Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 06:24, 12 January 2015 editRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits I don't allow people who encourage the corruption of the encylopaedia on my talk page.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:28, 13 August 2024 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Always precious: thank you
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Not around|date=15 July 2023}}
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:black; font-family:Monotype Corsiva">User talk: RGloucester</span>}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:black; font-family:Monotype Corsiva">User talk: RGloucester</span>}}
			{{Archives}}
			{{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|icon=info}}
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	{{Talk header}}
	{{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|icon=info}}
	== ''The Signpost'': 09 July 2014 ==
			== Greetings from WikiProject:Ukraine ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-07-09}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 26-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=616612163 -->
			{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	== L'Aquotique ==
			|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Have a good day!'''
	I suspect that L'Aquotique was attempting to generate a false consensus to restore that same info through bullying and impersonation because s/he had lost the earlier debate. The reason they create accounts to talk about themselves is presumably to make it less obvious by avoiding an overwhelming consensus one way. I seriously doubt anyone would be doing this for no reason at all, since usually those kinds of vandals are just silly. This, however, is deadly seriousness. I hope it all works out fine for you, and I will be happy to assist in combatting anymore trouble there might be. ] (]) 10:58, 13 July 2014
	{{Ping|EkoGraf}} I appreciate your support. I don't feel that the person is being serious, however, in the manner that they write or act. The way both the sock-puppets of Iryna and I were supposedly "talking to each-other" seemed more like some kind of dark comedy, rather than any kind of seriousness. He/she doesn't seem to have a vested interest in Ukrainian articles, only in restoring this one paragraph. That itself is somewhat ridiculous, as they've put in way too much effort in just for the sake of one paragraph, if that's what they supposedly care about. ] — ] 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I just have to point this out: RGloucester, you pinged L'Aquotique. I presume you actually meant to ping EkoGraf? ]&nbsp;] 22:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	::That's odd. I've fixed the ping… ] — ] 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	==Rollback==
	]. For the the problems you are talking about, you have to leave a edit summary that explains why you are making the edit. Rollback does not do that. You have not missed out on anything that would help you.
	Where rollback is great is when you are dealing with a prolific vandal who busy vandalising pages as you are reverting. Rollback gives you the time to zap his/her edits and template his/her talk page for them, whilst more-or-less keeping up with the vandal.--] (]) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I suppose so. ] — ] 22:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
	== Thank you for clearing that up. ==
	I didn't realize that one could actually do that.] (]) 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
	::No problem. Keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour, as that particular sockmaster likes to sow discord. ] — ] 03:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
	== New template ==
	As I see that you are interested in Ukraine and recent events there, maybe you'll like . This template resembles the one used in ] and is sorted chronologically and by subject. I was recently browsing the articles on the events in Ukraine and there were too many, making it hard to sort out the events. The related topics in the second part of the template are also included, that are seen as precursor to the recent events in Ukraine. What do you think? —] (]) 12:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I like it. I was thinking of creating one of those myself. Thanks very much. ] — ] 16:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for moving the template. I couldn't figure out how to create it. Only way I found was AfC. BTW, it still has a small problem: "View" and "Template" buttons in the lower right are in red. Ho to fix this? ] (]) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Thank you for your bold copyedit. The article is now ready to a GAN. Have a nice day. ] (]) 10:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
	== Cluestick ==
	{| style="background:#fdffe7; border:1px solid #fceb92;"
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The Cluestick: awarded to people who do, in fact, have a clue.<br>I notice your name pop up from time to time in a range of different discussions on the organisation and running of Misplaced Pages and on other matters. You have an excellent record of <strike>saying things I agree with</strike>being a voice of reason in otherwise fraught debates, and I feel it's worth recognising this. I particularly liked and sympathised with your comment ]. Best regards. ] (]) 09:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
	|}
	::Thanks very much! ] — ] 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 16 July 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-07-16}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 27-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=617411639 -->
	== Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict ==
	Show me where it says ''Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict'' is grammatically incorrect. And spare me that talk about being the defender, haunting people, corruption, etc. Just the fact where it says its grammatically incorrect. ] (]) 12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	::"Syrian Civil War inter-rebel conflict" isn't a phrase that makes sense. The clause must come before the proper noun. The proper way one would say it is "Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War". I'd also like to note that this was the title agreed upon in the talk page discussion. ] — ] 14:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Actually, despite agreeing to the title, it was noted in the discussion it was too long and a better/shorter one should be found. ] (]) 06:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Perhaps so. You're proposed title isn't a good replacement, though, as it doesn't make any sense. ] — ] 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	== Please read ] ==
	It took me a good while to add all of those non-breaking spaces to ], and you removed them. Now, as a result of edit conflicts, I cannot restore them. ]&nbsp;] 23:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	::They are unnecessary in this instance. They only complicate the mark-up. ] — ] 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::And why do you feel that you can make that judgment? In some instances, even when near the beginning of new lines, line breaks may occur with some devices (mostly certain mobile devices from what I have found, but those still are instances), and it is for that reason that the Manual of Style has given it a mention. ]&nbsp;] 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::I can make that judgement just as much as you can make the judgement to put them in. Neither is explicitly supported or opposed by the MoS. Adding extra mark-up doesn't benefit anyone. We don't use non-breaking spaces for every date we write. ] — ] 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Misplaced Pages is for the readers. Regarding the readers, not using NBSPs can have a negative effect, whereas using NBSPs will help some readers and will leave others unaffected. This is the best choice. I must simply ask that you do not remove them again (unless in references or something because NBSPs do mess up formatting there). ]&nbsp;] 00:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I will remove them as I see fit if they are serving no purpose. ] — ] 00:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	::None of these serve no purpose. If you do remove any of the current instances, you are being destructive. ]&nbsp;] 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::It isn't destructive, because they serve no purpose, and muck-up the mark-up. There are certain instances where a non-breaking space is warranted. Those instances are fairly rare. ] — ] 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::They are not rare. Every instance of a date or time warrants a non-breaking space to prevent line-breaks, and just because you think it "mucks-up the mark-up" doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Dates such as "3&nbsp;May" warrant a non-breaking space in the form "<code>3&amp;nbsp;May</code>", and times such as "1342&nbsp;UTC" should be written in coding as "<code>1342&amp;nbsp;UTC</code>". Line breaks within dates e.g. a line break between "3" and "May" are disruptive to an article's readability. ]&nbsp;] 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I disagree. My apologies. ] — ] 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	:{{edit conflict}} Sorry for pressing so much, I just hate seeing line breaks in dates for some reason. ]&nbsp;] 00:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	== WP:VP proposal regarding coverage of breaking news ==
	Hello there, {{u|RGloucester}}! I appreciate the proposal you initiated at the Village Pump, presently found ]. (You will notice that I changed the heading; I hope you approve.) The proposal doesn't seem to be getting very much comment where it is, and I suspect that may be because it lacks specific concrete actions to take—as you say yourself in the original post, "I'm not sure what can be done." May I suggest that you move the discussion from the "]" section to the "]" section? I suspect that in a case like this, where a problem has been identified but a clear solution has not been articulated, the proposal may find in the "Idea lab" more fertile soil in which to develop. Cheers, —&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	: I will do that. Thanks very much. ] — ] 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: You're quite welcome! I look forward to seeing how the idea develops. —&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	== Red Cross statement ==
	There are numerous news reports and articles that regard Red Cross's statement as a clear classification of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine as being civil war. I don't want to sound rude but if the international press regards this statement as such and you don't, that doesn't make your opinion eligible. Please don't take this as a personal attack. —] (]) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Read the actual from the ICRC. It says nothing about "civil war". It says "war", plain and simple. "Civil war" is a POV statement, and it isn't surprising to see a Russian state-run outlet call spin the ICRC's words. The idea that the ICRC "admitted" to the events in Ukraine being a "civil war" is bollocks, pure and simple. To "admit" that, they'd have to say it. They haven't done. ] — ] 03:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Per , you can use the phrase "non-international armed conflict", in inverted commas. "Civil war" is a no-go, as they said nothing of the kind. I've added in the phrase used, and the sourcing. ] — ] 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::Throughout their entire statement the ICRC heavily stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of all civilians and that any attacks may be directed only against military objectives. This is an obvious reference to the constant clashes between the pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian Army in which many innocent citizens have died. They have made very obvious remarks which made their classification fall under civil war. I also want to point out that ITAR-ITASS isn't the only outlet to recognize the ICRC's statement as a classification of civil war, same was done by Yahoo! News , The Local Switzerland's News , Reuters , Echo Net Daily and practically any other news reports regarding this statement. --] (]) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The fact that basically all reports about this topic consider the ICRC's statement a deliberate classification of Civil War and you consider Misplaced Pages acknowledging their statement a classification of civil war a "no-go" makes your opinion isolated and very poorly supported. —] (]) 04:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	*I've seen it all, but the fact of the matter is, the ICRC did not use the words "civil war". If we don't attribute these "interpretations" to the media outlets that wrote them, that would not be honest to the reader. ] — ] 04:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:The statement doesn't have to include the exact words "civil war" as they already made their classification pretty clear without them. I'm sure that the ICRC assumes that the people who read their statements are of high enough intelligence that they can interpret their stance on this conflict with the information they put out on the statement, and the actual fact of the matter is that everyone did, as you can tell by the news reports. You are actually the first and only opposition I've encountered. —] (]) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::It isn't at all clear. If they didn't say "civil war", they didn't say "civil war". Other people and agencies can interpret it as they like, and we can report those interpretations, but that doesn't change the original words that the ICRC issued in their statement. If they wanted to say "civil war", they could've done. They didn't. ] — ] 05:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	== 2014 insurgency in Donbass ==
	Thanks, I will update the map daily. —] (]) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Much obliged, Mr IP. ] — ] 00:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 23 July 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-07-23}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 28-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=618383544 -->
	{{talkback|Bermicourt}}
	== A grant of honour ==
	Thank you very much for the recognition. Cheers! ] (]) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
	== RE: July 2014 ==
	I did not.
	For one, I noticed many news articles and independent analysts referring to it as "Ukrainian Civil War", which, quite frankly, it just is.
	Secondly, there is no definite evidence of Russian in involvement. The State Department says they have evidence, but they have not shared it, and what few things they did provide are unreliable at best.
	I am trying to be as fair here as I can.
