User talk:RGloucester/Archive 12

Wikipedia talk:Page mover
It does close the loophole, redirects can just be moved out of the way. Peter James (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans
R, can you take a look at Talk:Tigrayans since you supported the previous move that this is reacting against? I was looking to close it but didn't see a clear consensus, and didn't see why you have not said whether you still thought the previous move was good. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I haven't commented is because that discussion is rather a bit more complex than the last one, and I don't want to make any errors in an area outside my expertise. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's complicated, and very few editors feel like they can say anything cogent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shina (word), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC
In case you're interested in voicing an opinion, there's an RfC being held here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not game the system.....
.....like you did here. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 16:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gaming the system? That's your exclusive domain, dear fellow, as you've shown in deciding to create a new Wikipedia process without the consensus to do so, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a process, it's a space for people who want to get away from the politics and seriousness of this damn place. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a process, a process to encourage discussion that has nothing to do with building the encylopaedia. If you'd like to get away from the so-called "seriousness" of this place, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from going elsewhere. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
I've explained my recent change to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation which you reverted. Please consider my point and respond. Thanks Qaz1984 (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian war listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russo-Ukrainian war. Since you had some involvement with the Russo-Ukrainian war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Handling of AfCs at WP:RMTR
Hello RG. This issue came up before, and I noticed your recent move of the Walshy Fire article. Is this how it's normally done? Isn't there a magic button in the AfC tool to promote these things? Do you want to keep the redirect at Draft:Walshy Fire or can it be deleted? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's how it is normally done for page movers, per WP:PM/C. In this case, there was a redirect at Walshy Fire that needed to be got rid of before the draft could be put in the article space. The way I did is how page movers do it, as we can't just delete the redirect outright. Regardless, feel free to delete that implausible redirect. I had intended to tag it for housekeeping deletion, but wasn't sure what to do as the procedure for how a page mover should deal with draft redirects hasn't been established. Regardless, thanks for the query. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PM/C doesn't actually mention AfC. I suppose I need to find out where the AfC people live so I can ask. I'll zap the redirect from draft space. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a specific procedure for AfC and page movers. AfCs are not usually posted at RM/TR, either. This was a specific case, as I understand, because there was a redirect blocking the move when there usually would not've been. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked in the AfC instructions and they say there is a script to do the move. But the AfC script doesn't work in draft space. Maybe someone will reply to my question over there. If you see that a move from draft space is blocked by an existing article, you should also check if a history merge is needed. In this case there were edits under the redirect but no substantive content edits, so a histmerge wasn't required. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the page move!

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Drmies. The sentiment is very much appreciated. I hope your term on the committee won't be too maddening, as I imagine such things often are. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please help me
Hi. I am the same person who registered as Qaz1984. I updated my computer with Windows 10 and found that I had to log in again to edit on Wikipedia and found that I couldn't remember my password. I therefore registered a new account but called in 1984Qaz so that people would know I am the same person. I also explained this on my new account. So why are you giving me a warning? I don't use the old account any more - as I can't - and I've been open about why I opened this new account. Please tell me what to do to fix things. Thanks 1984Qaz (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanings of "government"
Hey! Previously involved in a debate on the various meanings of "government," you might be interested in this move request. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial move
When you suggest a move at RM and it gets closed as no consensus, it is very poor form to make that move anyway, even if it is more than a year later. I have undone your move of Flemish people, you can start a new move discussion but please don't make controversial page moves in this way. Fram (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I figured it was uncontroversial, as the guidelines have changed to support said change in a way that was not the case before. Indeed, Wikipedia has now been largely standardised on said form following a set of RFCs and RMs. This was not the case when I proposed the move last time. Regardless, I have no interest in an RM, as editors are unlikely to care what the guidelines say, as is so often the case. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. As for the guidelines, you gave Naming conventions (plurals) as one of the reasons, but that one says in "exceptions": "Articles on people groups. Canadians, French people and Koreans in Japan are all acceptable titles. " so at least that guideline is not a good reason to make this move. The other guideline also isn't really clear and ends with "Undiscussed, unilateral moves of widely edited articles are discouraged." Fram (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the part that says 'If a plural title without the word "people" is available, it is almost invariably chosen; e.g., Bangladeshis is consistently preferred to Bangladeshi people'. I guess that such a revert as yours is the reason for the 'almost'. Sad, quite sad, that the encylopaedia will look so inconsistent and poorly. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mover
Does your page mover status make it easy for you to do uncontroversial moves per MOS:JR without going through the WP:RM uncontroversial page? AA seems annoyed by these. Here's a list of one currently in need of a move: Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Charles L. Tutt, Jr.
 * Charles L. Tutt, Sr.
 * James A. Beaty, Jr.
 * James S. Moody, Jr.
 * John Forsyth, Jr.
 * Luiz Garcia, Jr.
 * Rex Allen, Jr.
 * Richard S. Fuld, Jr.
 * Robert C. Richardson, Jr.
 * Rush D. Holt, Jr.
 * Sam Clancy, Jr.
 * William E. Conway, Jr.
 * William Royal Furgeson, Jr.

I went ahead and listed them at WP:RMT. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ministries
Here is a scanned copy, showing the ministries listed clearly. However, as I said before when discussing the various Cameron ministry articles, I will support "May government" as being more common in non-specialist sources today. "Administration" is absolutely wrong, an Americanism, not the common name, and does not belong here at all. Please keep in mind that for WP:CONSISTENCY, you'll have to change all articles in the categories Category:British ministries, Category:Canadian ministries, and Category:Australian ministries. The format 'Government of X' is unnecessarily long, per WP:CONCISE. As long as there is no other article on Wikipedia titled 'May government', then 'May government' should be the title. This applies to all the ministries. In cases where dab might be need, then the longer name 'Theresa May government]]' might be used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that. I agree about consistency of course, although a case can perhaps be made for using one term to describe older governments/ministries and another for more modern ones, if that tallies with what most serious sources do in each case. I'm not sure what the best form of title for those modern ones would be – an argument can probably be made for various permutations, and consistency could be an argument for a slightly longer form for all of them if any one requires it – or whether I have the time to get involved in a comprehensive retitling just yet.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate
A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG talk 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm under a self-requested block at the moment. Second of all, I participated in the first RM, and hence am not a neutral party. I suggest that instead of soliciting closers in this way, one should make a formal request at WP:AN so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to see you gone so soon after the epic Brexit naming debate! — JFG talk 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request
I'm ready to be unblocked, at your leisure. Much obliged, RGloucester  — ☎ 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Happy editing. ~Awilley (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I once again very much appreciate your assistance in this regard. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China general election, 2016
Taiwan was the original title of the article. There was discussion about your proposed renaming on the talk page since July 2015 without reaching consensus, so the title should remain as original before consensus.

