Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 12 March 2015

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Your GA nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 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:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Since you probably know this subject better, would you support such edit? My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

POV pusher on "list of coup" articles, please see links

There is a lot of commotion on List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country and List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010 by a biased User:Endukiejunta who is continually pushing pro-Russian POV edits, while regarding the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as that of a "coup." Please visit the talk pages here and here to set the discussion straight. § DDima 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Misplaced Pages good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lugansk People's Republic - article name

I am sorry, but what I have done has probably annoyed you. I have listed your proposal for a change of name for the article on "Lugansk People's Republic" on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. I have worded this in a neutral way. I think it should have been done that way all along. The move discussion initiated by your request for comment has revealed a good case based on English-language usage for the move (almost as strong as the essentially similar case for Sievierodonetsk → Severodonetsk). The case against both moves is based on the primacy of the native language argument - and if we allowed that argument we would rename Germany: Deutschland.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a move discussion. If you want to move the article, why don't you start your own? RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

The article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on Battle of Debaltseve

Really, I don't understand you. Must there be everywhere ″they said" or ″he said"? What is the problem with ″the separatists claimed"? You are not entitled to revert everything. This page is not only for you, but for all editors, if you like it or not. So when I have time, I will try to find a new wording according to the specification that you gave to me. But then I expect your cooperation and not repeated reverts. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everything must simply say "they/he/she said". "Said" is the only neutral word, as it is a simply statement of fact. Words like "informed", "claimed", &c. make implications that are non-neutral. We only accept neutral statements of fact, which is why the MoS says what it says. No new wording will work. Only "said" is appropriate. If you continue to use non-neutral wording, I will continue to revert you in line with our MoS. Prose is used to assign veracity to statements, based on reliable sources. Weaselling around with "claims" is unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you questioning RGloucester about this, Zbrnajsem? I left you a clear message regarding this issue on your talk page on 1 March. Again, please read WP:WORDS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes

You have gone far enough. You were blocked twice (or thrice if separate blocks count regardless of reason). Please let people comment on the recent RM, okay? And enough of ownership behaviours. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I shan't do. I don't let disruptive editors get their way. I'm not that type of person. Until you recognise the error of your ways, you shan't see much acquiescence from me. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, you got what you wanted: two separate articles. Well, I don't count December bombings as independently notable because its article is a stub. And I will see the fit of your errors. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want anything. Apparently, the only one that wants something is you, considering that you keep launching disruptive move requests for no reason. What it is that you want, however, is a different matter. There should not be a December bombing article, because I haven't published my draft yet. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Examples, please. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Examples of what? RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever "disruptive" RMs I've created besides the one we are talking about. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The original Odessa clashes one is a good example. A similar example is your "RfC" at Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the Ukrainian crisis, or your "RfC" at the Benghazi attack article. I don't know why, but you seem to make RMs and RfCs that are destined to go nowhere, and that simply waste time and cause disorder. Stability, peace, and harmony are essential to one's soul's health. Perhaps you need a dose of those? I don't think you understand the gravity of the situations you are placing yourself in. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus agreed to the original RM. How did you repay? Changing the layout of the article and dealing with administrations trying to clean up the mess that you are solely involved in. Also, you think I'll be blocked for things that are considered disruptive? Wait and see when I'll report you about your recent actions. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I did exactly what the RM participants wanted, which was to have an expanded scope article. There was no mess. Whether anyone will be blocked is irrelevant, and I couldn't care less. I do know that I'm certainly being less disruptive than you here, even if others don't see it my way. Today I wrote an article on Nelya Shtepa. Her's is a story that I think people should know. I'm quite pro-Ukraine/Europe, but even I see the absurd nature of what's happened to this poor women. The Nemtsov shooting, for example, got a ton of press, but the abduction and murder of Shtepa's main defence witness got none. Instead of messing around with petty rubbish to make a point, like you, I'm actually writing articles and making maps. I'm sorry that you're sad that no one responded to your RfC there, but perhaps there is a reason for that. Perhaps you should take that meaning onboard. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As promised, you've been reported again on ANI. --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelya Shtepa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Vyacheslav Ponomarev (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) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Said, claimed etc.

RGloucester, please read the following carefully.

"Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#WP:CLAIM

So there is no reason for me or anybody else to evade expressions like "they stated", "New York Times wrote", "he described the situation like", "according to Mr. XY", etc. All these expressions are equal with "to say". Next time please give me exact informations. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times cannot "write", as it isn't a person. Are you a native of speaker of English? It seems you have trouble with using English as it is used by people that speak it. "expressed themselves" was a particularly peculiar addition, as it doesn't make any sense. Changing "that" to "who" is inappropriate per MOS:RETAIN. In British English, "that" and "who" are considered interchangeable. The article is written in BrE. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My knowledge of your language has always been considered good or at least sufficient. I spent together four months in England and Scotland in my youth. English Misplaced Pages is not limited only to native speakers of English, it is a global project. Please do not give me advice for everything. In the said article, there is very probably the following expression: "The New York Times said" (I read NYT on internet frequently). According to you, a daily cannot say or wrote anything. What is to be written instead? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) And yet this: "Who" is certainly better than "that" from the stylistic point of view. Why cannot this be improved? Improvements of wordings are by no means forbidden by Misplaced Pages rules, dear colleague. And thus you have no right whatsoever to revert everything what I write. Only in cases like "They expressed themselves" maybe, but please evade complete reverts. I am editor of Misplaced Pages since 2011, and I know most of the rules. They could be applied in my favour. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of the verb "to say" is acceptable, because it has a metaphorical meaning that can be applied to objects. Oxford Dictionaries describes this meaning as: "(Of a text or a symbolic representation) convey specified information or instructions". "To write", on the other hand, has no such meaning, and can only be applied to people. Newspapers cannot "write", but they can "say". You fail to recognise the distinction between the two verbs. "Who" is not considered better than "that" in British English. That's only the case in American English, where the distinction between the two is much more firm. Per MOS:RETAIN, the existing variety is retained, meaning that the British English remains. If you were actually improving the wording, that'd be true. However, you are not. You are making it incomprehensible and wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