	] (]) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
	::It isn't our job to decide whether the evidence is "definitive" or not. That is for the sources to decide, and they say what they say. I've not seen anyone refer to it as "Ukrainian Civil War", and that's POV. Regardless, there has already been a "]". Plenty of people consider it a direct war with Russia, but we don't put "Russo-Ukrainian War" in the lead. ] — ] 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
	== Donetsk offensive ==
	This is just an idea. On french wikipedia there was a an article called the "donetsk offensive" included the the Donbass War. Perhaps a draft or an article could be created? It would cover the events after slovyansk was retaken by Ukrainian forces.--] (]) 13:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	:All that stuff is already covered in ] and ], as far as I'm aware, but you can try and make a draft if you think you'd be able to. ] — ] 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	Here's the draft if you want to look at it: ]
	::I'd be okay with an article on the offensive of Donetsk city itself. I don't think we need a broader article starting back at Sloviansk. That stuff is covered. ] — ] 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Draft ==
	That draft's dates were originally in Month Day format. Why did you change it? ]&nbsp;] 18:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	::To match the French article that this is based off of. ] — ] 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	== BiloxiBeefalo - possible vandalism ==
	The user BiloxiBeefalo has been making several edits, on ], ] and ] which may be considered as vandalism. Do you agree? If you do, could you warn him about it, please?] (]) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Got it. ] — ] 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
	== what happend to the 2014 ukraine unrest timeline? ==
	Most of the information in the timeline is missing has it been deleted. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::Please go to ]. ] — ] 02:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 30 July 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-07-30}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 29-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=619267674 -->
	== Black Future - disruptive editing? ==
	I think Black Future has been posting some edits that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive to me, unexplainably deleting sources, adding unsourced figures and distorting quite a lot the content of a source that he added, and I 1st deleted and I added again with the right information that is in that source. Do you agree? Should he be warned?] (]) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Again, there are some edits from this editor that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive. In one of them, in the summary of the edit, the editor made the following accusation: "Convenient when sources are blanked, content changed, and when content is re-inserted, "it's not in the sources" is used as an excuse to blank again". Well, now Black Future added the source (concerning to the 80% of eventual Russian volunteers)! But it wasn't there before. Therefore, I didn't blank any source stating that there might be 80% of Russian volunteers. Now it's correct (since, later, this editor added the source that actually says that). On the other hand, he or she is removing sources, without any explanation.] (]) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	==Shaktarsk==
	Do you think you could help me create the draft about the clashes in the Sharktarsk raion?--] (]) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	]
	::I would like to, but I'm quite busy at the moment, and hence cannot. I should be able to help in a couple of days, but I think you are quite capable yourself. ] — ] 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	Due to the fact the Battle of Shakhtarsk raion has been barely worked on, i'm just going to create it into an article.--] (]) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::It shouldn't be created until it has adequate content, usually. If you'd like to create it, you can. I can't guarantee that someone won't nominate it for deletion in the state that it is in. ] — ] 20:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	The problem is, no one's working on it.--] (]) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Like I said, you can move it to article space and see if that attracts more editors. ] — ] 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	Since it's an article now, should i add it to the campaginbox?--] (]) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Go ahead. ] — ] 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== July GOCE drive ==
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|]|]}}
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Minor Barnstar'''
	|-		|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for copyediting a total of 1,741 words during the ] July 2014 drive! All the best, ]] 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)		|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you very much for taking part in the project! I know you did a lot for the topic of Ukraine on English Misplaced Pages – please continue {{smiley}} Your work is appreciated. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
	|}		|}
			== Greetings ==
	== 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine ==
			I hope you're well and have a better 2021 than 2020. Got vaccine? ] (]) 02:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
	What is the difference of this article with these articles?
			::Hello, Mr Lyon. I wish you well. I haven't had the best of years, but I expect we've all had our share of troubles. Unfortunately, vaccines are not availble to my age group yet, and problems with the Oxford vaccine may well mean I don't get one any time soon. I'm at a very low risk for catching the disease, let alone suffering from it, though, so it's not at all urgent. I figured I'd drop in here to see if I can do any good in my spare time, but I admit to being reluctant to allocate any more than a trivial amount of time to Misplaced Pages. I'm jaded, one could say. In any case, I do hope that your participation here is productive! Misplaced Pages's still quite valuable to readers, I reckon, even if it has become a quagmire for its contributors. ] — ] 03:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
			:::Quagmire is right. "Something is wrong on the Internet" as I tell my family late at night as I keep hacking at it. My wife and our siblings and Moms all got our two shots. My son managed to get to a first shot today, with a short drive from Sacramento to Davis. It's coming. I did have a work-related success lately, as you can see at . And other things are generally OK, though WFH is not that much fun. I actually bought some AZN stock, so not happy with the Oxford problems. You back in the UK? ] (]) 03:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
			:::And since you do near-native Japanese, you might want to know that my book has been translated: ヒトの耳 機械の耳 ―聴覚のモデル化から機械学習まで. ] (]) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
			::::I have been ensconced in Edinburgh for some time now. I'm glad for your success. I too have had some luck...I had an article published just a month ago. If only I could be freed from the trappings of this plague, I might feel somewhat better about my place in the world! ] — ] 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
			:::::Congrats on getting article published. I have an article that was rejected without review by 7 journals in succession, before I managed to get it reviewed at PLOS ONE. They liked it, but needed some revisions, which I have now done. Hopefully they'll say OK this time. It's outside my usual space; see of an earlier rejected version. Re Edinburgh, I went there in '81 right after getting married (yes, 40th anniversary coming up). Work I presented there inspired ] to some of his work, and we became great friends. I even had the obligatory taste of haggis. But not since have I been there – or tasted that. ] (]) 04:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
			== Greetings ==
	]
			Hello. It's been a bit more than a year since I ] for ]. I hope you forgive me - I was going through a pretty hard time in the background aside from being sensitive in general, which made me a bit overly aggressive and protective of what I deemed my property. I think I'm ready, after a recent return to WP, to take the article to GAN with your blessing. ] (]) 02:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
	]
			::Sensitive, ha! Ask anyone around here who's sensitive, and they'll probably say it's me. You have nothing to apologise for, and your work speaks for itself. For my part, perhaps I was a bit of a curmudgeon, and for that, I am sorry. I would be happy to see that article reach good article status, and I believe that it meets the criteria. If you need any help with copyediting or anything, let me know. ] — ] 13:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
			== An apology ==
	]
			Everyone's time is valuable and I know how emotional deletion discussions can get especially if your the nom. Anyway, I didn't intend for it to get out of control as it did. Sorry about that. Regards, ] (]) 01:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
	]
			== Your ] nomination of ] ==
	]
			Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 06:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
			==DYK nomination of Sasaki Tōichi==
	In the first article of a similar number of victims. In other articles is much less, and still fall within the conflict 2014. Template I do like ] and ]. What's wrong? I see that Misplaced Pages in English is no longer a 💕, but a political instrument of the United States and Great Britain. Here interfered policy and there is no point. The article is biased and not encyclopedic. Violated neutrality. If this article does not belong in Categories: Conflicts in 2014 with great sacrifices, then I'm right. You deny me access. I do not care. Anyway, I will not take part in all this.--] (]) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			] Hello! Your submission of ] at the ] has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at ''']''' and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <!--Template:DYKproblem--> ] (]) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
			== What are your thoughts on Rule H7 at DYK? ==
	I'm sorry, what? If you want the article on the conflict, that's ]. If you want the article on the protests and overall unrest, that's ]. ] — ] 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			I was just wondering in light of this most recent review, what your thoughts were on rule H7 found in DYK's guidelines: ]? Unfortunately "hookiness" is a rather subjective concept left up to the interpretation of individual reviewers. It seems to me that this is where this conflict centers. It might be helpful to hear how you think reviewers should engage with this criteria. Perhaps we need some better clarification on how to tackle this criteria within the review process as a community. It occurs to me that the reviewing guide doesn't give much guidance on this point, and maybe some updated language within the review guide itself in order. Best.] (]) 05:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
	:I want to article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is inserted in '''Categories: Conflicts in in 2014'''. This is a military conflict. There are a lot of victims. These riots are much worse than ], ] and ]. It is similar to ]. There are over 1,000 casualties. I want to divide it into two phases. The first phase - '''Protests: 23 February - 6 April'''. The second phase - '''War in Donbasu: 6 April - ongoing'''.
	--] (]) 02:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Firstly, the unrest is not a "conflict". Only the war is a "conflict". Secondly, the "war" is not a "second phase", as protests are ongoing in other parts of Ukraine. ] — ] 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			==DYK for Sasaki Tōichi==
	Why is ] conflict?
			{{ivmbox
	Why is the ] conflict?
			|image = Updated DYK query.svg
	Why is ] conflict?
			|imagesize=40px
	Why ] is not a conflict?
			|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that China expert ''']''' was chastised for referring to ] with the honorific '']''{{-?}}'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to ]. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
	What's this all about? What is this nonsense? If the ] is not a conflict, a ], ], ], ] are, then this is nonsense. ] is ridiculous compared to the ]. Three of the victims in the Crimea in relation to the thousands of victims in South-East Ukraine is an amazing difference. Crimea is not at all involved in military battles.
			}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (]) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
	], ], ], ] should be removed from '''Categories: Conflicts in 2014''' or change the title of '''2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine'''. If this is not done, then Misplaced Pages has become ridiculous.--] (]) 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	==Siege of Donetsk?==		== June 2021 ==
			] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at ]. Here is Misplaced Pages's ], and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Misplaced Pages! Thank you very much!<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> ]] 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
	Perhaps a draft could be created about the siege of donetsk? It would have nobility.--] (]) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::It would not have notability, as it would be ]. No such siege has happened, yet. ] — ] 15:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)		::I see that there is some kind of Buidhe cabal...very interesting how you all come out of the woodwork. It's quite funny you see fit to 'welcome' me to Misplaced Pages when I've been here for ten years. In any case, I get the message. I've been here long enough. When faced with this sort of cabal, the best thing to do is submit and recognise that Misplaced Pages is frankly, a miserable and disgusting place where cliques and activists reign supreme. A waste of time! ] — ] 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
			:::Oops. Apologies, I didn't realise you had been here a while. Even so, saying another editor is {{tq|intent on causing trouble}}, and that they should be punished, is still—regardless of tenure—very much a ] and an ]. All of which you'll know already, of course, because you've been here so long... ]] 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
			::::On the contrary, what I've learnt after 10 years is that a spade must be called a spade. But, I will take my leave. I have better things to do than waste my time here. ] — ] 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	==Snizhne and Torez==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
	Are Snizhne and and Torez part of the Shakhtarsk Raion? If they are we could add them to the draft.--] (]) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::They are part of the raion in a geographic sense, but they are administered separately at cities. In that case, I think it is acceptable to add them. ] — ] 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	==map problems==
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
			== Continually changing 'Americas' to 'America' without consensus ==
	The map we are using is not fully correct. Donetsk has been separated from Lugansk, and i have read no sources that they reconnected.--] (]) 08:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I recommend restoring the English language version of the map that was removed yesterday. ] — ] 16:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			Hello RGloucester. Thank you very much for your comments, I am very sorry to hear that my contributions were not considered constructive, at no time did I try to undermine the integrity of the articles, nor is it my objective to change the Americas to America.