Mind your disruptive behavior of preventing others to revert you by making meaningless edit on the other page. This is the second time you do this on this page. --Coco977 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The original page name was the name that presently stands, as one can see here. This title is in line with WP:NC-GAL, and follows the conventions for these articles as established in past RMs, and in the relevant category. If you'd like to change the conventions, please start a discussion. Otherwise, please stop move-warring, and making a mess. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NC-GAL says to use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The common Demonym of ROC is Taiwanese.--Coco977 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions, but I'm not discussing this here. If you'd like to discuss a page move, open a requested move for all the relevant articles, and stop making a god-damned mess. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is you that should open a request move.--Coco977 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The person that wants to change the stable title is the one who makes the requested move, not the person who is maintaining the status quo, which has been discussed numerous times. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The stable title was Taiwanese until you moved it and prevent others to revert you.--Coco977 (talk)
 * No, the stable title was RoC, which a previous editor made a bold move away from, which I reverted in line with WP:BRD. Nothing more. If there is a redirect in the way, that can be remedied at WP:RM/TR. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Numbering of British ministries
Hi, RGloucester. I see you've edited Major ministry and added the cabinet infobox in which it says its ministry is the 88th and 89th cabinet. Then, I'd like to ask you where this data come from. Now I'm writing the list of British ministries in Japanese Wikipedia and it requires verifiability on the cabinet number. If you have some sources, could you tell me the references for it? --Doraemonplus (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That comes from the 2010 edition of Dod's Parliamentary Companion. It isn't a matter of the cabinet, it is a matter of the ministry. The cabinet does not include junior ministers, whereas the ministry does. Note that Britain has both a government (政府) and a cabinet (内閣), the government including all ministers, and the cabinet only including cabinet ministers specifically. The term 'ministry' specifically refers to the government. Regardless, Sir John had two ministries, his first after the resignation of Lady Thatcher, and his second after the 1992 election. A new ministry is formed after each election. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your quick response and teaching me about the usage of words "cabinet" and "ministry". I will write articles more carefully about those usage. ja:内閣 (イギリス)の執筆中に少しは学んだつもりでしたが、まだまだ用語の使い分けについて私の認識が甘かったようですね. 今回お教えいただいたことに感謝します. あなたは日本語が話せると利用者ページのバベルにあったので、日本語で返信してみました. --Doraemonplus (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * いえいえ. 英国のministry/governmentとcabinetの相違は多数の英国人にも不明でしょう. 何か質問があれば、遠慮なく連絡して下さい. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 質問の受け付けの申し出をありがとうございます. では、お言葉に甘えて、もう2つ質問させてください.


 * まず、1つめの質問です. Dod's Parliamentary Companionには、初代から第96代までの歴代の政府すべてに代を示す番号が振られているのでしょうか？もし同書に番号が掲載されているのならば、English WikipediaでFirst Wilson ministry (第81代) 以前の政府に代を示す番号が記載されていないのには何か理由があるのでしょうか. 単にまだ執筆されていないだけなのか、同書に掲載されていないためなのか、どちらでしょうか. 同書は日本の公共図書館ではほぼ入手不可能なので、ここでお教えいただけると助かります. より実際的には、ja:イギリスの内閣一覧に載っている代の数字がどこまで正確なのかを知りたいです.


 * 2つめは、ministryの日本語訳について率直に相談させてください. The 5th edition of Kenkyūsha's New Japanese-English Dictionaryには、【政府】の項目にa government; an administration (n. Americanism); 〔内閣〕a cabinet; a ministry (n. Briticism).と書かれていて、確かにministryの一般的な日本語訳は「政府」 で合っているようです. しかし、個々の政府については、May's cabinetまたはMay ministryを例に取れば、日本ではja:メイ内閣とは言いますが、普通「メイ政府」とは呼びません. 一方で、「メイ政権」という呼称は一般的です. このことは、ja:安倍内閣あたりを見ていただければお分かりかと思います. そこで、この場合のministryの日本語訳は、「政権」が適当でしょうか. RGloucesterさんならどのように訳すか、簡単でいいのでご意見をお聞かせください. --Doraemonplus (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 一つ目について、明日図書館でお調べします. 二つ目について、私は日本語の政治用語の使い方に詳しくないんですが、「政権」の方が良いんじゃないかと思います. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * お手数をおかけしますが、どうぞよろしくお願いします. 日本語訳については、日本語版の編集者で再検討しますね. 貴重なご意見をありがとうございました. --Doraemonplus (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 遅くなりすみません. 少し複雑な事だと思います. Dod's Parliamentary Companionにはその番号が現れていないのですが、政権の一覧があるので読者は数える事が出来ます. そうしたら、現在のメイ政権が第96代のようです. 英語版ではWP:CALCによるとその仕方がOKだと思いますが、日本語版のルールについて全然存じないのでいけないかもしれません. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * なるほど、掲載されている一覧を単純に一つ一つ数えたということですね. 現在の日本語版にはWP:CALCの規定はないので、記事に載せても問題ないかは不明です. ひょっとすると、WP:NORに抵触するとも考えられます. ただし、今後、もしも英語版のList of British governmentsに書いてある全ての政府に誰かが番号を付けたならば、日本語版がそれを直輸入することで、ウィキペディアの方針に明白に違反することは避けられるかもしれないです. まあ、この戦術の可否もa grey areaですけれども. とにかく、わざわざ図書館まで調べに行ってくださったことに感謝します. 当面はja:イギリスの内閣一覧への記載は見送ることにします. ありがとうございました. --Doraemonplus (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

