User talk:RGloucester/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

• News and notes: US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan

• Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?

• Exclusive: "We need to be true to who we are": Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost

• Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags

• Featured content: Showing our Wörth

• WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true

• Recent research: Power users and diversity in WikiProjects

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Views

There is no "military" of Ukraine Wikipedia definition of Armed Forces of Ukraine - Armed Forces of Ukraine are the military of Ukraine. Besides, we go, per Wikipedia policy, with the most common term (which is military in the news) even though it is not the official name. As for the claim part, sources themselves are saying they claimed. Just one example [1] (from a reliable source) - A Ukrainian government spokesman claimed that more than 300 pro-Russia militants had been killed and at least 500 wounded. So its the reliable sources that are implying falsity as you would put it, not us, and we write per the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the sources says. We don't copy the commentary of the source, only the facts (substance). Our MOS is clear. We don't say WP:CLAIMED. We use "said". "Military" is incorrect, and will revert until I die in that regard. I will maintain neutral point of view, and not allow you to skew things with words like "claimed" or "alleged". They "said" it. That does not imply that they actually did it. Merely that they "said" it. This is a correct and neutral statement, per the MoS. Military is incorrect, and I will not tolerate incorrect translation. RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the sources says. Actually, per Wikipedia policy it does. If you don't like it its your personal POV that you have a right to but it does not count on Wikipedia. If reliable neutral independent sources imply falsity we also do the same. Presenting it as fact is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality because you are than presenting the figure of one side as something that is factual, and not something that has not been confirmed. You can also claim military is incorrect but Wikipedia disagrees with you, and if you have a problem with that take it up with an administrator. Also, your comments that you will die while pushing a personal POV shows a degree of hostility which is contrary to Wikipedia policy on civility. I would ask you to cool of, assume a bit of good faith and talk for a compromise wording instead of starting and edit war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am really trying here to keep calm and assume good faith on your part but you are really not making it easy for me with accusations such that I am trying to skew things with words like claimed and alleged. First, I never used the term alleged (that was a lie on your part), and second claimed is the term used by independent reliable neutral sources. And again, military is the Wikipedia term for their Armed Forces, if you consider it an incorrect translation take it up first at the Armed Forces article and than with the 90 percent of news sources calling them the military. EkoGraf (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

NO! The MOS is clear. If you can't read, that's not my fault. We do not imply falsity in the words we use. That is not how it works. We are NEUTRAL. We are held to the standards of a tertiary source, because we are WP:NOTNEWS. We are not JOURNALISM. We don't verbatim copy sources. That would be a copyright violation as WP:CLOSE . I am not presenting it as factual. I present it as factual that the Ukrainian guy said that, because that is factual. I do not present his story as factual, just as I do not present the separatist story as factual. Both sides are there, and both sides "said" stuff. I did not "lie". I did not say you use the word "alleged", but it is in the same class of discouraged words as "claimed", as verified by WP:ALLEGED. Military is not the right word. The translation of the Ukrainian is "armed forces", and will not tolerate you failure to accept WP:ENGVAR. The article is written in British English, if you can't handle that, too bad. Drop the stick. RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ukraine guy did not say it, the Ukraine guy claimed it, per the source. Claiming that I am doing a verbatim copy is incorrect because claim and say are not the same things. You pushing the word say is not neutral because you are than changing the meaning of what is in the source. However, I will drop the stick (hostile again) on the word since you are uncompromisingly (as always) not in the mood to talk it out. However, I am not dropping the stick in regards of the Armed Forces thing. The British English Wikipedia calls the Armed Forces of Ukraine their MILITARY, as you would put it if you can't handle that, too bad. I will change it back to military, and I would warn you (friendly warning), that if you revert my edit again about the armed forces thing it will be your fourth revert and I will be within my rights to report you for breaking the 3RR rule. I myself will be conducting my 3rd revert of you with this edit and will stop edit warring with you after that because I myself am not looking to break the rule. EkoGraf (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will revert you until I die. Military is wrong per ENGVAR, and an incorrect translation. I will revert you until I die. If there is one thing I do not tolerate, it is the misuse of language, the corruption of everything I hold dear. I will not allow you do make such a mockery of the English language. Try me. Just to note, by the way, there is no "British English Wikipedia". RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not a translation, its the Wikipedia definition and the common name used by the media. And accusing me of mockery for sticking to Wikipedia's definition and the definition of everybody else is once again contrary to Wikipedia's policy on civility. And it was actually you who used the term British English first. When I said British English Wikipedia I ment the wording, not that Wikipedia itself is British English. And thank you very much for the revert. I am reporting you now and will also note to the administrator your highly temperamental hostile language. EkoGraf (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The title of the body is the "Armed Forces". There is no "military of Ukraine", otherwise the article would be titled as such. In British English, "military" usually only refers to ground forces. Not to all things pertaining to warfare, and usually excluding air forces and navies. Enjoy your little report. At least I will be on the side of the English language. It will haunt you for eternity. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph, first sentence - The Armed Forces of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Збройні сили України (ЗСУ) Zbroyni Syly Ukrayiny, (ZSU)) are the military of Ukraine. I think that's pretty much clear English as it gets. And haunted? Seriously? EkoGraf (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a spiritual man, and I have always seen the spirit of the English language. It courses through me. It is what makes me live. To see it beaten by people like you is a pain upon my soul. I know that that spirit will haunt you until your last days. The English tongue is a language that never forgets what torment it has endured. You will feel her wrath. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, you have been reported. EkoGraf (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A coup for you! RGloucester — ☎ 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, going to sleep now soundly, without feeling any wrath or that I am haunted. EkoGraf (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A disaster; preserve English: save our language!