	== ''The Signpost'': 06 August 2014 ==
			My intention with the editions is: 1 to show both options exist and that both are valid, the most common being the plural form, 2 to show the option that “American” is primarily a citizen of the United States of America, in the language English and later an inhabitant of “The Americas” or “America”. This with the aim of showing different points of view (giving priority to the most common option) but avoiding presenting each one of them as the "truth".
			In each edition I tried to describe the edition I did and also attach hyperlinks showing the reference or reliable source that I was using, to give a justification to the edition, all of them being in English.
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-08-06}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 30-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 12:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=620294222 -->
	==DYK for Deutscher Nationalverband==
	{{tmbox
	|type = notice
	|image = ]
	|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']''' defeated the dominant ] in the ] in ]?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Deutscher Nationalverband|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Deutscher Nationalverband|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
	}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			Were these sources deemed unreliable? if that's the case, do you know why?
	== Updated map ==
			The observation made to me was “Continually changing 'Americas' to 'America' without consensus ” Do you know how I can achieve that consensus (using both options)? Or do you know who / whom should I present the information to to achieve it?
	Well, I was the last person who updated the map on 5 August 2014, because the previous editor disagreed with the map and said he/she would not update it anymore. But as soon as I started to see locations that I couldn't find on Google Maps, I also quited. So, the map is not updated.] (]) 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::The Russian map has been updated by someone else, which is why I put it back in. We can use that until someone fixes the English one. ] — ] 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			I am fully available to present the information correctly so that my contributions are considered constructive.
	== Precious again ==
			Thank you very much and I am waiting for your answer.
	<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
	<div>
	<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">]</div>
	'''simplistic style of Misplaced Pages'''<br />
	Thank you, user who finds "that editing Misplaced Pages is a stress reliever". for quality articles such as ], ] and ], for {{diff|War in Donbass|620451999||precision}} and {{diff|International sanctions during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine|620383146||a map}}, for "The simplistic style of Misplaced Pages is part of what makes it great", - you are an ]!
	--] (]) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)		] (]) 02:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Felipe Randolfo
	</div></div>
	::Thanks very much! ] — ] 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Felipe Randolfo}} Discuss the matter at ]. If your point of view gains consensus, only then can you proceed to change articles. I warn you, however, that this is highly unlikely. The usage of 'American' to refer to anything other than a citizen of the United States of America in English is so incredibly rare as to be confusing, and unlikely to be understood by readers. This is the English Misplaced Pages, so we write in English. Carrying over Spanish-language conventions into English is not acceptable. ] — ] 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
	==]==
	Can you point which edits you found inappropriate? I looked not to alter the meaning of the sentences, and the prose shortening was done in order to achieve neutrality.--] (]) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I found that you introduced awkward grammatical structures that were not improvements on the existing text. For examples, take a look at . It shows the text before you began copyediting, and after you finished. As a first example:
	*You changed "they were designed for long stretches at speeds above {{convert|80|mph|sigfig=2}}" to "they were designed for long stretches at speed above {{convert|80|mph|sigfig=2}}"
	::This doesn't make any sense, "at speed above x" is grammatically incorrect.
	::My only change was "speeds" to "speed", which is a correct edit.
	*You changed "Feelings were running high along the route" to "Tension among people became apparent"
	::The existing phrasing wasn't very good, but "tension among people became apparent" is both vague (what people?) and awkward (became apparent).
	::"Feelings were running high" is POV clause. I'm not familiar with the topic and can not say who were the people.
	*You changed "With the trees in the reforested areas of ] now approaching maturity" to "With the trees in the reforested areas of ] now grown up".
	::"Grown up" isn't usually used for trees, but only for people.
	::"Approaching maturity" is definitely a worse choice than grown up.
	*You changed "On 27 March 2007, Transport Minister ] formally initiated preparatory works" to "On 27 March 2007, Transport Minister ] formally initiated preliminary actions"
	::What exactly is a "preliminary action"? This lacks specificity, and could refer to budgetary or planning concerns, rather than physical works.
	::Agree, this is my bad.
	:These are only a few examples. I do not mean to criticise you in any way, merely that I think that someone else should take a look at it and perhaps alleviate some of the awkwardness. ] — ] 23:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Ok, reverted all of my edits and de–archived the nomination. Apologies for my mistake. I hope we'll a have better collaboration in future.--] (]) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
			:{{ping|RGloucester}} Hello RGloucester.
	{{GOCEstartce|article=Waverley Line|sign=Cheers, ] (]) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)}}
			Thank you very much for answering most of my questions, sorry I don't know if you had the opportunity to read or review the links I provided but none of them are in Spanish, all of them are links to encyclopedias or articles in English:
	*I've abandoned the copy-edit and have reverted all my changes because the page is largely a verbatim copy/paste ] of various pages of http://www.disused-stations.org.uk. You're not to blame because the problem seems to go back a long way into the article's history. Please feel free to comment ]; and I've also templated the article and listed it ]. ] (]) 03:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
			•
	:::As I said at the requests page, that's some good investigative work on your part. I've never edited the article before, merely passed by it and thought it needed work. That's quite a disaster. I do appreciate your efforts, regardless. ] — ] 03:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
			•
	::::No worries, and thanks for your reply. Hopefully your next request will have better luck. Cheers, ] (]) 22:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
			•
	{{outdent}}I've restarted the copy-edit; thanks for your patience and I'm sorry about the copyvio business above. Third time lucky, perhaps? ;-) Cheers, ] (]) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
			•
			•
			•
			•
			In each one of them it is shown that both options are valid for each one, the first being the most common: America (USA / Americas), American (USA / Americas), since these reliable sources show that both options are valid. Is it not possible that Misplaced Pages also accepts it? If what is sought in Misplaced Pages is to comply with the pillar of the "neutral point of view" All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all the views of the majority and significant minority.
			Thank you very much and I am waiting for your answer.
	{{GOCEtb|article=Waverley Line|sign=Cheers, ] (]) 02:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)}}
			] (]) 07:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Felipe Randolfo
	{{Outdent2}}Hi RGloucester, If you're still interested in this article, there's some coverage on the BBC's website that might be useful for references. etc. Cheers, ] (]) 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
			::Dictionaries categorise all potential meanings of a term, even those that are obscure and not presently used. Merely because something is found in a dictionary does not mean that it is representative of what people actually use, or will be readily understood. On the contrary to your point, using 'American' to refer to the continent would be giving ] weight to an obscure viewpoint that is not commonly held by English-speakers, and would likely be misunderstood. I think you can understand this type of disruption with an example. How would you like it if I went to the Spanish Misplaced Pages and began introducing 'Americano' in articles relating to people from the United States. By your logic, I could do this, because said definition is found in (see No. 4). I don't think you'd find that acceptable, and for the same reason, your changes here are not acceptable. ] — ] 15:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
			:{{ping|RGloucester}} Hello RGloucester.
	==new article==
			The situation is: I do not want to change one thing for another, that would be totally incorrect, I mean that in the case of the continent both options can be shown, and in the case of the "demonym" it can be used for other things that are not exclusively related to USA putting as an example articles / topics already existing in wikipedia:
			• Organization of American States,
	Are there any notable events in the Donbass War that could be considered for the making of an article?--] (]) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
			• American Convention on Human Rights,
			• American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
			• Organization of Ibero-American States,
			• American Mediterranean Sea
			I would also like to comment that although most of my references are from dictionaries, this is not the case with "'''Britannica'''" which is also an encyclopedia, "'''The Library of Congress'''" which is a library and "'''World data info'''" which is a database, these 3 reliable sources without problem show that both cases are acceptable and therefore do not belong to a minority or something unacceptable that seeks to legitimize.
	== Barnstar ==
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="top" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|]|]}}
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Epic Barnstar'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition for your tireless efforts to improve the ] and ], with exceptional accuracy, balance and persistence
	|}
	] (]) 15:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks very much! ] — ] 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
			And apart from you being an English-speaking person, I would also like to have the opportunity to review the reliable sources that you are using as support for your argument to have a better understanding of what you are commenting on.
	== Reviewer granted ==
			Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your response.
	]
	Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer</tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at ], while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at ].
			] (]) 02:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Felipe Randolfo
	Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
			::An example of what you have done is , which is flat-out unacceptable. No English-speaking reader would understand 'American poet' as meaning anything other than a poet from the United States. This is the sort of behaviour that you ''must'' stop. It is indeed true that 'American' can refer to the continent in English, but only in very specific contexts, which do not include use as a demonym for people from the Americas. If you don't have a grasp on what those contexts are then you ''should not'' be making these sorts of changes. As I said, it would be equivalent to me going to some Spanish Misplaced Pages article and changing ''estadounidense'' to ''americano'', on the basis that Spanish dictionaries list 'US person' as one definition of ''americano''. Sure, in theory, ''americano'' can mean 'US person' in Spanish, but that doesn't mean that my using it in any specific context will be correct or understood. You would agree that if I wrote that ] was a 'poeta americano' on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, you'd likely revert my edit, would you not? This is a simple matter of comprehension. In any case, I would suggest that this sort of behaviour is generally unhelpful, and that you instead direct your attention to writing and improving articles. Editing Misplaced Pages to make a ] is not tolerated. ] — ] 03:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
	''See also:''
	*], the guideline on reviewing
	*], the summary of the use of pending changes
	*], the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.<!-- Template:Reviewer granted --> &mdash; '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
			== Stop. ==
	== ''The Signpost'': 13 August 2014 ==
			I'm writing a discussion. Bear with. ''']''' 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
			::A discussion? After many years of repeatedly changing names to a non-existent style without consensus! Colour me shocked! ] — ] 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-08-13}}
			==] nomination of ]==
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 31-->
			]
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
			{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
	* ''']'''
			A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a disambiguation page which either
	* ]
			:::*disambiguates only one extant Misplaced Pages page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a ]);
	* ]
			:::* disambiguates zero extant Misplaced Pages pages, regardless of its title; or
	* ] (]) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::*is an ] redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
	</div></div>
			Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. Please ].