ご無沙汰しております、Doraemonplusです. 先日ja:Template:イギリスの内閣というテンプレートを作成したのですが、Dod's Parliamentary Companionに記載されている96 ministriesと数が一致しません. これを修正したいのですが、あいにく日本ではDod's Parliamentary Companionは入手・閲覧とも不可能なので、ここでRGloucesterさんに伺うことにしました. 気の向いた時で構いませんので、Dod's Parliamentary Companion掲載の全番号情報を（List of British governmentsのページなど）何らかの場でご提供くださいますよう、謹んでお願い申し上げます. --Doraemonplus (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reminder of my former preciousness! RGloucester  — ☎ 14:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Precious is forever ;) (When I find a user not so precious anymore, I stop reminding. I remind myself by a little * in the archive. Some lost my appreciation over voting to desysop Yngvadottir when she did the right thing, ignoring bad rules.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reminder, in any case. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

... and four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Categories
The way to rename categories is via cfd. After consensus, a bot does the work. It will take you forever to rename all the beverages categories as there are hundreds of them. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to work for ever to effect a non-controversial and necessary clean-up. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not fundamentally against your proposal, but fail to see how these changes would be uncontroversial… --PanchoS (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The main article is at drink. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Move of Geography of Taiwan to Taiwan Island
Please revert your move, which is controversial (like everything to do with that country). There have been articles on the island in the past, but several editors felt that having separate articles in the island and the country would lead to duplication, and is not what is done with other island nations. Kanguole 10:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the 'geography of Taiwan (i.e. the country commonly called Taiwan)', though. It it exclusively about Taiwan Island, not the whole of the territories governed by the RoC. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The island makes up 99% of the country, so there's not much difference, and in any case there is a paragraph about the other islands. The article is, however, all about geography, or was before you moved the name section there from Taiwan.  But this is a discussion that belongs on the talk page, after the article is moved back.  Please do that.  Kanguole 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is about the geography of Taiwan Island, not of the RoC, which is commonly known as 'Taiwan'. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have objected to your move. Instead of reverting as requested, you have doubled down by continuing to change the article to match your conception.  Kanguole 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to revert it, please do. I stand by the principle of the move. I did not 'change the article', merely removed a piece of information that the existing article itself claimed was irrelevant. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I do not have the page mover right. That is why I asked you to reverse your move.  Kanguole 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done so. I will start an RM later today. In any case, please note all of the interwiki links...pretty much every other language has a 'Taiwan Island' article, not a 'geography of Taiwan' article. The present situation doesn't make any sense, and the article itself starts out with 'Taiwan' in bold, referring to the island. This problem will be remedied. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience
Hi RGloucester, I've noticed that you performed some round-robin page moves recently. Thought I'd share a new script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway, just an FYI, feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes
I'm a bit surprised that you don't perceive that placing quotes around "humanitarian convoy," when it is abundantly clear this is Russia's term with or without the quotes, implies editorial doubt and derision regarding the term. If this is a problem please read scare quotes, which explains the usage of quotes to suggest that text is incorrect or absurd. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also the sources we cite in that paragraph don't directly quote the Russian government using that phrase. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that usage, but this is a direct quotation from the source, and so should be quoted. Otherwise, it could be perceived as WP:OR. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We can follow up at Talk:War in Donbass. P.S. Do you think it should be renamed to Donbass War? Just curious. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:POVN post for scare quotes at War in Donbass
Hi I've made a post at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard about the use of scare quotes at War in Donbass, and I mention you in the post. Please be advised. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Volnovakha checkpoint attack listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Volnovakha checkpoint attack. Since you had some involvement with the Volnovakha checkpoint attack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Police Scotland
Please provide a justification for the use of the logo. Wikimedia received an email purportedly from someone associated with the organization requesting correction of the logo. I checked with the official site and confirm that the logo provided me was closer to the one on the official site than the old one that you just reverted. Can you provide a reliable source that identifies the colored logo as the official logo?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Both logos are used, and, indeed, so are other variants, but the colour one is the original. One can see this here, which is where the logo was taken from. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The color one may be the original but I don't believe it is currently the official one. The source you provided is dated June 2013. In October 2013 they announced their new logo: link.


 * Based upon the source I think the one provided to me is the current one, so I am replacing it again. Thanks for providing the information you use to support the older version.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I reread the source you provided and I think I have a better understanding of the situation. That document is the material provided for a meeting at which the announcement of the new logo was to be announced. The attachment a includes both logos and in my opinion could have been more clearly written. The multicolored logo called original is the one being replaced. The all blue one which I have now placed in the article is the replacement. I didn't pick up on that the first two times I read it but I think it is now clear what happened.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Police Scotland revised logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Police Scotland revised logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Päijänne Tavastia
Hi, do you think this article should be moved to the Finnish name? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want it to be moved, the correct thing to do is file an WP:RM. Cut and paste moves are not allowed, because they separate the edit history of the article from the content. I have no opinion, at yet, on the move itself. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will look into it more first Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

:)

 * ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephscullion (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? RGloucester  — ☎ 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Email to you
Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukpolitics
Template:Ukpolitics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Drafting an RFC on narrow-gauge railway titles
See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)
Since you closed the 2014 discussion about the domain of the Syrian Civil War general sanctions, do you have an opinion on whether Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) ‎ falls under the sanctions? There is an editnotice that imposes a 1RR, but I'm not sure of the authority. ISIL is mentioned in the article, which might be sufficient. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding, based on the various clarification requests for this sanctions regime that have occurred at WP:AN over the years (such as this), is that anything related to ISIL is under these general sanctions. I believe that administrator discretion is used to determine whether to enforce them on a specific article or not. Therefore, I think you'd be well within your authority to apply them to that article. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User sub-page
Please do not edit my user sub-page, per WP:NOBAN. Szqecs (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Four wheeled self-propelled vehicles with a steering thingy
There are many other topics and areas to work on. Please, breathe, take it slowly, take it easy. —Sladen (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not need your concern. Perhaps consider the gravity of what you have assisted in doing. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

