User talk:RGloucester/Archive 5

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

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * A large death toll doesn't necessitate a new article. We already have an article for Donetsk-related events, that is Donetsk People's Republic, in addition to the main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. As far as I can see, we have no need for a Mariupol article yet. If the violence continues in the way it is doing so at present, then I could see justification. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

User talk:ArmijaDonetsk
I understand. I could have thrown in the personal attack, which I mentioned in the revert, but they're blocked anyway. If you want to let that remark stand that's fine, but I would suggest leaving it at that: this or any further comment is not likely to be of any benefit, I'm afraid. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Thanks very much. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You should know though that you are not in the wrong, the wording of terrorists right now is loaded by the media and sure is not a NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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)


 * Those are definitive, whereas many of the "flags" being used here are unsourced or add nothing to the infobox itself. It isn't a big concern of mine, however. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well if they are un-sourced then yeah feel free to remove the images altogether from the article. I am just pointing out that there are articles that use a-lot of flag icons in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. MOS:FLAG is a guideline, and not every article adheres to it. We evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it might be time to look into the guideline then if articles like WWII are classified as GA status articles. Or if an article like Battle of Midway can be FA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of the guideline. There has been a lot of discussion on the matter. Regardless, as we all know, just because stuff exists doesn't mean it should… RGloucester  — ☎ 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Dugin
Why did you delete my inputs on the Russian radical parties? Why did you delete all the references including the one where Dugin instructs Mrs Gubareva on separatist actions? The questionable involvement of the Right Sector is okay, but broad and uncovered involvement of the Russian neo-Nazi parties is not okay. Is that how it is? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't belong in the infobox. Put them in the body if you want to add stuff. The infobox is only for the most important parties, not for every random little group or person. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Who decides what is most important and what is random? So, Right Sector is the most important, but Russian National Unity and Alexander Dugin political projects are random. Is that right? What are criteria of importance here? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BBC mentioned Right Sector, and that's considered a very reliable English source. None of yours were mentioned in very reliable English sources, and given the information war on both sides, consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard said that we should only use Russian or Ukrainian sources if what they say is verified by reliable English sources. Furthermore, direct involvement is quite different than backstage involvement. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which article exactly you guys are discussing but reliable English sources have in fact mentioned Dugin's involvement:, , .Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about Dugin's involvement, but his placement in the infobox. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said in the other comment, I try to stay out of infobox disputes as they tend to be a mess, unless it's something really over the top.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OSCE
Though you'd be interested --Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole thing, yet. However, it seems a historic crime is being repeated. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole thing, yet. However, it seems a historic crime is being repeated. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we were talking Luhansk earlier, this is the only mention of it in the report, and it's kind of frightening --Львівське (говорити) 04:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mercenaries
Does this source check out? --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, yes, as long as attribution is given. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the more I look the more the IB Times India link above the more it looks like an RT copy paste job. No article in the US or UK editions is suspect to me..UK says "Russia Today is repeating claims made in the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper that US mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater) are helping Ukrainian forces around Slaviansk." and here is the RT article the IB Times India one is based on it seems. Your thoughts? --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that, given the coverage in the IB Times, regardless of sourcing, it would be worth it to discuss the claims in the article, along with the original German source and the denial by Academi. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * even though IBTI lied? Does the India Edition have the same "RS" factor as the US/UK version would? —Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably it does have the same "RS factor", though that's not a question for me, but for the RS noticeboard. However, I'm more thinking that the best way to deal with this that keeps cropping up is to place it in the article and provide adequate refutation, rather than to keep removing it. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find the original source for this story so I have nothing to directly source or quote. Bild.de has no mention of it but Google is showing up for "bild academi" mostly things like infowars and voiceofrussia. Reddit thread seems to denounce it as coming from a "notorious tabloid" that should come with a grain of salt. It's clear to me now that this original story got spun out and re-sourced to give it credibility (DW or DS, or as RT called it "German media" altogether) but do we credit a tabloid article second hand in a wiki? —Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the best way to deal with it is this:
 * American mercenary firm Academi denied reports that they had been operating in Ukraine.
 * With a link to … RGloucester  — ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm being told now that Bild didn't start the story, it came from RIA originally . So Russian news started the story and then through a game of international telephone, RT reported "German media" was the source. Clever. —Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! Tricky on their part. This whole thing gives me a headache. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry for flooding your talk page, I'm going to keep looking into this. Agreed on headache. —Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is someone trying to force it into some article? RGloucester  — ☎ 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you both think things are in order for a while on the current Ukrainian events pages - long enough for some copy editing? I have been getting more concerned as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine has ballooned in the last two weeks, and was waiting until a lull in the "discussions" before I started a copyedit. I am proposing to start on it later today as it has been on the front page a cpl of times now (news/current events), but only if you both think things are stable enough there for a while?
 * I also noticed that although Russians_in_Ukraine has a hatlink to the article, there is nothing in that section post 2009. It could do with a brief summary of events in adding to it; I don't have enough of a handle on all of the events/weighting to write that myself unfortunately. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be fine to start. What exactly are you going to copyedit? I can help as well, if you need it. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole article from top to bottom. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I more meant, what specifically are the problems you intend to address, and how can I help address them? RGloucester  — ☎ 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, had an RL issue develop half an hour after I left my last message, then took a quick look at it last night and saw all the goings on. I'll prob have a look tonight, it was mostly just grammar and prose. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is fully protected now, for quite awhile. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Too many complications with the Issue With No Name tonight since 18:00 UTC, and couldn't edit without issues, so will try again tomorrow afternoon when I get back. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Police Scotland logo
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 &#124; contribs) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe should use the colour one, as that is the original from which the others are derived, and makes the most sense. I've put it back in. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oligarch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Concerning to the position of the image on the 2014 pro-Russian unrest article
You've got a point, but the text is squeezed in a such narrow space that it makes a bit less comfortable to read it.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Invitation
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)