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=621471796 -->
			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Wuhan+Nationalist+Government|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-disambig-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	== Trayvon Martin shooting related edits ==
			==] nomination of ]==
			]
			A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
	Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood because he is a racist madman. Also according to DNA reports wounds seemed to be self-inflicted. Simple as that and end of story. Won't make such an edit ever again but that is the truth. He is a murderer and he should be shot just like he shot Martin. ] (]) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
			<blockquote>redirect from CORRECTLY capitalised title to article recently moved to correctly capitalized title, ie circular; sorry didnt know how to explain</blockquote>
	==convoy attack==
			Under the ], pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
	Is the time right for the refugee convoy attack draft I created too be published into an article?--] (]) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Let me copyedit it, and then you can publish it. ] — ] 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I've moved it to the article space. I apologise if I do not respond swiftly to queries, as I'm on holiday. ] — ] 22:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Wuhan+Nationalist+Government|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-reason-notice --> ] (]) 02:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	== ], ] ==
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
			== Timeframe and scope of Revolution of Dignity ==
	Hi, I'm {{U|Anupmehra}}. Just a note that, I've unaccepted two pending changes accepted by you because they clearly were either very irrelevant changes or not in accordance with ]. On ] article, you accepted pending changes in which a seb-section was converted into section and moved under a very irrelevant section. On ] article, you accepted pending changes, where changes made by IP to the ] were not verifiable. I hope, you'll take care of these stuffs further on. Happy editing! ] -] 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Please note the purpose of ]. None of these edits were obvious ] or BLP violations, and there was no barrier to my accepting them. You are free to revert the changes using standard procedures. Please note what ] says: "It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting". You appear to be discussing matters of content, which is not the purpose of pending changes protection. A pending changes review is merely meant as a "quick check" for vandalism. None of these edits were vandalism. ] — ] 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure if that's an exemption to allow you to add unsourced contents to BLPs and break structure of the article, and in turn to create extra unnecessary tasks for other editors who try to keep Misplaced Pages articles accurate. I'd suggest you to revert obvious vandalism only on pending changes at this time, and leave the unclear pending changes unaccepted for someone else to do it. There's no hurry to answer them all. ] is a ] and I'd say, you for a moment, degraded it from its standard. I hope, you understand what do I mean. I'm not here to stalk you on your talk page. I'm saying, by accepting those pending changes, you are giving articles bad shape, and the worse creating other editors extra unnecessary tasks. This way, Misplaced Pages community will end up making circular efforts. And, I'm sorry, if I did sound rude somewhere in my words to you. Happy editing! ] -] 05:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I apologise, but I disagree. IPs must be able to contribute, and the contributions at ] and ] were not vandalism. We don't artificially protect articles to maintain some kind of ivory tower standard. The only purpose of pending changes is to stop obvious vandalism and grievous BLP violations. These IP contributions are as valuable to this encyclopaedia as mine and yours, and were neither vandalism nor grievous BLP violations. You are free to revert him outside of the pending changes process. Please follow the guidelines for reviewing pending changes. Your attempts to essentially block IP editing with pending changes is not at all appropriate. If you'd like to do so, please request semi-protection. ] — ] 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I've been a reviewer for quite sometime, you may believe me to have read the related guideline. I'm sorry but I feel, you are misinterpreting me. I'm not sure, if above or any where on Misplaced Pages or any Wikimedia projects, I've ever said that, IPs contribution should be neglected. I'm not against any IPs or new editors or any person else's contribution. Positive contributions irrespective of the contributor are most welcome to the project.
			Continuing our discussion on ]. I want to rewrite the article ], because I agree with you that the broader scope is more appropriate. Revolution of Dignity took place from November 2013 till February 2014 and not only in February. Can you help me with this? I have already a list of RS for this, but probably you have more. And also English is not my native language. The article should not become fork of the article about ], but focus on the revolution itself. And after the article is rewritten in the new broader scope, then of course we can rename it back to ] or to ] whatever is dominated in the RS. ] (]) 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::I'm saying inaccurate changes either should not be accepted or fixed first before accepting them. I've noticed you accepting many unsourced pending changes (not to the height of vandalism, but claims very likely to be challenged), and I may cite them, if you want me to. If a guideline or policy prevent you from improving the project, you may ]. By making circular efforts, are not we wasting bunch of our time, for example, you accept unsourced changes, and what break the structure of article, and I make efforts to remove unsourced claims and fix structure of the article? It appears to me, beside making constructive approach towards my concerns about you, you are ] here. I'd not comment here, any more. On a side note, if you want me to, a {{tl|ping}} would be fair enough. Thank you, and happy editing. ] -] 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::What is inaccurate is not a matter for pending changes reviewers to decide. They can choose to do so, if they wish, but it is not the purpose of pending changes. Pending changes is about vandalism, and neither of these edits were vandalism. I apologise if you disagree, but that's just the way it is. My actions have been in compliance with the guidelines, and I have no desire to ignore "rules" at this juncture. Please cease and desist. ] — ] 16:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)		::{{ping|Delasse}} I support your proposal, but sadly, I have suffered an injury to my arm that necessitates an avoidance of computer work for some time, so I cannot be of immediate assistance. I apologise for the inconvenience. ] — ] 16:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
			:::@] Thank you for your support. Get better soon! There is no rush, this topic was not touched so much from 2014, it can wait several moths more. I wish you a full recovery, Misplaced Pages and we need you :) ] (]) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
			== ANI discussion re:EEng ==
	==Illovaisk==
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->] (]) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
	This small but critical railway town has seen heavy fighting. Perhaps an article could be created on this? On Russian Misplaced Pages, i found an article called "Battle for Illovaisk"--] (]) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	::That's not worth an article, despite whatever might have happened on the Russian Misplaced Pages. I've followed the events in the town. Nothing out of the ordinary about that town, compared to all the other similar ones in the Donbass. ] — ] 20:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	True, but is there any thing in this war that is notable for article creating?--] (]) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== ] ==
			The clarification request you filed has been closed and archived - you can view the ] to see the outcome. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <small>( ] · ] )</small> 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
	I moved the information to ] as it concerns the border checkpoint rather than the town. ] (]) 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Oh, so there's a new article. I'm not sure it is entirely necessary to have two articles, but I suppose that's how it is. I see no reason why the two couldn't be merged. ] — ] 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 20 August 2014 ==		== RfA 2021 review update ==
			<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#eaffea; width:99%; padding:4px">
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
			Thanks so much for participating in ] of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, {{noping|Primefac}} and {{noping|Wugapodes}}.
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-08-20}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 32-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=622395093 -->
			The following had consensus support of participating editors:
	== Better than being poked with a cricket stump... ==
			#Corrosive RfA atmosphere
	{{The Current Events Barnstar|1=In recognition of your tireless work in developing and maintaining multiple articles surrounding the recent events in Ukraine. Your ability to treat the subject matter intelligently and discerningly in order that they remain ] is nothing short of superlative. ] (]) 00:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)}}
			#:''The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.''
	::I do appreciate it. These are interesting, if disconcerting times. Our efforts here will hopefully be important in the years to come. I mean, I don't want to be grandiose, or anything...but it will be interesting to see what effect our little chronicle will have in the future. ] — ] 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
			#Level of scrutiny
	:::I find that the most fascinating part of the project. Should Misplaced Pages (and these archived versions of the events as they unravelled, along with the talk pages) still exist in 50 years, how will it impact on the interpretation of social order of the day? No doubt, there will be revisionist versions in scholarly research floating around. Will they reinvent the current generation as being unable to be neutral? Will the records survive? We are a strange species. --] (]) 05:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
			#:''Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.''
	::::That's my thinking too. It will be so odd, I think, for people to be able to read history as written, but also to read how that history was written. It is like an instant historiographic record. Who knows if it will all still be around. ] — ] 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
			#Standards needed to pass keep rising
	:::::At this moment in time, I'm envisaging it as being the stuff of a sociological study on people of the early 21st century who appeared to be divided into three distinct groups: those who engaged in real warfare, those who played at imaginary warfare by means of video games, and those who worked on Misplaced Pages. Statistics now demonstrate that death by Misplaced Pages was higher than in real warfare, i.e., strokes, heart attacks, alcohol and drug abuse, clinical depression and other forms of mental instability directly due to their engagement in this activity. Misplaced Pages donations founded the "Nietzsche Institute for the Terminally Catatonic" (AKA NITC-pickers) which is held in trust as a museum of international significance by the World Heritage Foundation. --] (]) 06:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
			#:''It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.''
			#Too few candidates
			#:''There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.''
			#"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
			The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
	==]==
			{{Ordered list|start=6
	Please source the material you have added to this article. see ]. ] (]) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
			|Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)<br /> ''Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.''
	::I didn't add any material at all. I merely restored the existing page that was redirected inappropriately ages ago. ] — ] 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
			|Admin permissions and unbundling<br /> ''There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.''
			|RfA should not be the only road to adminship<br /> ''Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.''