RM you might be interested in
Hi RGloucester,

There's an RM on Talk:Islamization of Iran that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Community sanction
Template:Community sanction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts
Fair enough we can talk about formatting, appearance, and such; but did you notice that I also introduced more accurate information besides, which you've now removed? DBD 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think those colors jived with WP:COLOR... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the more accurate information you added. I was reluctant to revert, at first, but your changes to the formatting were really very bad, and destroy consistency with all preceding ministry articles. If you'd like to re-add your changes in the existing formatting, that would be acceptable. Otherwise, I had planned to endeavour to do such. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you got me on COLOR. I'd completely forgotten about that one. Give us a few hours and I'll work some REGEX magic to reinstate my content in the standard formatting. DBD 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you work...it is greatly appreciated. I've had to wind up my contributions around here, so I haven't really been able to keep up as I would've done in the past. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please could we agree to keep peers' names visible? We need to remember our audience aren't always going to be able to immediately tell apart peers of the same surname, for instance &mdash; we ought to give readers the best chance at drawing the information they need. Also, for Hon./Hon, see Debrett's DBD 19:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because there is a proper way of referring to peers, and we follow that here, just as the government does. We are able to do this without any lack of clarity, for we have a thing called a hyperlink at our fingertips. We are not in the world of print. You must stop hiding their titles, and indeed, stop stripping MPs of their honours and styles. Doing such misleads the reader. Especially in the case of peers, the title is an integral part of their name that cannot be stripped. On the matter of 'Rt Hon', please note that peers are entitled to this title by virtue of their peerage. There are peers who are entitled to 'Rt Hon' who are not Privy Counsellors, and those who are Privy Counsellors are distinguished by the post-nominals 'PC'. On the matter of the full stops, the convention here is to use a full stop after 'hon' per Fowler's. If you'd like to change this convention, I suggest you take it up at WP:MOS. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But we're not in the business of providing an etiquette guide &mdash; we're producing lists in order to, and only in order to, present relevant information. Now, I've been content to be corrected regarding colour-coding, and agreed that whether ministers are PCs or not, and MPs or not is so evidently relevant to the matter that they must be included (and peerage titles along with names, and QCs because having legal expertise is relevant to certain posts). I understand precisely how Rt Hon and PC work for peers, thank you, just as I am aware that recent government/civil service practice has started to favour omitting the peerly Rt Hon for non-PC peers, so that only PC peers are consistently given Rt Hon. We could happily adopt this (as I have tried), which with a key would be more clear for readers than 2 kinds of Rt Hon plus PC. DBD 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of etiquette, but of information. The relevant information is the name of the person holding the office, and in the case of a peer, the title is an integral part of the name. In fact, it is that title which allows them to participate in the government at all, and indeed, it is in the capacity of 'lord so and so' that they are serving their queen and country. This is the style we follow, and have done, for as long as these articles have existed. In addition, the style here is not to omit 'Rt Hon.' for peers, but to instead use 'PC' post-nominals. Your opinion on this matter is all well and good, but changing these conventions will require discussion at the MoS. Until the conventions are changed, we've got to follow the existing style. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So be it. DBD 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your co-operation. I'll raise the matter of the 'Rt Hon' business at the MoS. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How many Macmillan and Wilson ministries were there?
Hi again RGloucester. I'm sorry to bother, but I'm confused about this one thing concerning the ministry series. If a new ministry is formed after each general election, wouldn't that mean there were two Macmillan ministries (his first spanning between his appointment in 1957 and the 1959 general election, and the second between 1959 and his 1963 resignation) and four Wilson ministries (the first between 1964 and the 1966 snap election, the second between 1966 and the 1970 election, the third being the minority government between March and October 1974, and the fourth being from 1974 to 1976)? Perhaps I'm missing something here, I don't know.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, which can be confirmed by looking at the Dod's ministries list. It seems our First Wilson ministry article is thus in error. The thing is, these articles grew up quite randomly. They were created by different people, all used random titles, and there was no consistent conception of where a government/ministry started or ended. Sorting out even a tiny amount of this mess took ages, and I'm not surprised that I missed some spots when I went through to rationalise them years ago. I suppose that we ought clean up whatever errors remain. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you make of moving First Wilson ministry to Labour government 1964–70? I was thinking First and second Wilson ministry, but that's probably too long and cumbersome.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that that's a fine solution to this problem. I've been working back through the articles to sort other errors of this type. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Either that or Wilson ministry 1964–70. Which do you prefer?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can go with the 'labour government' style for this article. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted most of them out...however, many of the old articles still need infoboxes, &c...please feel free to help in this regard. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I've managed to sort the rest of them out. Would you mind moving Second Newcastle ministry to, as the present title is ambiguous given that the article documents more than one ministry? It's the most likely common name per sources.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do so. As it happens, British Historical Facts lists the relevant ministry as Pitt–Newcastle (pg. 11), and our ministry conventions are based on that book (along with Twentieth-Century British Political Facts), so such a change is definitely in order. Thanks for your work. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notification
Hi RGloucester,

Given your participation on the RM for Persian Traditional Music, I thought you might be interested in an RfC taking place on Talk:Iran

Genealogizer (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for moving Chatham ministry
I apologise for moving that article. The title was not ambiguous, I made a mistake. I will take much better care in future.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, me more than most people. That's why we have comrades-in-arms to correct them.... RGloucester  — ☎ 23:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for correcting my error . Would you mind moving Second Derby ministry to per the July 1852 election? Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Just moved to National government 1935–37 per the 1935 election. Could you move Fourth National ministry to ? Thks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot do that, as I know this is incorrect. They are not recorded as such. I think you need to be much more careful than you're being here. I understand that you desire consistency, but there are exceptions, and these are particular articles are some of them. We can't create a consistency that doesn't exist. It is generally accepted that there are four national ministries. Please make sure to consult reliable sources before making page moves. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, my bad. So I guess a new ministry wasn't formed after the 1935 election then? How bizarre.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whether a ministry was formed, but a question of how RS refer to these particular ministries, which are exceptions in and of themselves for being called 'national'. There are a couple of similar cases where the names do not adhere to the usual conventions, which is why it is important to watch out. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I redirected Fourth Baldwin ministry to Third National ministry?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at Great Stink
Hi again RGloucester. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Great Stink in response to my being reverted here, here and here. Warm regards.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