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

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

OSCE
Now that the DPR is holding 4 actual indisputable OSCE observers, which article does that go in? —Львівське (говорити) 06:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Either the New Russia page or the DPR page. I'm not clear as to which one, but I think the DPR still exists, so I'd vouch for that one. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * just realized its Ponomarev again, so I guess the Sloviansk article with all his other hostages. Oy. --Львівське (говорити) 14:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Sloviansk (formerly Sloviansk standoff)
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,  Mini  apolis  23:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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 and dignity higher if you are not. I wont bother listening to, reading or wasting time replying to juvenile retorts, attempts at discrediting sources or any other dishonest attempts at "disqualifying" me. Posts to my page will be deleted if they contain any such juvenile crap. Please stay on topic, refrain from doing anything or do what is honorable. I have nothing further to discuss or communicate with you.

Good day to you sir.

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


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

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


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

Edinburgh Trams
Couple of points:

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

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

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


 * Yes, an attempt to improve the article by reverting the sentence to the way it was before I edited it earlier! Quite right, that's not a revert at all. I'm civil as can be. Don't hide behind "rewrite" when you are really reverting changes others have made. Your wording is not an improvement, but that isn't a matter for my talk page. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So I delete the comma, you reinstate, and then you delete it. End result is you have adopted my proposal, so what was the point? The assertion that I reversed your post by stealth is with respect incorrect. Mo7838 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the comma, the sentence structure. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Endorsing what?
Can you please specify which view you endorse. PS I do not want anyone to be blocked or banned. I would just like that Director stops insulting me. He can do what he want, filing RfC, report me to AN/I but not insulting me. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've clarified. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611463047 your edit] to Volnovakha checkpoint attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614564801 your edit] to 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{!}}} It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * publisher=Euronews|date=14 April 2014|accessdate=14 April 2014}} ref name=gorlovkaeuronews/  ref name=gorlovkaeuronews/  {{cite news|url=http://rt.com/news/kiev-clashes-rioters-police-571/|title=
 * said it had taken control over all points of strategic importance in the area around []Kramatorsk {{red|&#93;&#93;}} . [http://www.dw.de/red-cross-hostages-freed-in-donetsk-eastern-

Marixist!
Wow, that's interesting. I wouldn't have pegged you for that! What are your thoughts on Thomas Picketty's book? Do you favor reforms such as mincome, or are you an accelerationist?—Atlantictire (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more of what one would call a "cultural Marxist", but not merely so. Economics don't interest me. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean in the way Marx said that every group of peoples should have the right in a socialist society to create their cultural identity and guard such a one? Or that Engels wished to see ethnic minorities (as an entity) exterminated in favor of clear cut collectives which create harmony and protect the revolution better? If not, please stop calling yourself a marxist. Read and educate yourself: https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm You see what worries me is that you so called "Cultural Marxists" have goten the whole thing upside down. If anything the drive was for one world culture of the workingclass, guided by one system of values and identities. The other version being the typ of thing that was attempted in the USSR with clear homelands/republics for each group. You seem to instead thrive in an environment of social disharmony. You would perhaps call it exchange but an exchange happens volountarily and is not forced upon you from all directions at once. I don't really stand by any ideology and like being confronted with a degree of cultural ambiguity. But yeah, you folks seem to have your own stuff mixed up. 79.136.64.226  (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