			}}
			'''''Please consider joining the ]''''' which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
	== Rebel offensive ==
			<hr>
			<small>There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]</small>
			</div>
			Best, ] (]) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1048942069 -->
			== RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun ==
	We had our major disagreements in the past, however, I find you have nicely managed to update the conflict events as they have developed. Most of my time goes to the editing of the Syrian war articles, so I only have time to update the casualties of the Ukraine conflict. Due to the current block of the editing on the main article for the next three days, I thought to send you the links on the current events so you have them when you start updating the conflict once again after the block expires. Events - AFP journalists confirmed no Ukrainian Army presence south of Donetsk or along the 100 km highway leading all the way to the Azov Sea coastline, which they confirmed is separatist-held. Starobesheve, about 30km southeast of Donetsk, confirmed by both locals, Ukrainian military and AFP to have been captured by separatists. Ukrainian troops surrounded in Ilovaysk, confirmed by its commander. Source here . Further, Ukrainian military confirmed separatists captured seven villages north of Novoazovsk while denying the capture of the town itself. However, the mayor of the town confirmed separatists entered the town this morning. Source for this here . And soon after it was reported Novoazovsk had fallen to the separatists, one of the sources being a pro-Kiev volunteer batallion commander . ] (]) 01:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks very much. I've got such a paragraph in the works at the my ], so I'm ready to update it when it is unprotected. ] — ] 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Here a military source confirmed the rebels also captured Savur-Mohyla hill. ] (]) 11:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
			<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#eaffea; width:99%; padding:4px">
	== War in Donbass ==
			Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the ] of changes to our ] process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until ''November 30''. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
			<small>There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]</small>
	Just . ], ], <small>]</small> 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
			</div>
	:Sorry. Don't know what I did. be good now. ], ], <small>]</small> 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
			16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1050850148 -->
			== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
	== RGloucester (talk) ==
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	Are you connected to ]? If so, what is the purpose of that account, and could you declare it as an {{tl|User alternate acct}}? ] - ] 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	::No relation to me. Clearly a sock-puppet of ], who has done this before. ] — ] 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the quick response. I am not familiar with the L'Aquotique backstory, nor do I have checkuser access, but that is not necessary to see a clear justification for a username block. I have blocked ] indefinitely, and commented on the user and user talk pages accordingly. ] - ] 23:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thanks very much for finding him/her out. He/she has been quite aggressive over the past couple months. ] — ] 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Answering 'edit semi-protect' requests ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
	Hi, I'm Anup Mehra. I noticed that while answering 'edit semi-protected' requests on ], you simply marked the requests answered with an edit-summary, "not protected". The page actually is still protected, however the protection level was today reduced to be edited by ] editors. I just wanted to let you know that we have few templates to answer "edit semi-protected' requests, and can be found at ]. ''Happy editing!'' ] -] 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
			</td></tr>
	::Thanks very much for linking to those templates, which I did not know existed. I only "answered" those of people who were auto-confirmed, as I was aware of the semi-protection. Regardless, I'll use the templates in future. ] — ] 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1056563273 -->
			==Thank you==
	== Brain stormin' ==
			For your rational even-handedness on the articles concerning the Ukraine conflict. Nationalists on articles concerning all things eastern Europe can be quite taxing. -HammerFilmFan <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			==] has been nominated for renaming==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
	I've noticed you have some stuff (which is good quality) in your sandbox. So maybe here is a way to come up with a sensible way to organize both the topic and the articles: in the sandbox or in userspace come up with an organizational structure both for the topic and the *specific* article which is to cover the ongoing conflict.
			== RFA 2021 Completed ==
	In other words, articulate what article should be precisely about what. I think it's this lack of clarity that's causing a lot of the problems (though spurious forking is too of course). At least one article should be about Crimea, one about the war in the east and one about the Russian involvement. Then we need the sections for each one. One irritating thing about the intervention article is that it already has a ... very dysfunctional and hard to work with structure. Everytime I want to make a change, I'm not quite sure where to put it, especially if I'm going to work on it incrementally. ], nuking it and starting over might be a much better way to go. But in order for that to work, and to get the support of other editors, it would help to know what it is we're trying to rebuild. So instead of an incremental approach, maybe a planned approach will work better.] (]) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I agree that the Russian intervention article has been unworkable. That's why I left it to rot ages ago, and that's why I favoured merging/deleting. Regardless, we need one article on this subject. I don't care which one, but we need only one. My general view of the schematic of our articles in the way that I'd like is as follows:
			<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#eaffea; width:99%; padding:4px">
	*] – the unrest across Ukraine after the revolution, the bedrock for all the ensuing events
			The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ] were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, and {{noping|Ymblanter}} for closing the most difficult conversations and for {{noping|TonyBallioni}} for closing the review of one of the closes.
	**] – crisis in Crimea and subsequent takeover (detach Crimean info except summary from invasion/intervention article), followed by
	***] – the political process of annexation
	**] – war in the Donbass region
	***Various battle articles
	***] or ] – deals with present invasion and previous incidents. Has summary for Crimea, but detail is left at Crimean crisis article.
			The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
	This is how I'd like to see it work out, vaguely. ] — ] 01:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
			#Revision of standard question 1 to {{tqq|Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?}} Special thanks to {{noping|xaosflux}} for help with implementation.
			#A new process, ] (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of ] and ]. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
			#Removal of ] from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to {{noping|Wugapodes}} and {{noping|Seddon}} for their help with implementation.
			The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
	Ok, the big elephant in the room is that I just honestly don't see the "Intervention" article becoming viable. It's a mess as you said yourself. It should be kiboshed. I've seen this over and over here - an article on an important subject gets so overloaded with junk and POV pushing and tidbits of trivia and all that, that even once you remove the most egregious parts ... it's still a mess, because it started as a mess. And even minor changes to that article will just result in time wasting mindless arguments. Which you yourself said. I'm a practical person - I want what whatever will work. I am not trying to put the burden on you but having no hope for one article means that I would rather choose to devote my energies to another, related, but different, article. You work with what you got not what you think should be. I don't know. Is there some way that we could get other (responsible, non-crazy) editors involved in cleaning up one mess or improving the other? I think we see the end goal the same way, it's just about how we get there.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 08:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
			#An option for people to run for temporary adminship (<small>]</small>)
			#An optional election process (<small>] and ]</small>)
			Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at ] or an appropriate ].
	And if I've never expressed my appreciation for your work before (I get creeped out by those barnstar things) let me express it right here. You've done a tremendous job on these articles. Really, in my ten years here I've seen very few (as in less than five) editors who are as conscientious, professional and honest as you. I've been impressed and amazed for quite awhile. Please keep up the good work even, and especially, when we have a disagreement.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 08:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
			'''A final and huge thanks''' all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
	==Disambiguation link notification for August 29==
			<hr>
			<small>This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.</small>
			</div>
			01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1058818075 -->
			== Ukraine ==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
			Re , any misrepresentation on my part was due to operator error and was unintentional. ] (]) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
			::Of course, don't worry about it. And thank you for your level-headed approach to this matter. ] — ] 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
			:::I do what I can. Happy editing! ] (]) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
	== Award ==
	{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Edit Barnstar Merit'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <big><big>For your tireless work and diligence on articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine such as ], ], ] and others, I hereby award you the '''Edit Barnstar Merit'''.</big></big> — <br> ] (]) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
	|}
	::Thanks very much! ] — ] 00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
	==Talkback==		== Donbas ==
	{{talkback|Talk:2014_Ukrainian_crisis|ts=20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	This edit does not follow the MOS ]
	I left a message for you there <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
			Hello. You reverted a change because "Sorry, this is chronologically inaccurate. Crimea happened before Donbas, and Russian troops were already present on Ukrainian soil long before the DPR was proclaimed!". The issue is that I never mentioned Crimea, nor did the passage I was editing, and never implied anything about Crimea. Russian troops may have been present on Ukrainian soil, but according to Russia were either not their people or there of their own volition. In either case, all I said was that Russian military forces were ordered in, which is true. I think your reversion of my edit should itself be reverted.
	== 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine ==
			] (]) 04:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			::The implication of your text was that the war began after the republics were declared. This is not the case. It began with the annexation of Crimea. Hence, your text was inaccurate. I've tried to address your concerns with the existing text, which was admittedly in a sorry state. ] — ] 04:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::There was no state of war between Russia and Ukraine until February 24th 2022. There was civil war since 2014 in Donbas, supported by Russia, and Russia annexed Crimea in a surprise attack unopposed by Ukraine. There was condemnation, but no war between Russia and Ukraine. We need to be accurate.] (]) 04:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry, but that's a load of codswallop. Take a walk over to ], the article you yourself linked. Read the start date, and what it says. If you are referring to an official 'declaration of war', in the first place, such things don't matter (what ] say does), and in the second place, one hasn't been issued even now (despite media proclamations to the contrary, see ), with Russian troops bearing down on Kyiv. In any case, discussions about article content ought take place at the relevant article's talk page, not here. If you have further concerns, please express them there. ] — ] 04:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::Nonsense, arbitary lines in the sand, and I feel like you are protecting turf. ] (]) 04:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not going to give such ] the luxury of a response. If you have a problem with the sources cited at any of these articles, or some other problem with article content, the article talk pages are the places to raise it. Good day. ] — ] 05:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Thanks for the thorough explanation ==
	If it happens that they keep that other article titled the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for which I expressed a delete/merge opinion/vote, I would suggest the article ''2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine'' be retitled to avoid the confusion between the two. Retitled to something like ''2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimea'' (of the top of my head). ] (]) 09:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
	::It isn't about Crimea anymore, and hasn't been for a while. Read the article. More stuff is in there about Donbass than Crimea. The only thing that they could do is merge the intervention article into the invasion article. ] — ] 14:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree with you, but they don't. So I was saying that in case that other article sticks, that we move any Donbass material from the old article to the new one (maybe in the background section), and make the old one Crimea-exclusive so that there wouldn't be overlapping or any confusion. ] (]) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::If the article sticks, I will have lost faith in Misplaced Pages and will be done. That would be an outrage. ] — ] 00:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I'm losing it under the pressure of far too many splits and articles that should have been merged or deleted ages ago. I don't know how to salvage the article, although it appears to be getting some sort of facelift (emphasis on cosmetic surgery) at the moment. No one is monitoring the timelines and other 'child' articles, and my time is being eaten up in trying to keep a lid on these. All that's happening is that POV-ers who've been shoved aside on the main articles have scuttled off into camps working on the leftovers. Ultimately, we're now overrun with articles overlapping and contradicting each other... and sourced from both Ukrainian and Russian yellow press. There's undoubtedly a desperate need to amalgamate and toss out massive tracts of superfluous content. --] (]) 04:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The battle is already being lost, and I can say with candour that I am quite annoyed about this whole situation. The rise of "Russian invasion" article, which started at the title "Russo-Ukrainian War" is absolutely absurd at face value. It doesn't matter how absurd it is, nor how many times I make it clear that it is absurd, however, because POV pushers on both sides make the whole debate pointless. At our little deletion discussion, we have those who say "there are Russian troops in Ukraine, therefore, we need this article" and then there are those who say "no evidence of Russian anything, Nato-junta allegations, delete". Of course, this framing of the debate is totally wrong. Sadly, my desire to get rid of the article has nothing to do with POV, but I get lumped in with the "Nato-junta" crowd because I have a tiny bit of sense in my mind. All I want is content that is organised properly, that makes sense. Does anyone care that we have two articles with titles that mean the exact same thing? No. Does anyone care that we have an existing article for the "Russian intervention business"? No. Does anyone care that this new "article" started off as a POV fork (its title was "Russo-Ukrainian War", for pete's sake!) to get around full protection at ]? No. ] — ] 04:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::What's probably needed is a DRN presented by a reasonably uninvolved party: someone armed with all of the articles and child articles pointing out that they're POV variations on the same subject matter. The difficult issue is finding someone who's willing to present the case for a DRN. I have a couple of people in mind, but don't have the energy to put a case to them only to have the buck passed because no one relatively sane wants to touch Eastern Europe. I wouldn't worry about being categorised by POV-ers. I've had that done to me time after time. As I say on my own user page, I take it as a compliment because being labelled a Russophobe, a Russophile, a Ukrainophobe, a Ukrainophile, an anti-semite, a pro-Israeli, etc. only goes to show that I'm serving the project well. --] (]) 05:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::It isn't so much that I worry, so much as that I would prefer to remain outside the back-and-forth mess of juntas and moskals. Regardless, I'd be happy to see a DRN. I wish that sysops took advantage of the existing Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions to deal with problems regarding the Ukraine mess, but, to be honest, I haven't seen much sysop presence at all in the topic area. ] — ] 05:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Being caught up in the crap is par for the course when it comes to Eastern Europe... as is the absence of sysops. Masochism teamed with irredeemable obstinacy is ''the'' prerequisite for long term neutral editing surrounding all things Slavic. I'm going to think on who to rope in and how best to approach the subject of a DRN. --] (]) 06:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
			I made my first ever post on here commenting on an article name and was attacked and accused of all sorts of things by some probably self-interested party. I appreciate the academic explanation you provided in response to my argument. ] (]) 18:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 27 August 2014 ==
			::You are welcome. I understand that your concerns were legitimate. Misplaced Pages works in strange ways, and it takes some time to get used to them. ] — ] 18:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-08-27}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 33-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=623352396 -->
			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.