National ministries
Hi again. I'm seriously considering a move request in relation to these articles. I have thought about it long and hard, but I honestly believe that moving First National ministry to First National Government, and so on and so forth, would be the best way forward to solve the Third National ministry inconsistency problem. WP:COMMONNAME was the key factor in my judgment; "National ministry" "Baldwin" "MacDonald" "Chamberlain" renders around 3,180 results in Google Books, versus around 8,290 (double) for the same query but with "government" in place of "ministry". (I had considered First National coalition etc. but the results for that were abysmal.) Given that said ministries were named not after an individual but to describe a coalition of parties, and that "National Government" predominates the term "National ministry" in most historiography, I think that this is the correct path to take. However, I am of course interested to know what you might think about this course of action.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with using the term 'National Government' with the years-in-office attached for each of these. This is sensible, as you say. I'd say we should avoid 'First National Government' and the like, so as to avoid confusion with First National Government of New Zealand, and so on. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess we could bypass an RM then (moving First National Government to First National Government (Argentina) would no longer be necessary). These are the new titles I have in mind:
 * National Government (August–October 1931)
 * National Government (1931–1935)
 * National Government (1935–1937)
 * National Government (1937–1939)
 * --Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer avoiding brackets, and following the style of disambiguation used for the existing articles that use this format. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NCDAB, parenthetical disambiguation is the recommended from. The other options we have are either natural disambiguation (not exactly feasible) or comma-separated disambiguation (usually restricted to ambiguous geographic names). The existing articles that use the format "Party government 1XXX–XX" are wrong for a second reason: WP:DATERANGE; since last year, four-digits on the right side of year–year ranges (rather than two) is now official wikipolicy. We should go about moving them all to comply with the MOS.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * DATERANGE was only recently changed to favour the four digit format, which is why those articles are as they are. Of course, they should be changed to comply with the guidelines as they are now. However, you're wrong about disambiguation. Writing 'So and So Government 1957–1989' is considered a form of natural disambiguation, so again, there is no need for brackets. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not natural disambiguation at all; according to WP:NATURALDIS it means Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. Searching Google Books for say "Conservative Government 1957-63" and the parenthetical style is predominant. Besides, the following sentence hardly makes perfect grammatical sense: "The Tory government 1783–1801 introduced the first income tax". Either the years are parenthesised or a preposition (such as "of") is added before the date range. Brackets are fine, scores of articles presently use them.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with brackets, but they are not required. There are reliable sources that write in this way, specifically, the source that is the basis for these sorts of articles. Certainly, I think this qualifies as natural disambiguation. I simply don't see the need to move all these articles to parenthetical brackets. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I left a message at WP:MOSTALK and editors seem to agree with you. Would you mind if I moved the National ministry articles (with "government" in lowercase and without parentheses for the date ranges)?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine by me. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York
In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

‎Please see WP:FLRC
I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurt School
I took a closer look at the editing history and at first glance it looks like a heavy duty content dispute. But on a closer examination I am seeing a lot of loaded phrases that are ringing POV alarm bells. I think you are right and am going to warn the other editor not to reinsert the challenged material w/o talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Lower case "dynasty"
Good job for request move on Chakri dynasty. Plz see Template:History of Burma, there are at least 2 more articles with still upper case "Dynasty". Plz have a request move for them with others' discussion. Cheer. 143.85.74.26 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What's up?
You still with us? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alive, but not, I'm afraid, with any 'us'. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom government (2017–present) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom government (2017–present). Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom government (2017–present) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion dealing with Burma/Myanmar Railways
An article that you may have been involved in editing&mdash;Myanmar Railways&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Rail transport in Myanmar. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

UK Governments wiki
As a historian, I find it regrettable that the list of UK Governments is detailed in minute precision in listing the personae and utterly missing in what they're there to do, legislate to run the country. Yes, that list should also include the failures, and it should be quite easy to connect to the parliament.gov website and legislation.gov.uk to generate precise and accurate, authoritative lists of legislation which is passed by each Government in turn. Minute details are excessive, I suspect, however it would be useful to have access to a list of major legislation passed by each Administration and, indeed, that which is lost and falls through incompleteness at the end of the Administration, which is a very considerable inefficiency in the Parliamentary system: with a 5-year maximum life, and over a year spent in drafting and debating most legislation, the efficiency of Parliament is reduced to less than 75% at best. I was, for example, interested in discovering which Administration reduced the Voting Age to 18: it seems to have been conceived under the Wilson Labour Government and born under the Heath Conservative Government, across 1971-2.

Would it be possible, please, to add this to your list of proposed workload on the WikiProject UK Government?

As one of the beta test panel on the StatuteLaw database which lies behind that website, in particular obtaining the historic versions as Laws mutate over time through amendments and a few lesser means, I'm afraid I'm too deeply involved to be able to help, as it might breach NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.255.224 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the rest of your message, I believe that the the reduction of the voting age to 18 was in the Representation of the People Act 1969, taking effect for the 1970 General Election. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Refreshment room


The article Refreshment room has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Interview request
Dear RGloucester

I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles and would like to interview you about your Wikipedia work and the issues and intricacies within collaboration practices. We have observed that you are a prominent and decorated contributor within the Wikipedia community, particularly in the War in Donbass article which is one of our key research targets.

This interview would be a part of a research study which analyzes discursive practices in conflict and how it is represented through editing and discussion within controversial Wikipedia articles about on-going wars and international conflicts. To explore this, we would formally like to request a semi-structured research interview regarding your perspectives on contributor relationships, motivations for participation and collaboration practices.