Blocked from editing To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring at 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one day. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped. See my comments in this section as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @Callanecc: I must dispute, Mr Callanecc, that did you did not let me respond to Mr EkoGraf. I therefore request that you place my response as such at the board where he posted his complaint. To be so hasty does not seem appropriate. Please place the following text below his airs: If I must be punished, hang me upon a cross, and place a scroll that says "King of the English language" above me. Mr EkoGraf, as useful a contributor as he usually is, clearly does not grasp the Manual of Style. I removed the words "claimed", and replaced them with "said" by virtue of WP:CLAIMED, as a method of maintaining neutrality. However, I was accosted for this, as I was told I was "pushing a POV" about what was factual and not factual. I shan't get into that, as it isn't really of any importance. My main concern is with his insistence on changing "Armed Forces" to "military". Firstly, if we consider "military" a valid usage, this violates MOS:RETAIN. I quote "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another". Regardless of that, I consider "military" highly incorrect. The proper translation of the Ukrainian is "Armed Forces", and "Armed Forces" is the title of the article in question. Furthermore, "military" frequently does not refer to either navies or air forces, but only to ground forces. In this case, military is not an appropriate usage. I am tolerant of a great many things, and I have seen many things in my time here. However, if there is one thing I do not tolerate, it is the corruption of the English language. It is a subversion of the highest order. There can be no higher subversion then to damage the beauty of our native tongue. To see her blood spilled in a quest to erase "Armed Forces" from the pages of this article was such a pain upon my soul that I could not stop, sit idly by, and allow Mr EkoGraf to commit such a crime. The great matron of the English language cried out to me, and requested my aid. How could I deny her? Therefore, if I am to die a death on these pages, I shall be happy to be a martyr for her, the greatest of languages. I will at least be on the side of English, and EkoGraf will be on the side of subversion. I do not think this is bad faith on the part of EkoGraf, merely ignorance. But there is nothing I can do for those who do not see beyond the tangible. Therefore, I suppose I shall martyr here. If I must, I will. At least I will know, as I've said, that I was on the side of English. I hope that my contributions here to these articles, such as the one in question, is not seen as invalid, despite my death here. I thank you for hearing my plea. I thank you dearly for your time. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @Callanecc: If you could respond to EkoGraf's complaint promptly, you should be able to respond to my response. Therefore, I request an indefinite block be placed on me at once. If I cannot save the English language, I would rather be erased from these pages. RGloucester — ☎ 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Sorry was reading and had a few edit screens open. I'm not going to copy it cover as that would be carrying on the uncivil and battlegroundy dispute. Wait out your block, come back and edit within the rules. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) If the rules mean that I cannot protect the English language, I will not abide by the rules. Therefore, please block me indefinitely. RGloucester — ☎ 06:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC) The rules mean you can't edit war, violate the three revert rule, be [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil] or take a battleground approach. If you can't abide by them then stop editing and walk away there should be no reason to block you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I cannot stop, for the blood of a crusader runs through my veins. When I see such abuses, my veins run hot. Therefore, I must be blocked, at once. RGloucester — ☎ 06:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Have a think about it for the rest of your block, in any case you are being disruptive and continuing the same behaviour which lead to the block. If you can't edit constructively don't come back. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I have to intercede on the behalf of RGloucester. Block him indefinitely is too harsh, particularly when it is on his own talk page, and taking into account the valuable contributions he has made concerning to the theme of the pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine! Callanecc --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Hence the reason I didn't block him indefinitely in fact I was trying to convince him that it would be best not to do that. I removed talk page access for the duration of the block (which was only 24 hours) which has now expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 insurgency in Donbass, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Konstantinovka, Vyacheslav Ponomarev and Igor Strelkov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass

What's the problem? Are we not all equal on Wikipedia?—Baba Mica (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy here. All edits must be reliably sourced. Yours were not. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass

What's the problem? Are we not all equal on Wikipedia?--Baba Mica (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me help you find a connection between the Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian paramilitariy in this conflict. I know for sure about that. International and political support for the Ukrainian government is very open to the U.S., EU, NATO and other European countries. You can hear it every day. Just turn on the TV or go on the internet portals. I did not lie.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can this?--Baba Mica (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's okay now. I put some old timers.—Baba Mica (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unsourced, again. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

• In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms

• Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.

• News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award

• Featured content: Ship-shape

• WikiProject report: Indigenous Peoples of North America

• Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donbass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• православного священника - СМИ]</ref> This was confirmed by the Church and the Prosecutor's Office.<<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-orthodox-church-confirms-
• Donetsk, the office of the "Red Cross" was attacked and seven hostages were seized''], 10 May 2014.]</ref><ref name= DeutcheWelle10May >[http://www.dw.de/red-cross-hostages-freed-in-donetsk-eastern-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donbass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donbass

What is wrong? I have found reliable sources.

"Globalresearch" is not reliable, firstly. Secondly, none of these belong in the infobox. The infobox is only for direct participants, and none of these are direct participants. RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. RGloucester. Neither Russia is not directly involved in the conflict, and is still placed in the template. Conflict on the border has, but the invasion of this part of Ukraine does not yet have. Paramilitaries from Russia likely to exist for them to know. This morning, the Ukrainian government confirmed that her part of the military equipment sent by the United States. --Baba Mica (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Americans have said that they support every move of the Ukrainian government. The first link is a website of President Barack Obama. He signed and gave the United States permission to help the Ukrainian army in supplying military equipment and food. Data about are everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/05/us-sending-advisers-gear-to-ukraine-/10046845/--Baba Mica (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Americans do not want to give Ukraine military equipment for children to play, but to fight against the pro-Russian rebels in the east of Ukraine.—Baba Mica (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That is meant for the international response section at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and is already there. It doesn't pertain directly to the insurgency, nor does it ever belong in infobox, which is only for direct parties to the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As the civil war in Syria, right?—Baba Mica (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Syria, nor do I care about Syria. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

View article Syrian civil war and see the parallels of American aid Syrian rebels. Concept is very similar. There is interesting information role for Russia to protect the Syrian government and helps politically, financially and militarily. USA in conflict in Ukraine protects the Ukrainian authorities in the same way.—Baba Mica (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's called WP:OR, and I don't really feel like listening to rants. All that I know is that what you put in the infobox doesn't belong there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Belongs to the 2014 pro-Russian riots in Ukraine, although the Ukrainian government has not yet declared a military conflict. When Ukraine declared a state of war, the pattern must be changed. The title will probably be a War in eastern Ukraine. There should be inserted my changes.--Baba Mica (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing an edit in 1.5 seconds I spent 45 minutes of my night sleep time making is not a nice way to "welcome" me to Wikipedia

But I know verbatim what you're going to say to me. Sorry, I'm afraid I'll be leaving this craphole instead. 194.165.0.6 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edits did not conform to Wikipedia policies. There isn't much I can do, but direct you to look at our neutral point of view policy. RGloucester — ☎ 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

194.165.0.6, if you still feel that your edit improved the article, why not start a discussion on Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass? That is what article talk pages are for. You could explain why you think that your edit makes the article better.

Please be aware that "I worked so hard on this edit. Do you really want to put my contribution to waste?" is an argument to avoid in discussions. (The link refers to deletion discussions, but the point is valid here.)

By the way, you will need citations for the link you made between events. You will need to be careful with this - do the citations show that the link is generally accepted, or is it the propaganda of the Russian Government? If you cannot provide suitable citations, it will fail under NPOV policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

German nationalism in Austria

added links pointing to Tyrol, Little Germany and Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

2014 insurgency in Donbass

added a link pointing to Artemivsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

GOCE drive

Hey RGloucester, do you mind listing the number of words that you copyedited? Also, if the article was an "old article" from March/April 2013, put *O at the end, and if it was from the requests page, it would be great if you put *R. I'm not one of the coordinators, but I am helping to fix the leaderboards on the copyedit page :D Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)