	== Grammar in the ] article ==
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
	Hello! I've just checked some grammar in this article, but I'm not entirely sure it has been well corrected. Could you check, please? Thanks!] (]) 16:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
	::This is a quirk of the English language, but the expression is "taken prisoner" regardless of whether there are multiple prisoners involved. It works the same way as "taken hostage". One would say "Ten men were taken hostage", not "Ten men were taken hostages". Similarly, one should say "Ten soldiers were taken prisoner by ISIL". There is no plural form "taken prisoners" or "taken hostages". ] — ] 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
			== Different disambiguation pages for Ukrainian crisis ==
	== Ilovaisk ==
			Hello, RGloucester! I am asking you as an experienced editor in this topic. Why are there different disambiguation pages ], ] and ]? Do I understand correctly that for each term we needs to create a separate disambiguation page and not to rely on the output of the wikipedia search engine? And why ] and ] does not have the ''(disambiguation)'' qualifier in the title, but ] has? Sorry for maybe stupid questions, I do not fully understand why it is done this way and not otherwise. --] (]) 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
	First, I would ask you not to remove sourced information. You may disagree with CNN and Kyivpost, but removing them to push your viewpoint is not allowed. Second, they DID capture by that point the city, after which they were surrounded and trapped in it. Third, with your blind revert you also removed the sourced info about the number of soldiers who managed to escape the siege. In any case. Sources have been provided calling it a siege and it was already established they captured the city (so your argument on that point does not stick). ] (]) 12:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
	::I already commented on the talk page, which you didn't bother to read. I do not "disagree", I merely adhere to our Manual of Style. They never completely controlled the city. Regardless, that bit about "breaking the siege" is unverifiable, and most likely not of any consequence. Please see the talk page at the article, not here. ] — ] 12:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)		::Hello, and thank you for asking. The reason we have separate disambiguation pages for each specific term is because each one can refer to different things. 'Ukrainian crisis' can refer to a number of different events, and so can 'Russo-Ukrainian crisis' and 'Ukrainian political crisis'. As for why some have no 'disambiguation' in brackets, please see the ] guideline, which explains this. To put it simply, in cases where there is a ] redirect to some article, the bracketed 'disambiguation' is used for the disambiguation page. For example, you will note that ] presently redirects to ]. I don't know how legitimate this primary topic redirect is, but that's how things are arranged at the moment. ] — ] 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
			::: Thank you for your answer. So far, I have two thoughts. First: various events in the sources are called the 'Ukrainian crisis'. Some of them were intra-Ukrainian crises (i. e. internal Ukrainian crises listed on ]), and some were Russo-Ukrainian crises (listed on ]). And ] should just be a combination, a union of ] and ]. Second: I believe that there is a primary topic for 'Ukrainian political crisis' and this is the 2013-2014 events. Since all other crises were either not so significant, or were not only internal Ukrainian, but were Russo-Ukrainian. So I want to suggest moving page ] to ], and redirecting 'Ukrainian political crisis' to ] (which isn't even linked on the disambiguation page right now!) or ]. What do you think about it? Before opening discussions, I want to consult with you whether my proposals have any perspective. --] (]) 16:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::Unfortunately, I don't really agree with your proposal. On Misplaced Pages, we only list articles on a disambiguation page if reliable sources are attested as referring to a particular event specifically by that name. Additionally, we must have an article on the subject being listed. I have never heard of the Euromaidan ''specifically'' referred to as 'Ukrainian political crisis' in English, and this sounds frighteningly similar to the Russian portrayal of events. I am aware that the page refers to them as such, but this simply isn't how English RS refer to the events. However, if you want to make a proposal, do so by opening a ] at ]. ] — ] 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::: is a weird one, it combines under one title both the ] and the initial stage of the Russo-Ukrainian war, namely the ]. Although Russian is my native language, I don’t understand what that article is about :-) --] (]) 17:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 03 September 2014 ==		== A barnstar for your efforts ==
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
			|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|]|]}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-03}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 34-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=624185220 -->
	== ] on ] ==
	Hello, thanks for your message. As you may have noted, the edit war is also on ]. There are reliable sources, and I wrote that on the discussion page, ] who has been warned and blocked repeatedly for biased editing (] ] ]) and then ] deleted without discussion anyway. Also the claims that the sources are just op-eds or don't support the group are wrong, neither the German nor the Russian sources are op-eds, and while the journalists may not be convinced by the groups reasoning, they certainly don't question the fact that the open letter exists, which is all that needs to be reported here. ] (]) 23:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	:They aren't reliable sources. They're advocacy blogs, and your insertion presents claims by this ] group with ]. What's more, you ''need to stop'' edit-warring no matter how much you think you are right, because that's a fast track to getting blocked from editing. -] (]) 23:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	::This is a matter of ]. The position of this "group" of people is not relevant at all. Including their opinion would be giving them ] weight, for one thing, and it would also be a form of advocacy. This is absolutely unacceptable. You are quite wrong that its existence dictates that it must be reported. This is not correct. We have policies on ], ], and also on ]. We cannot give ] weight to a fringe group. ] — ] 23:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::It is relevant enough to be reported about by international media, US, UK, Germany, Russia, please inform yourself about what is generally considered relevance at wikipedia. Presenting information is not advocacy, readers can decide by themselves if they are convinced by what the group writes. I find your attitude alarmingly biased, just as that of the edit warriors. Since there is an edit war at two pages I ask for an outside view at ]. I guess others it's best if we find uninvolved users who decide without previous bad feelings. ] (]) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Opinion pieces are ], and we have no need for soap here. ] — ] 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Galant Khan}} By the way, I recommend you go to the ]. They are good at determining what is reliable and what isn't, and are appropriate in this case. ] — ] 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry but I don't need to go anywhere to know that ] is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. It is not an opinion piece. I cannot really believe that you contest the fact that there is an open letter to Angela Merkel by the ] - which is all that counts - after Süddeutsche, Stern, Morning Star, and The Nation all reported about it and you can find it on numerous websites. ] (]) 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	::I don't contest that there is an "open letter", I contest that it is a notable non-fringe opinion that should be included, in line with our policy on ] weight. The RS noticeboard will provide the third opinions you so desire, which is why I recommended it. If you have no desire for dialogue, then I suppose there is no reason to continue.
	:::So quality media in Germany and the US report about it and you decide it's fringe? ] (]) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	==RfD discussion of ]==
	* Because you have participated in the move discussion at ], you are being notified of the RfD discussion at ]. Cheers! ] ] 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	==Insertion of a ton of links by a user as a pretext to also insert his/her Original Research==
	Hello! The ] inserted a ton of links in the ], most of them, I guess are useless, as a pretext (I guess) to insert his/her crazy original research, which I already removed. What do you suggest that is done to all those links?] (]) 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Red links are ]. They are meant to encourage people to write the articles on subjects we don't have articles for. There's no reason to waste time removing them. ] — ] 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Richard III ==
	* I have moved that discussion to ]. ] (]) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Request for checking 2 pages ==
	Hello! I've made considerable changes in one page - ] and created another - ]. I'd be glad if you could check them, particularly in what concerns to English language. Thanks!] (]) 02:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	::{{Ping|Mondolkiri1}} They are on my list of stuff to copyedit. I've got to get to the Novoazovsk battle article first, then I'll do those. ] — ] 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thank you very much!] (]) 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Question about your userboxes ==
	Does anyone every give you crap for your marxist userbox? I was thinking about adding one to my page but I didn't want anyone to interfere with my experience on wikipedia. Marxism isn't exactly something you're very open about in the U.S. How accepting is wikipedia?] (]) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	::No one has ever bothered me about it, as far as I can tell. I'm not American, so I don't know about that. If anyone ever did "interfere", you could easily take them to ] for personal attacks. ] — ] 15:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine ==
	Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the ], which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! ] (]) 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
	::{{Ping|Mondolkiri1}} I don't know anything about how campaignboxes are supposed to work, so I don't have an opinion. Perhaps ask at ]. ] — ] 19:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Portuguese Barnstar ==
	The Portugal Barnstar
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	|rowspan="2" |		|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Portugal Barnstar of National Merit'''		|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Current Events Barnstar'''
	|-		|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your very valuable recent contributions regarding the Ukrainian community in Portugal: the 2nd largest immigrant community in Portugal and the 2nd largest Ukrainian community in Western Europe, after Italy. ] (]) 02:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)		|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the ] and ]. Awarded by ] ] 7 March 2022 (UTC)
	|}		|}
	*Thanks very much! ] — ] 03:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Capitalize "Infratest Dimap"? ==
	Thanks for the ce. I deliberately chose to not capitalize "Infratest Dimap", as it appears as "infratest dimap" on both their own home page, and in the Spiegel Online article. Is there a WP rule about this?