As an experienced and knowledgeable member of the Wikipedia community and a proactive editor in articles of our interest, your contribution would be highly valuable to this project. Please let me know if you have any questions and I hope to hear back from you.

Best regards and thank you in advance.

Etchubykalo (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC), doctoral researcher at the communication and media research institute /CAMRI), University of Westminster, London.
 * I'd be happy to oblige. I have spent much time thinking on this very subject...I fear, though, that those who place me in the 'lunatic fringe' box will shake their heads at the thought of my commentary on this matter. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My dear RG, you are not, nor have you ever been, anywhere near the edge of the lunatic fringe. That is not to say that the lunatic fringe and assorted disillusioned, disenchanted, and disempowered Wikipedia 'contributors' (I wouldn't deign to qualify them as meeting any criterion worthy of the title 'editor') aren't able to collectively drive one to the point of lunacy... and it's the point of pulling back before one lets loose after constant baiting that is the most difficult to master. You're certainly one of the finest editors it has been my privilege to work with, so I'm chuffed to see that you still check in to this place. I've missed seeing you around, old bean!
 * , as you've extended the same invitation to me and, for what my experience is worth, I'd also be more that happy to contribute to the study. You'll have to bear with me as I've just had a resurgence of a bit of cancer. I only mention this as I'm going through a fresh bought of 'chemo brain' before the last bout had improved and stabilised to a significant degree. In practical terms, it means that I'll need you to be patient as I think on queries, collect my thoughts, establish that I'm even making sense, et al. Quick witted responses I can be confident in have fallen by the wayside. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to drop by, Iryna. I appreciate your kind words. Unfortunately, as much as I try to stay away, I often happen to read Wikipedia articles...and when one reads, one can't help but feel like one should offer one's services to repair the messes and lacks that such articles often contain. As such, I am now writing about melons, of all things...Regardless of such nonsense, I hope for your recovery. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response and for accepting the interview request. I am trying to get a couple of interviews going for next week as I need some time to prepare. In any case, I will adjust to your schedule and needs. I wish you a strong and speedy recovery! Those stories about repairing messes is what I wish to hear about! Best regards to both of you. Etchubykalo (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, R, did you do the interview? I bet you had good stories to tell! Including some where we were on opposing sides. Shit goes on. I'll be in London/Oxford this week; you around there? Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I offered my tuppence to the world. I'm afraid our past interactions were not related to the content of the interview, which was primarily about Wikipedia documentation of ongoing military conflicts. In any case, I doubt that it will make much difference...rationality is lost in this enterprise. It's a haven for special interests, advocates, manipulators. Wikipedia policy and guidelines, our supposed bedrock, are thrown out and twisted as if they were meaningless. In as much as we have no commons rules on which to predicate our participation in this project, how can we create a coherent narrative, a comprehensible font of information? Why do we allow the egos of individual editors to compromise information which will then be beamed out to millions of people, who are likely to absorb their misrepresentations as if they were fact? In the end, this project finds itself serving as a soapbox for various people who have opinions they want proliferated, and nothing more. Enough is enough. I wish these people thought about what harm they are doing our readers, and this world, by creating original opinion-based content with no roots in reliable sources, and then presenting it in Wikipedia's voice as if it were fact. It is shameful. As for me, Mr Lyon, I presently reside in the northeast of America, where I am doing my PhD...you can glean this from my editing times. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course people with opinions want to use whatever platform they can; it is not surprising that their interest is not in neutrally informing readers, which is the foundation's goal. Anything with conflict is going to involve one side doing a better job than the other in getting their POV represented.  To me, one of the weirdest is how the big med/pharma industry controls content through things like WP:MEDRS, such that it's impossible to say anything good, or even neutral, about alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tambourhinoceros.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tambourhinoceros.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Just wanted to let you know that I have now modified the proposal based on your feedback. so wanted to have your fresh opinion.  D Big X ray ᗙ  13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent MOS question
I was impressed with your detective work in locating the edit that led to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Can you tell me in detail how you went about it? Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I simply looked at your contributions. In future, I recommend providing a specific example when asking an MoS question. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have but I didn't know how (relatively new). What steps did you follow to produce the link? Jmar67 (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst you're on a user's user page or talk page, look to the left. There will be a button, under the heading 'tools', that says 'user contributions'. If you click on one of the dates you see there, you'll get a link to that revision of a page. You can also see what changed in that revision, by clicking the 'diff' button. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Automobiles
If I understand correctly you have made speeedy requests to rename automobile cats to cars cats? Why all this and why WP:Automobiles hasnt been informed at all for this big changes??? this isnt the right way to edit in Wikipedia -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was renamed car four years ago. We just now had a CFD to match the category with the article per policy, and the speedy requests are for sub-cats. Not sure what you're talking about. Projects have no special authority...though I'm positive said project was notified when the change made...again...four years ago. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Projects have no special authority" isnt Wikipedia supposed to do in concensus, Wikiprojects are main groups in some editing here, Its just stupid habit to edit articles without any consulting such big groups. There is discussion now  and its always better to discuss before making such big changes. One article naming is nothing compared to renaming hundreds of automobile categories, all automobiles are not cars. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus was attained in the various move discussions. The 'car' move discussion determined that the word automobile and car have exactly the same definition. Lorries, &c., are not automobiles. How do we know this? Because reliable sources, i.e. the OED and similar, say so. Read the discussion. Anyone that's been telling you that 'automobile' has a broader definition has been lying to you. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you pls stop naming automobile categories until the discussion is over? thanks, thats not good habit to continue making changes if discussion in still alive -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not touched an 'automobile' category since before the discussion started. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Car vs automobile debate
Hi RGloucster - I know we are on opposite sides of the debate over the Category naming, but I want to check something which could be very useful I believe you may have raised at some point. I couldn't find it in the mass of discussion. Was it a suggestion of yours to put the debate under the requested move format for the Car article? I am really keen to get the matter resolved for all our sakes and this may be a way to move towards ending it. I am thinking that it could be useful to have a summary of both positions at the top of the move request to focus the debate. I would be interested in your thoughts. NealeFamily (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't, but I was involved. See Talk:Car/Naming. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - do you have any thoughts on using requested move in the Car article to try to resolve this. NealeFamily (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the category and the article are meant to be aligned...and have been in the past. But, for now, it's best to see how the CfD turns out, so as to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The result of the CfD will determine the next course of action. In any case, I do not think your 'motor car' proposal is workable. It is used, certainly, but rarely, and we use common names here. The reality is that car is the only acceptable article name for that article, in line with our policies. We all call them cars...I guarantee you, when you walk down the street and see 'cars', you think, that's a 'car'. You don't think about automobiles or motor cars or autocars or horseless carriages. The article has successfully stood at that title for four years with no issue. No one complained that the 'car' article wasn't showing them the content they expected. If somehow the categories are out-of-whack, the way to fix that would not be trying to force a category move to a name no one really uses, and away from the parent article title. It would be making sure that everything was in the appropriate category...for instance, if people want a broad category for motor vehicles by year, we could create that. But, I know that's not why people are doing what they're doing...they simply have an irrational desire to preserve 'automobile' in aspic, irrespective of our policies, guidelines, RS...it feels like a form of revanchism, to come here after four years and make a fuss in an obscure venue about something that has never actually caused any problems in practice. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the situation, and your rationality...but I fear it won't make a difference.  RGloucester  — ☎ 23:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. They make good sense. Lets see how this plays out. I still prefer automobiles over cars as a term in this case, but I wont throw my toys out of the cot if it doesn't work out that way. Cheers.