About the map
RGloucester, this is the map at the peak of the situation! And I emphasized I tried to emphasize the tragic events in Odessa, while triying to minimize the events in regions where the situations were not severe, like Dniepropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv or Kherson. I think there is a humanitary reason to emphasize Odessa! It still keeps the previous information and adds more information! Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no benefit. The criteria for the map already exist. What happened in Odessa were a few protests turned bad. Nothing more severe. There is no consensus to give WP:UNDUE weight to one day in May. It is highly misleading, and inappropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if what happened in Odessa was so irrelevant as you're trying to point out in your WP:UNDUE. Well, for whoever was aware what really happened there was anything but pointless. It was a humanitary disgrace! I'm not cold hearted, as you may have noticed. And I don't think that the situation in Odessa should be compared to the situation in Dniepropetrovsk! Don't forget that there were retaliations in the Donbass because of what happened in Odessa! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. That's not what the map is about. The maps is about telling people the basics about the level unrest in each area. There have only been protests in Odessa, nothing else, and we can't blow that out of proportion, which would be WP:UNDUE. Just because one set of protests went bad on one day doesn't mean we provide a special colour in the map, regardless of how much a tragedy the events might've been. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of regions of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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

ip lock
we may need to get protection again, the IPs are getting a bit crazy with the warring and propaganda —LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 18:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely go for it. I've had enough of this for a while, and I've already been "warned" for reverting IP nonsense, so I'm staying out for a bit. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM
In the discussion, you use the wording "I oppose the changes mentioned above for the same reasons as Kahastok", which appears to be suggesting that a proposal to change to to bring the guideline more into line with actual usage is correctly characterized by your comment "'the idea of 'metricating' Wikipedia in this content for the sake of it is an example of righting great wrongs, something that is opposed by policy.'?" If your comment does in fact refer to my contribution, it would appear to me to imply - incorrectly and inappropriately - that I am in breach of policy. If so, we need to discuss this further, along with some of your other comments. Before replying, please consider what you think is the main unit of length in the UK, and then look at the current wording of the guideline. Perhaps it would make for less drama if you reverted the recent addition of the word "length", which inadvertently (assuming good faith) seems to make the mile the main unit of length in the UK. Rather than objecting to any suggested changes and making unwarranted assumptions about others motives, please take the trouble to read and digest what is being suggested. --Boson (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the main units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;
 * the main units for road distances, road vehicle speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;