	Also, I note that you left copies of a few points behind in ] when you created the new ].
	I wonder if we should add at least some information from the section "Nongovernmental reactions" to this duplication, to lend some balance to the former.
	Is there a convention about how to maintain consistency between such duplicates, as one of them develops further? ] (]) 14:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	::The point of the sub-article is to keep that information out of the main article, so that the main article's length is cut-down. It is already much too long for the length guidelines, so I'd prefer if we kept that stuff in the sub-article. I only left the most significant viewpoints at ]. Regardless, I will get rid of the capitalisation. I merely assumed that it was meant to be capitalised as a proper noun. ] — ] 15:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 10 September 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-10}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 35-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=625385134 -->
	==Disambiguation link notification for September 15==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Rule of three edits ==
	Does this rule not apply to users with multiple user id? If not, then tell me how can one can obtain multiple user id without being identified as sockpuppets. ] (]) 10:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
	::I don't know what you are referring to. Care to clarify? ] — ] 13:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 17 September 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-17}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 36-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=625813780 -->
	== Concerning to the proportion of ethnic Russians and russophones in Donbass ==
	I've consulted the maps in the ] and ] articles, more precisely the following files: https://en.wikipedia.org/Russians_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG and https://en.wikipedia.org/Russian_language_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Ukraine_census_2001_Russian.svg. And I did the math, taking into account the population of the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts before the war! Sorry, but this time I will undo your fix... But we can talk about it in Talk Page! It's a good place to discuss these disagreements and to reach some conclusions.] (]) 14:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. You've got to provide reliable secondary sources. ] — ] 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	::I'll look for the sources for the maps and make the necessary changes.] (]) 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Done! I've discovered meanwhile that there are Jews and there are Mountain Jews! And a lot of Greeks there too, curiously, but that I had already read.] (]) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for your edit. I had some work with the Census, actually, since they discriminate every single ethnic group, even if there are only a couple of people of that ethnic group. Most ethnic Ukrainians in the Donbass region (50-60%) actually speak Russian. And the other minoritary ethnic groups (including the Jews, the Greeks and the Germans), most of them also have Russian as their 1st language. The majority of the Romanis don't speak Russian as their 1st language. But many do. This issue about the language is very important, since it was one of the reasons that caused the protests: I'm not speaking now about the armed insurgency... it's very important to make a distinction between protesters and the insurgents. I think that Poroshenko is in touch with that reality and that he's making whatever he can do to bring the groups inside Ukraine together, and I hope he will be successful!] (]) 17:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Richard III and ], a word of caution in using the 2001 census stats: they're very, very old; their interpretation has been dubious (the actual questionnaire was specious in the first instance). Much of the information has been 'massaged' by Russian editors over the years and mixed (read as ]) with Soviet stats in order to heighten the number of ethnic Russians and exaggerate the Russophone component of the Ukrainian ethnics.
	:::::I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page also makes much ado about how long Russians have lived there side-by-side. In fact, around 30% of the Ukrainian ethnics in that area were wiped out during the 1932-33 famine. A large percentage of the Russian ethnics present now were brought in by Stalin explicitly in order to raise the Russian ethnic presence for the workforce as it was being further industrialised in the 50's and 60's. In other words, the majority of the Russian ethnic presence is very recent and ethnic tensions were high going back prior Ukrainian and Russian independence.
	:::::While some background is essential, please don't make the mistake of oversimplifying it. Naturally, I'm not pushing for any form of complex and ] details as to the background, but it needs to be handled more honestly that "Russian and Ukrainian ethnic groups have both been there for aeons". I'll see what I can dig up in terms of background information that doesn't sound like a sales pitch one way or the other. --] (]) 06:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping|Iryna Harpy}}I didn't find yet any more recent census with information about the number of Russians and Russophones in Ukraine (I can try, with more time, later). Concerning to the leaders of the insurgents, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, his surname seems to of Ukrainian origin, doesn't it? Ihor Plotnytskiy seems to have a surname of Polish origin. The others seem to have Russian surnames. (I'm not sure, I've gave a quick look at ] and ]). I'm going to have to do other stuff now, but are there available censuses online from before the Holomodor?] (]) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Personally, I'm somewhat opposed to including these at all in ]. They are better handled by ]. The "background" for the war is the unrest, and the background for the unrest are things like these stats. ] — ] 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::{{ping|Mondolkiri1}} If you are interested, it might be worth while to make an article like ], similar to ]. Such an article could delve into this historical and statistical analysis. ] — ] 16:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{ping|RGloucester}} Yes, sure. I'm going to see the ]. I hope there are enough sources to create such an article. As I said, it would be particularly interesting as well to have census data before the Holomodor and more recent data than from 2001 (if they divided the population of Ukrainian popultion according to ethnicity and language).] (]) 18:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::{{ping|Mondolkiri1}} I've made a draft for us to use: ]. I don't have much time to help with it at the moment, but I will contribute what I can. I think this will be a good collaborative effort, and will address your concerns about our lack of such an analysis of background info. Hopefully we can have Iryna help out too, as her grasp of the history will be quite useful. ] — ] 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}{{ping|Iryna Harpy}}{{ping|RGloucester}} So far, I've found these 2 sites about the Census of 1926, concerning to Ukraine: and . By what I see there, there was already a higher proportion of Russians in Donbass, and there was a higher proportion of Jews and Poles in the West, with overwhelming Ukrainian majorities in the middle. But I still couldn't find very useful data in terms of numbers, in that census. And I couldn't find yet information concerning to the censuses carried during Tsarist Russia (before the War of Independence). I think it would also be useful to compare the censuses immediately before and after WW2. ] (]) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
	:{{U|Mondolkiri1}}, I'd suggest you read the article on the ]. Just a quick look at might provide you with some insight into why even the 1926 census is not necessarily entirely 'honest'. on "THE SOVIET CENSUSES OF 1937 AND 1939:SOME PROBLEMS OF DATA EVALUATION" might give you a little more insight into the issue. There is also already information in Misplaced Pages regarding ], including under the Russian Empire.
	:There was a which has into a Misplaced Pages article entitled "]" where Ukrainians, Belarusians and, even more preposterously, Georgians are treated as being 'Russians'. In other words, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to establish anything other than extremely rough guestimates regarding the demographics of the region. It makes working up a 'background' one hell of a confusing and problematic proposition. --] (]) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	::I agree that it is confusing, but it seems like a worthwhile thing to do, or at least attempt. ] — ] 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Iryna Harpy}}{{ping|RGloucester}} According to what I read, the censuses of 1937 and 1939 are not reliable at all, so they should be dismissed as sources. Concerning to the census of 1926, less criticism is made. Well, we can't dismiss all the censuses in the Ukrainian history! We may point out that their results might be distorted because of this or that. The last census was in 2001, and the next one will only be in 2016. It's probably the most reliable one. Maybe we could use the 1926, 1959, 2001 and eventually some censuses closer to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1970, 1979, 1989). If there are data from the Tsarist period it would also be welcome. ] (]) 02:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't worth trying to put together a background section. What I am trying to make you aware of is that, if you think the trolls are flying in thick and fast now, just wait until both lots of POV-ers get stuck into using background info as a political edit warring and disruptive editing nightmare. Trying to proscribe which census info should be considered as close as possible to being 'neutral' and keeping out the card carrying nationalist fanatics is going to be extremely difficult to justify. We don't have enough policies and guidelines to keep ethical evaluations in check.