Australia's head of state, again
Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre
An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions about your closure
There have been questions about your closure of the 'cars' category discussion at User talk:Good Olfactory. I pinged you there, but I'm also writing you this to make sure you're aware. Perhaps you can answer the concerns of Springee? RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I saw your first ping and responded there. - jc37 02:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Mr Shih. I appreciate it. I too get carried away by the intrigues of this place...but, I still have a few articles to work on, so I'll stick around for a little while longer. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Vihtori Kosonen) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Vihtori Kosonen.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
is precisely the same story as, but with admigration theory instead of Dacian continuity theory. I will let you research his activity and you should make up your own mind if another arbitration enforcement would be required. Oh, yes, both editors are quite fond of WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence worth posting, please do so in the AE request I opened. All you need to do is add a "Statement by (username)" section below the existing one. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You've had your fun...
...now please revert your move of the Apollo Command Module. Not only should this be closed by a long-time admin, but you are a constant and vocal supporter of lower-casing items such as this. Please revert and open this up again, as you closing it is probably an instant move review overturn. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can revert my close, if you'd like, but I don't think the discussion will come to a different conclusion. None of the opposers put any hard evidence on the table, and even one of those who previously opposed the move changed his mind after having looked at the matter himself. In any case, I don't really appreciate being characterised as a 'vocal supporter' of lower-casing, considering how I've been labelled as just the opposite many times by certain parties. All I care about is adherence to our policies and guidelines, whatever they may dictate...and in this case, the consensus is crystal clear. I don't think any benefit will be derived from dragging this out further, and you should think about that a bit more before answering this. In any case, are you sure you want me to revert my closure? RGloucester  — ☎ 06:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in your close of my request for a WP:COMMONSENSE exception close. That is an above-policy request, and one which is never used by closers even though it is specifically asked for in the guideline templates. My apologies if you are not a vocal supporter of lower-casing, that was my impression. You were blocked for upper-casing something? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That would create considerable chaos at this point, since I've already worked on propagating the consensus (to abide by MOS:CAPS) to other articles. A move review would be less disruptive, and would ultimately endorse the move and trout Randy. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can leave it as is if you are sure you closed it with no bias - if you were biased on this issue, in an honest self-look at it, then please reopen. If not I guess leave it as is, your choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is 'common sense' or not is determined by the collective consensus of editors, through discussion. No other editors mentioned or endorsed this concept of a common sense 'exception', and other editors made arguments, backed by evidence, that the proposed title was more in line with Wikipedia policies/guidelines. You might've noticed the corollary to the 'common sense' paragraph you cited. It is called 'no common sense', and says "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense". So, whilst to you it may be common sense to capitalise this title, that's not an argument acceptable here. You needed to demonstrate why it was in the interest of the encylopaedia to use capitalisation when RS are not coherent on the issue, and why it would benefit the encylopaedia to deviate from the existing guidelines. I do not think you provided any justification for such. I am certain I did not close this move with any bias. I too recognise the emotional value of capitalisation. However, Wikipedia does not take that into consideration. It has its own reasons for following the approach that it does, and those are enumerated in the relevant policies. Unless a consensus of editors sees fit to change our policy course, perhaps to universal title case for article titles, or something like that, I do not think that any other result was reasonably possible here. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. But the interests of the encyclopedia would be in getting it right, and as NASA is now upper-casing all of these items, and hopefully news articles on the anniversary will take NASA's lead, we may be out of step with societal use of the case titling, which is enough of a reason to put WP:COMMON into the discussion and for the closer to weigh that along with other comments (not every editor has to favor a common sense request, just that it's been made and should have been taken into account). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the situation changes, and there is evidence of that, a new move request can be made. As I'm sure you're aware, we base our usage on how the subject is treated in reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. If reliable secondary sources shift in the way you suppose they might, then that may well be grounds for a new move. At yet, such a conclusion is not possible to make. I apologise for not having specifically mentioned the 'common sense' argument' in my closing statement. I simply did not think that it applied in that specific situation. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You were correct
I missed the previously deleted talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mikhail Borodin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mikhail Borodin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mikhail Borodin
The article Mikhail Borodin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mikhail Borodin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Mikhail Borodin at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Transport for Edinburgh.png