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

SVG versus PNG image on 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine
I noticed that there is an SVG version of the main image for 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine at File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.svg. Why hasn't it been getting updated and why haven't we been using it? I wanted to update the title for File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.png to reflect the name change, but I couldn't because it was a PNG. I would have thought it preferred to use an SVG where available, but this one appears to have been forgotten a long time ago. Dustin ( talk ) 16:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PNGs can be easily edited, much more easily than SVGs, for most people, as demonstrated by those who keep editing it. The SVG version doesn't allow us to use a good font, and has sizing issues, and hence the PNG is preferred in this instance. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you edit a PNG? I know how to edit the SVGs but not the PNGs. What software do you use? The SVG font limitation is a fault of MediaWiki's, but I guess that doesn't make a difference. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Federal State of Novorossiya
I saw on the talkpage that a result had been reached, if it had stayed at "New Russia" and someone made the change to the article lead to Novorossiya I am sure you would have undone the edit too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the title of the article, "Novorossiya" remains as transliterated Russian, and not English. It is misleading to state otherwise. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Should articles entirely sourced from news limited in size?
Dear RGloucester, you are an experienced editor so you can perhaps explain me. I am quite concerned for the direction that Wikipedia is taking in the respect of the events in Ukraine. Is Wikipedia an Encyclopedia or a newspaper? In principle something that is not yet in secondary sources should not be here. Or at least the articles should have a limited size. What is your view? —Silvio1973 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what the answer is, Silvio. We are WP:NOTNEWS. I've tried on and on to remove newspaper sensationalism from our articles, to stop the creation of articles that don't meet WP:PERSISTENCE, and which are examples of WP:RECENTISM. However, I've failed at almost every turn. Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus, and sadly, it seems like the large influx of single purpose accounts has been able to turn our Ukraine coverage into a sort of index of tabloid articles. There isn't very much you or I can do about it, other than remove the offending stuff and argue our position on the talk pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For God's sake... consensus. I did not believe rules could be overriden because 5 or 10 people decide to push a POV. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the way it is supposed to work. We're not supposed to be a democracy. The best argument is supposed to "win". However, any time an administrator tries to enact such a judgement, as they did with, for example, the recent move discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, they take heavy flak. I feel like most administrators are therefore afraid of making such decisions, for fear of reprisals by angry mobs of editors. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of posts
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Don't delete not your posts. NickSt (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...? Sorry, but that does not appear to be RGloucester's post. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He had removed my posts two times. Links are shown. NickSt (talk)
 * Wait, that says "don't delete 'not' your posts". Dustin  ( talk ) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He states on his talk page that his English level is "intermediate", so you can give him some slack in that regard. However, my removing of the RM is because it is improperly formatted. You don't start an RM you oppose on behalf of someone else who doesn't want an RM. That is incorrect formatting. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't about Nickst's English, it was that I originally read it as "Don't delete your posts". Dustin  ( talk ) 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It presently says "Don't delete not your posts". RGloucester  — ☎ 19:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my "grammar error". It means "my posts". Incorrect formatting or not, agree or not agree, it's a not a reason to delete the post. Really nonsense. I never seen it before. NickSt (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Because you said it was on my behalf, as I linked at that discussion. I haven't given you consent to take action on my behalf. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Really strange. You want to rename articles but don't want to take part in official discussion about renaming. I started RM section but you removed it. I don't understand you. NickSt (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to rename the article, which I've said fifty times. There is no such thing as "official" on Wikipedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to an IP user that keeps making the same unsourced changes in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine
There is an IP user that has kept making the same changes (or very similar) concerning to the number of casualties among Ukrainian servicemen killed during the conflict, in the infobox, in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. Concerning to that user, I wrote to EkoGraf, the following: For your information - uncivil edit summaries about you and Iryna Harpy by the user 83.202.113.90 The user 83.202.113.90 has written the following edit summaries in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article in response to you and Iryna Harpy: Now another IP user (83.202.51.170), along with Coltonrsmith0320, who I suppose are all the same, have also made the same changes. The IP user indicated in the edit summary the Kievpost as a source, as well as the url, but didn't edit the url. I undid the edits, and I told him to edit it, if it had a divergent figure, and told him that if he didn't know how to do it, to ask for help. Can you do anything about this problem?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Undid revision 614010666 by EkoGraf (talk)I'am right, you are wrong, you are know for your propaganda : End of the discussion ! + 3 crew of a mi-8 on the 22 june.
 * Undid revision 614071797 by Iryna Harpy (talk)You should look for beer......or for glasses.........
 * I don't understand why EkoGraf and his gang haven't be block a long time ago....
 * Please report the IP at WP:AIV. After that, I'd recommend you request page protection for the article at WP:RPP. I don't have time to do this myself, at the moment, but you should be able to handle it. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP editor in question has made insulting comments towards multiple editors and unsourced edits at Iraq and Syria related articles. I requested protection for the articles but my request was denied due to the IP guy being eventually blocked due to his abusive behavior so the administrator thought the problem had been dealt with. However, the IP vandal's address changes every day so he is evading the block. I asked the administrator who denied my earlier temporary protection request to reverse his decision because of his block evasion but have yet to get an answer. It would be probably good that one of you makes the temporary protection request at WP:RPP. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I recommend you open a WP:SPI. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southport, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine related articles
Have you any idea about the best way of approaching all of the newly created articles that deal with all of the minutiae of the Ukraine Crisis. I know there was a bit of discussion here however it would appear that efforts to merge/redirect/delete are often unsuccessful. Even International recognition of Lugansk People's Republic was briefly an article. It would appear that WP:RECENT, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, etc. are routinely being breached or ignored. Would it be best perhaps to seek administrator input? It seems to be noticeably missing in what is a relatively controversial area. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that it sounds bad, but there really isn't anything we can do other than use AfD, speedy deletion, merges, and redirects. Administrators won't get involved in content matters. I've been fighting these superfluous articles since day one, and some battles were won. Often, the creators abandon them after the while, and we can deal with them appropriately. However, with regard to the constant "battle" articles being created, there isn't much to do other than try to talk to Arbutus, who has been the chief creator. I've advised him as such, but he hasn't seemed to understand. He's a good and diplomatic editor, though, so I let it slide. Relying on AfDs isn't ideal, though, as it seems people are all to willing to say "meets GNG" without even bothering to think about it, or examine our present coverage. Once again, though, there is nothing we can do other than fight the battle the same way as anyone else. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much! RGloucester  — ☎ 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)