All of this might be quite correct - in your view. I am surprised that everything concerning the language in the said article should be really unchangeable. There is nothing like this in say German Misplaced Pages.

OK, I found this: Consistency within articles: While Misplaced Pages does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

Very nice. I see that this rule has been written in American English. How do I know that the article on Battle of Debaltseve was written in British English? Of course, I suppose you are British (a Briton - would it be correct like this?), and you have as I guess written a substantial part of the article. So I apologize to have remarked that the said article had a dull language. I am sorry, but I felt so. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is dull, but it is dull intentionally. I could easily inject flourishes. I naturally speak in a very over-enriched way. We are not supposed to do that, however. Speaking plainly is the only way to speak neutrally, which is what we are obligated to do by our policy on WP:NPOV. The language is not unchangeable, but changes that violate our policies and guidelines will be reverted by someone, if not me. I started the article. The variety of English used by the starter of the article is maintained, unless there is some reason why it should not be, such as WP:TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, RGloucester. What I see is that this said article is really neutral in its content. If there were such a neutrality everywhere in Misplaced Pages, it would be a blessing. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not News

Is not among the reasons for speedy deletion, because it is to some extent a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

• From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish reports, indicate operating changes

• Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report

• Traffic report: Attack of the movies

• Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes

• Interview: Meet a paid editor

• In the media: Kanye West rebranded; Misplaced Pages in court; editors for hire

• Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Blog: Black History Month edit-a-thons tackle Misplaced Pages’s multicultural gaps

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Your comment directed at me seems unfair and a bit inappropriate. I did not say or imply that those 2 google scholar hits are reliable sources that would be useful to use in the article under discussion; I was explicitly looking for references that had some distance from the subject. And while I didn't detect that one plagiarized from Misplaced Pages as you suggest it did, I did check them both and was aware that the other only mentioned the Odessa clashes as an item in a tabulation of such events (which seems to be a good example of what I was looking for). Who are you to judge which persons are suitable to participate in a Requested Move discussion (which calls for uninvolved editors to come help make a decision)? Please, that is uncalled for and personally directed, unnecessarily. I respond here rather than at the discussion as this is getting off-topic. sincerely, --doncram 21:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your actions dictate my response. Carry yourself well, and you shan't have any issues with me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Another comment

RGloucester, I hope I have carried myself well enough. Listen, please: you seem to be a tad heated in your responses here and there. Even Salvidrim, who unblocked you last time, seems worried to me. I haven't looked at that gender pronoun RfC, though I will, having a professional interest in the matter also; I did look at those diffs you cited elsewhere, and as far as I'm concerned they were fair game per our canvassing policy (neutral venue, neutral audience, neutral message, etc.). I don't fully understand what the issue is in that DR thread about the Crimean Crisis and it doesn't really matter to me: the only thing that concerns me is that you not rip into other editors and not disrupt the various processes. Drop me a line or ping me if you like. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I've not disrupted a thing. I'm the only one that keeps orderly around here. If people are going to act poorly, I shall respond with the appropriate response, measure for measure. That's what's required of a good human. He must call a spade a spade, not linger over niceties or little fickle footnotes in legal documents. This is the essential part of being essential. If editors want to cause disruption, however veiled in niceties, do not expect me to ignore them. I have not "ripped" into anyone. If such people were not resorting to vulgar tactics, we would not be here presently. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon granted gladly. Of course your reverts and re-reverts and unrereverts at DRN were disruptive; I should not have to explain that. I looked at the RfC, and I'm sorry, but I can't really find fault with the close. Some of the opposes in the top RfC didn't actually present any argument at all, and in the bottom one, "Avoid: A" clearly carries the day, arguments and all. Your own argument, '"He" is a gender neutral pronoun, much like the word "man" is a gender neutral noun"', is an opinion that is no longer widely held--but that's by the by. At any rate, I see no reason to doubt the outcome of the RfC and I see no evidence of foul play; I suppose Salvidrim didn't see any either. I'm sorry that your topic ban prevents you from acting on your belief, but for now this train has left the station. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker of English, you can't possibly understand the nuances of the English language. Therefore, there is no point in discussing such matters with you. It is my birthright. It isn't yours. I shan't explain my objections to the closure, because I'm not so foolish as to think I can get away with that. However, do not think I shall countenance this grave injustice. Take your condescension elsewhere. You have no right to talk down to me. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)