The file File:Transport for Edinburgh.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion in Talk:2016 Taiwan presidential election to decide whether to include the term "Republic of China" in the election infobox and the lead section as it is the official name of the country. Thank you. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

any opinions on the quality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Functions_of_the_conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.77.6 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Mikhail Borodin year of death
Hi there, with regard to this edit, it is not enough to revert the previous edit, as the lede now contradicts the rest of the article, which still in several places gives the year of Borodin's death as 1951. If he died on 29 May 1951 but announcement of his death was not made until 1952, then the year of his death is 1951, not 1952. &mdash; BillC talk 18:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He died in 1951. I thought someone had CHANGED it to 52, and was thus reverting that change...in actual fact I seem to have made an error, and reverted a correction of a mistake. Not sure how that happened. Anyway, thanks for correcting my stupidity...must have read the diff wrong. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, all is clear now. Thanks for replying, all the best. &mdash; BillC talk 00:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Borodin
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ARCA notice
There are two new motions on an ARCA request which you a party to. The motions are being considered at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁  15:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Sinhala vs Sinhalese
Hi RGloucester! There is presently a debate (not a vote) on Talk:Sinhalese language to decide what Wikipedia should call articles about the language. Please come and participate. Danielklein (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Theresa May cabinet 3 vertical
First of all, apologies for reverting the edit removing Fallon. That was completely unintended; I had known you made two edits, but messed up while using Twinkle, hence the accidental removal. However, I do not see any ambiguity caused by not having months, to me they seem unnecessary, so could you clarify here. Many thanks -- Ted Edwards  18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman → Chair (officer)
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019

Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PBS (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PC78 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Americo listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Americo. Since you had some involvement with the Americo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bwrs (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom government (2017–present) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom government (2017–present). Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom government (2017–present) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Persians listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Persians. Since you had some involvement with the Persians redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

At WP:AN ...
At WP:AN, Andy Dingley blames me for what you did (RGloucester moved page Apollo Command/Service Module to Apollo command/service module over redirect: Per 12 December 2018 RM result). How funny. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:British politics
Portal:British politics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British politics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:British politics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jinan incident
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jinan incident you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jinan incident
The article Jinan incident you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jinan incident for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jinan incident
The article Jinan incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jinan incident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Donbass
Hey RGloucester. Would you like to get more involved in editing of War in Donbass? It would be great if you could help to bring this article to GA, but a revert titled "Restore last good version" does not exacly express a deep involvement in the subject matter. Heptor (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox executive government
Template:Infobox executive government has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox government. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:French government logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:French government logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus
Hi, since you were involved in previous naming discussions, would you like to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers? Markussep Talk 08:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Laura Kuennsberg
Hi, I'm new to the editing thing and only ventured here because of the entry from 13th February about Boris Johnson's Cabinet. Please don't take offence if I've misunderstood- as a regular contributor I'm sure you'll help me if I've got it wrong- but I assume the award of a CBE and promotion to Privy Council for Laura Kuennsberg along with her post of Chief Press Officer to HM Government was a gentle satire on your part? If so, I share your sense of humour but wonder if it shouldn't be taken down and corrected now? Obviously I'm loath to try and do this as it's the first iteration of the new Cabinet and to do a revert would undo a great deal of edits since February. Please advise, Your friend, Gordibhoy Gordibhoy (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

‎Criticism of the conspiracy-theory theory of cultural Marxism
Hi, I disagree with your wholesale reversal of my substantial addition to the Frankfurt School page. It does not seem to follow the normal protocol. If my addition appears biased to you, please add balancing material or make the wording more neutral, rather than deleting everything. The opinion pieces I referenced are both by academics and abundantly referenced themselves so should not be dismissed out of hand. sylv (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not how this works. The usual protocol is WP:BRD, and the burden is on the person adding new content to justify it, not the other way around. In this specific case, the relevant article and the subject matter you inserted have been the subject of numerous talk page discussions and RfCs. There was no consensus to insert them into the article then, and there certainly isn't now. We do not create WP:FALSEBALANCE by inserting so-called 'balancing material, so no, I won't do any such thing. Instead, I'll remove these non-notable opinion pieces from the article, in line with longstanding consensus. If you want to insert them into the article, start a new talk page discussion and gain consensus. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the BRD protocol, of which I was not aware. In accordance with Good reasons to revert, I will then proceed to re-revert to signal that I don't think I made a mistake or was misinformed. As you recommended, I have also opened a new discussion topic on the Talk page of the article. sylv (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you have also completely erased sylv's contribution? Katiedel0 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there no protocol for infiltrating articles with obvious bias and then dismissing others for their lack of protocol? Katiedel0 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to be involved in the discussion in favour of Sylv but have been locked out of the discussion section of the article. Play fair if you are going to pretend to play fair Katiedel0 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems the only "protocol" is you are allowed to take control of whatever article you want and then insult anyone who dares to question your rule over it. Azaan Habib 20:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never 'taken control' of anything. I don't know who you are, but I'd appreciate if you spared me such accusations, and indeed, fuss, on my talk page. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your monopoly of the Frankfurt School page: criticism is not a negotiation.
Wikipedia is an editable platform and I see you have managed to curtail and manipulate protocol to have the final say. Your edits in the criticism section (which have been renamed "conspiracy theories" have come at the expense of other users, as well as the expense of maintaining objectivity in this article. How will you rectify this? Katiedel0 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War → Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis
Should the "Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War" renaming back to "Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis" be once again reexamined? Since the account that moved the article without prior consensus and the one other account (beside yourself) who voiced their opposition to the renaming back to "crisis" turned out to be one and the same person and a known sock-puppeteer who has been previously indefinitely blocked. The two accounts have both been indefinitely blocked now as well. Or do we leave it as it is? EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See my reply on your talk page. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gs/notification
Template:Gs/notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Next time...
A simple note on my Talk would suffice. I have in excess of 6,000 pages on my watchlist, I can't remember every restriction on every one of them, and Twinkle doesn't show editnotices. You might also notice that I am the one who nuked most of the Russian disinformation sites, so I am not exactly part of the IRA whitewashing effort. Guy (help!) 17:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. Unfortunately, this is the first time I have encountered such a restriction, so I'm not sure how they work. So far, my opinion about their effectiveness is not too good. Either way, I apologise for being hasty. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Automobile-related media


A tag has been placed on Category:Automobile-related media requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.png
Thanks for uploading File:Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)