Misplaced Pages

User talk: RGloucester

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George Ho (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 13 March 2015 (→Draft:2014 Odessa clashes: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:24, 13 March 2015 by George Ho (talk | contribs) (→Draft:2014 Odessa clashes: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This is RGloucester's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
User talk
  • 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

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!

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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)

Don't wari

b hapi. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the question that one must ask is "What is ending?" Regardless, the Misplaced Pages capability for vertical script is quite limited. Sad, no? RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I wish I could override their css with my own. What is ending? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a change of outlook, an adjustment of the angle of approach. Nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Posthumanism is the mother of reinvention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Dude, either you're a propagandist or I don't know what

It saddens me that thise whole "reliable source" business is being used to crush reasonable logical arguments. I've made this point all over Misplaced Pages, not only here. It tends to be the way that massmedia outlets trump scientific or official sources in general. (I'm mostly active in various sociological discussions). So I see you're clamping down on the Illovaisk battle thing. Not sure why, since you seem to be getting alot of acknowledgement bout your historical expertise and such. You should know if you've done any amount of personal research about this subject, checked out some videos, read som witness statements from Ukranian soldiers that they tried to break out. Yet you insist that Misplaced Pages should accept the WSJ account of what happened just becaus the newspaper tends to be reliable. It's basically out there that the FSB, CIA, MI5 and such have operatives in just about all major outlets of respective country and they tend to use their influence by writing editorials like this. Wouldn't you agree? That's not to say that the man or woman who wrote for the WSJ is one, alot of people also benefit indirectly from following the official policy and the polciies of said countries think tanks and institutions. Just that foreign and domestic intelligence services have their hand in things nowdays. Anyway, the point is more about that if you've done some research you should see that the WSJ article is incorrect, no? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What personal attacks?78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No original research. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay look. I'm asking you if you beleive it yourself or not? It's not my video btw, it's the vide of a Ukranian soldier....78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The important thing to note about Misplaced Pages is that it doesn't matter what we all believe. We can all believe what we want, but it has no relevance on what we write. At least, it is not supposed to do. I don't know who's video it is, but it doesn't matter. We don't know where it came from, or anything about whether it is verifiable. We only have reliable sources, which tell us what is verifiable. They have a burden for fact-checking, and that's what makes them reliable. If the Wall Street Journal and the other reliable sources used in the article assessed the sources that they had available, and came to the conclusion that they did, we can assume that that conclusion is correct. That's because the organisations are well-known as purveyors of facts. On the other hand, we have no RS supporting what you're saying. Therefore, what you are saying is irrelevant and WP:OR observation of videos of unknown veracity. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all you have a very biased and occidental view of what is reliable and not. I have started several discussions on this subject and on the general unverifiability of news sources in both the west and the east. Check the talkpage of the battle for links to them. But this is not even about that. The social media in Ukraine is ablaze with discussions on this subject. Soldiers have said these things in various interviews. They are not taken up by western media. But at the same time you see that WSJ sources contradict official Ukranian death tolls. Not only the 1000 figure that you choose to ignore for some reason but even the figure in the article.
I would think the best way to resolve this would be to actually check the agreements contents and then counter check the supposed claims of an armored breakthrough with losses on the various Russian and Ukranian sites that keep track of armored casualties by filming them and adding geo-trackings to them. But it's alot of work. Sill I would like to hear your personal opinion. To me who is watching and researching this it seems so clear. So for me it is problematic that a source I know is not telling the truth is included because of its prior record, primarilly on financial reports. (WSJ doesn't have a dispatch of their own in the field in Ukraine to my knoweldge). Do you see my concern? And if you've resarched this subject you should know that I am right so I would like to ask you why you arent concerned.78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
WSJ does have reporters in the field, which will be apparent if you've read the article in question. Keep in mind that this isn't just WSJ. It is also Reuters, Kyiv Post, and a smattering of other sources. I added the 1,000 figure originally, and it is still there. However, newer reports revised the figure down. I'm not in charges of statistics. EkoGraf does them, and he's the one that's verified that the 1,000 figure is considered outdated. Ask him if you have a problem with it. If something is not taken-up by RS, that means that it is likely unverifiable and useless. I'll also have you know that the WSJ articles extensively cites soldiers on the ground. I'm sorry if you think RS are "generally unverifiable". That means you ought find another project to spend your time on. Misplaced Pages is not here to report "truth", or to right wrongs within the media. It is here to report what RS say on a subject in an encyclopaedic manner. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned in one of the discussions I have started the entire western media except for a few major outlets with clear political leanings (and thus for the wrong reasons) refused to investigate what later proved to be falsified reasons for war with Iraq. Your statement that it is likely unverfiable if it's not taken up is not true. There is as I mentioned a clear agenda that is being pushed. And sadly it's even worse with independent media outlets because they tend to be even more dependent on other types of funding and contacts/sources that are conditional. Nothing that media does is verifiable. Media prints subjective accounts of things. Thus every source isn't scientific. It may be generally reliable but only if said outlet doesn't have a policy of attacking or criticizing one party of the conflict. I haven't seen a single interview by WSJ of anyone except the president on the 20th of January so I doubt that they have any active representatives in Ukraine. But it may be. To me it doesn't make logical sense that a force would encircle a group and then refuse them surrender. It's never been done in the history of war so I can't accept it.And it's a problem that you do. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We have policies. WP:RS. WP:V. The definition of what is "verifiable" is clear on Misplaced Pages. If you do not like that definition, there is not much else to be said. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Dude, I'm obviously talking English and not Wikipedian. Verifiable is not Reliable. Indeed it is what you said Misplaced Pages does not do: "...to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination" (dictionary) so it's Misplaced Pages that has a problem then, not me. It is amazing to me that you refuse to answer anything about your own personal opinions about this on a subject you seem interested in while I am eager to engage you in a conversation, why? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion is not relevant, as I'm not a reliable source for anything. We are here to build an encylopaedia, not discuss our own canards. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No point in expending your valuable energy on talking to socks, RGloucester. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Reference Errors on 12 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:2014 Odessa clashes

I created a draft; help me fix this draft before I request a history log move at WP:REPAIR. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus, and I shan't allow such a draft to be implemented. It is a coatrack, and it will be destroyed. On another note, the RM has not been closed. No one has supported your position, and the strength of my arguments shines through. RGloucester — ☎ 05:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, as I've now said on the article talk page, you've made a bunch of WP:OR. You are creating a narrative that does not exist in RS. Reliable sources do not lump these events together. They do not create this narrative. It is all WP:OR on your part. The 2 May events are separate, and always shall be until RS say otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 05:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think you and I need a mediator. However, to have a mediator, you and I (and other involved parties if any) must agree to have one. Otherwise, I'd re-report your recent antics to ANI, proving that mediation would be useless and futile. --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation. Why don't you let the move discussion you wanted so dearly finish as it is meant to? RGloucester — ☎ 06:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I've re-reported you at ANI; comment there. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)