in Ukraine, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spare me the utter tosh. There is no consensus to change the title of the article. Zero. Please stop trying to work around the fact that the requested move failed, and that the article is at the title that it is at. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User_talk:ArmijaDonetsk, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is ridiculous. I'm not going to have a war of personal attack and vandalism warnings that have absolutely no truth them. This campaign against me is tiring. I have no interest in a conflict. Please stop! RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox Ukraine

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

A barnstar for you!

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Mariupol

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

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)Template:Z48[reply]

OSCE observers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You are not answering my question. Have the terrorists kidnapped the OSCE observers? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, also, is that my POV only stating that OSCE observers were kidnapped? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
RGloucester, that was not my question again. Were OSCE observers kidnapped? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

User talk:ArmijaDonetsk

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)[reply]

I figured as much. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Reply

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

Flags in infoboxes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dugin

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure which article exactly you guys are discussing but reliable English sources have in fact mentioned Dugin's involvement: [16], [17], [18].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't about Dugin's involvement, but his placement in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

OSCE

Though you'd be interested [19] --Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Mercenaries

Does this source check out? [20] --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, yes, as long as attribution is given. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [21] 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)[reply]
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 [22]… RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being told now that Bild didn't start the story, it came from RIA originally [23]. 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)[reply]
Ah! Tricky on their part. This whole thing gives me a headache. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is someone trying to force it into some article? RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The whole article from top to bottom. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is fully protected now, for quite awhile. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Move review notification

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

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)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Nomination of Volnovakha checkpoint attack for deletion

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)[reply]

Invitation

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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)[reply]

May 2014

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)[reply]

OSCE

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Siege of Sloviansk (formerly Sloviansk standoff)

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)[reply]

2014 Ukrainian revolution

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 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&oldid=610745869"