	::::That said, I'm not one to shy away from a challenge. I do see great value in providing a contained background for the readers as to pre-existing conditions and tensions in the region. --] (]) 05:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with {{u|RGloucester}} that this background is appropriate for the ] article, not for the ] article. And the article about the unrest has been relatively calm, these days, apart from a pro-Ukrainian POV edit by an IP user and several pro-Russian POV edits by ], who actually attacked me and has already been warned. Anyway, I don't think we should be intimidated by the possibility of POV edits, because there are ways to deal with them.] (]) 18:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	::{{u|Mondolkiri1}}, for trivia purposes, Greeks in Donbas are the Crimean Greeks (or Pontic Greeks) who were deported by ] from ]. (. ]) The Russian authorities granted them area around the modern city of ] which before then was a Cossack fortified settlement of Domakha. If you look at toponyms around ], you will notice many names similar with Crimean such as Yalta, Urzuf (]), Staryi Krym, Manhush and many others. September 16 is a national holiday of Ukrainian Greeks. (. ] (video)) With ], many Azov Greeks left for homeland (]). ] (]) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Aleksandr Grigoryev}} Yes, as I said, I had already read about them. And I already had read that they gave the cities near Mariupol where they live now very similar names to those where they used to live in Crimea. Why did they move from Crimea to Southern Donbass? That's also an interesting question.] (]) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Mondolkiri1}}, briefly, after Russia defeated Turks at the end of 18th century and reached the northern coast of ] they forced the Turks to acknowledge independence of the ]. Then Russians conducted coup-d'etat and installed pro-Russian ruler Shahin Girey who allowed Russians to intervene in Crimean internal affairs. After that Russians deported all Christians out of the ] including the local Greeks to Ukraine and eventually annexed the Khanate. One of contemporary Ukrainian historians of Greek descent wrote an article about it in the ]. He also mentioned that Gothic-Caffa diocese of ] was liquidated and annexed to the ] soon after the bishop of the diocese, Ignatius (Gozadini), died (see ]). It was Ignatius who gave the name to the city of Mariupol bring there the icon of Saint Theotokos from Mariampol (today it is known as ]). ] (]) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{u|Aleksandr Grigoryev}} That's very interesting. Thank you for your little lecture to me about that. There's an article containing at least some of that information: ]. It might eventually be improved.] (]) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{u|RGloucester}}, I've edited the ]. I guess the use of the English language can be improved there. It may also contain information that you may not consider useful or that might be compressed. I've looked at the census of 2001, and made the counts on an Excel file. ] (]) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	*I've added the 2001 census data for all the various areas of importance. The next thing to do will be to write brief history sections for each region, documenting ethnic and cultural changes, such as deportations, settlement schemes, famines, &c. This is not an area of my expertise, but I will look around for books next time I'm at the library. In the meantime, if anyone else has a good handle on the history or time for research, go ahead and write it all out. ] — ] 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Wow, it gave a lot of work to you, by what I've seen, {{u|RGloucester}}! Thank you also for making more concise the part I had written. And yes, I agree that the historical issues shall be developed in that draft, and there is a lot of stuff on the web about it, so it should not be difficult. Some important information may, eventually, exist only in printed books. Do those references count? ] (]) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Books are just as good as web sources. Just make sure to provide full citations with page numbers, so that they can be verified. I'm nearly done with the Donbass section, and I'm going to spin-off the background section ] to this new article. However, if you could work on the Kharkiv and Odessa sections, or provide any new information you have to the Donbass/Crimea sections, that'd be appreciated. ] — ] 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I'll be glad to work on that too. By the way, I found some results of the "Donetsk District" and "Mariupol District" from the Census of 1897 (though only the spoken languages, not the ethnic groups). But I don't know what area was covered by each district. And there might be other districts as well, in the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. . I'll check the names of the other cities there to see what are their current names, and where they are.] (]) 02:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I found Donbass census data from 1897 in , so that's all set and done. ] — ] 02:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Oh, great! There is also the District of Slovianosebersk (in the Luhansk Oblast): ] (]) 03:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::And here are the data about the "Oleksandrivsk District": and Bachmut (Artemivsk) District: . The Donetsk district probably included parts in the Donbass region, in Ukraine, and parts in Russia. By the way, there is another Donetsk, in Russia, and I'm not sure to which Donetsk is it named after.] (]) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Donetsk, i.e. the city in Ukraine, was called "Yuzovka" in Imperial times. The area that is now called Donbass was mainly in ], with some parts in the ] and ]. ] — ] 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} Here are the figures (excluding the Donetsk District): Total population: Mariupol district - 254,056, Slovianosebersk dist. - 174,753, Oleksandrivsk dist. - 271,678, Bachmut (Artemivsk) dist. - 332,478; Total = 1,032,965; % of speakers: Ukrainian: 60.3%, Russian: 22.7%, Greek: 4.7%, German: 4.5%, "Jewish" (Yiddish?): 3.5%, Tatar: 1.6%, Belarusian: 0.9%, Moldavian/Romanian: 0.7%, Others: 0.9%. Taurida seems to me to include Crimea, and parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts, I didn't find anything about being in Donbass too. Are you sure that the Donetsk District didn't have any territory in Ukraine? Because 38.9% of people there spoke Ukrainian there. And the Donetsk city in Russia is right next to the border. I'll look at the Don-Host Oblast a little later.] (]) 04:49, 22 September 2014
	"Ukrainians dominated rural areas, but cities were often inhabited solely by Russians...", as you wrote in the draft: What about the Jews? They were typically city-dwellers and there were 36,265 Jews in those 4 districts I mentioned. Though they were only 3.51% of the total population, I guess the urban population wasn't very large either, by that time!] (]) 05:35, 22 September 2014
	::I don't know anything about "Donetsk district", but I imagine that if it existed, it is related to the river rather than any city. The "Donetsk" in Russia was originally a Don Cossack village with an odd name, and then became "Gundrovka" in the early 20th century. Certainly the Ukrainian Donetsk was not called "Donetsk" at the time of the census. ] — ] 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Anyway, I got different data from those 4 districts those you indicated in the draft. And I made also a count including the Donetsk district, which also differs, with its population exceeding the one you wrote (which is natural if it's at least, partly in Russia). So, including the Donetsk district: total population: 1,488,784; Ukrainian: 53.8%; Russian: 34.1%; others: 11.3%. The Don Hon governorate you told me about maybe it was the same one where the Donetsk district was, but in the census that I've consulted, they call it the Don Voisko Oblast (it's the only division called Don there). But there was also the Kharkov governorate, for instance. It could have a part in Donbass. You were quick, sorry for not having contributed more, I was busy trying to decipher this census online. I also read parts of the book you told me, but there are missing pages on the online version.] (]) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::] didn't include any parts of Donbass. "Voisko" means "Host". I wish I had a map, because I have no idea where this "Donetsk district" is. It could be anywhere along the river. What governorate is it in? ] — ] 16:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::The Donetsk district is in the "Don Voisko" or "Don Host" (the same as you said) Oblast. It's not called a governorate. It includes a city called "Stanitsa Kamenskaya" or "Kamenskaya". I think it is ], in the Rostov Oblast, very close to Donbass.] (]) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, as I suspected, that's not in the area where most Ukrainians are. ] — ] 18:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::But there were many Ukrainians there. I guess it also included areas in Ukraine. Well, you've asked me to work on this draft and until now I did very little, sorry. You can leave the Odessa Oblast history for me, now, if you want to have rest! It will be interesting, with all that mix of Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Russians...] (]) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	;:::::::There were many Ukrainians around in different areas at this time, as the boundaries were more fluid. At least, that's my understanding. Now, however, that's obviously not a Ukrainian area...perhaps it was Russified. Anyway, I'll leave Odessa to you. Has a more complicated history. Ottomans, Romania, &c. ] — ] 18:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::: Here is a map, but it's from 1882. And in this map, the Kharkov governorate or Oblast also included a large portion, in Northern Donbass: ] (]) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Huh, you're right. I need to check my book again. However, the would explain why northern Luhansk Oblast is mostly populated by Ukrainians, given that it must've been part of ]. It is culturally distinct from the Donbass proper. ] — ] 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	*{{Ping|Mondolkiri1}} Let's move this discussion to the draft talk page, so that the discussion stays with the content. ] — ] 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} Hi-five, for the work in this draft! I still get only a 25% share (I guess), but at least now I can really say that I actually contributed! Good job, RGloucester, as you always do!] (]) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
	== Nuclear weapon in the Donbas conflict ==
	I know you asked to wait with the information, but for familiarization purpose:
	* . LIVE Leaks
	* . Jamestown Foundation
	* . Televised Service of News
	There were spotted at least 4 vehicles ] that shoot 240mm nuclear rounds. ] (]) 14:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:Those news seem to be sensationalist. Would they go so nuts?... That would be the suicide of Russia! It's better to wait for information from more reliable sources, if it's true!] (]) 20:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Mondolkiri1}}, ] did follow up on his statement acknowledging that he was not sure whether Russians were using nuclear warheads, but there were 240mm self-propelled mortar vehicles ] that are capable to conduct such strike. ] (]) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	==Anti-Terrorist Operation==
	{{u|RGloucester}}, please, reason with me here for a moment. How do you understand Ukraine conducts its military operations in the ]? Did you notice that there is no real war was announced? Did you also notice that involvement of regular military was limited to certain selective units? Why is that? Why do they use National Guard and territorial battalions more than regular army units? Explanation is simple. The operation is called "Anti-Terrorist Operation". Not because it is propaganda, but because it is what it is. The operation is coordinated by the Anti-Terrorist Center of the ] (special designated division that existed long before any "pro-Russian protests") and due to presence of great amount of armed personnel it is supported by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and militarized units of Ministry of Internal Affairs such as National Guard. There are some volunteer territorial battalions that are either under jurisdiction of Military of Internal Affairs or Ministry of Defense. All this is being coordinated through the '''Anti-Terrorist Center'''. I do not understand why you are deleting it. It is not an abstract or something out of a comic book. I am not labeling, but simply providing facts. Plus there were enough supporting references from quite neutral sources, weren't there? ] (]) 22:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Dear Alexander! I stopped by to say hello to my English buddy Richard and discuss with him the implications of the referendum in Scotland, and by that chance read your message thus becoming a party to this very interesting discussion since you have raised several good points. Being shamelessly impulsive, I decided to jump in and provide you with my raw and uneducated thougths on the matter while Richard is away from his computer, undoubtrdly enjoying his weekend. Therefore:
	*Yes, indeed, the formal name of the ] is the "Anti-Terrorist Operation". However, the scale of death and destruction in Donbass cannot be fit into the shoes of the state police (SBU) action. Thousands of people are killed, ten of thousands are displaced, the damage to the capital plant both residential and industrial estimated in billions of grivnyas. It is definitely a war which is a shame! And to stop a war, which we all sincerely desire to, you have to acknowledge its existence first! Last but not least, the First and the Second Chechen wars are still called by Putin's military bureaucrats as "Anti-Terrorist Operations"...
	*It is an established fact that all wars are not waged by militias such as battalions of territorial defense of Ukraine or volunteer special police detachments of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine, but are waged by the armies that are using military hardware and trained soldiers. AK-47's are out of fashion in Donbass now, in fashion are reactive artillery "Grad", counter-artillery bombardments, armor columns bold dashes into urban areas and encirclements of whole regiments. While all-volunteer units such as Azov (special police regiment) or Aidar (ter. defense battalion), or Donbass (national Guard battalion) are faring rather well in Donbass, other are not. In August, the 5th battalion of the territorial defense loaded into trucks, left Donbass and drove with weapons straight to their homes in Western Ukraine. Recently, battalion of the territorial defense of the Nikolayev Region followed the suit.
	*During the Summer of 2014 the whole Ukrainian Army was assembled in and near Donbass. If you try to trace any of its brigade in the press you will find out that it was engaged in the fighting in Donbass at this or that period of time. However, not in the central Ukrainian press but rather in the local media publishing obituaries and notes of death of the local residents who were called in. The central media organizations were bubbling about the volunteer militia battalions and were collecting shoes, clothing, various supplies including body armor. Some people were even buying written off armored personal carriers without guns, refurbishing them and donating them to the volunteer battalion. By the way, now every respecting itself political party in Ukraine has its own armed militia battalion, some of them are recognized by the state, some are not. So, the question arise what was that hoopla around volunteer battalions all about?
	*To answer that, it would be instructive to listen to the volunteers themselves! Recently, I listened to Semen Semenchenko's, Donbass battalion commander, webcast from the Washington, D.C., where he met with the representatives of the American political establishment, and musing about the history of the volunteer force and the reasons for its development, Semenchenko said that his battalion was established because regular Ukrainian army was unable to fight since people of Donbass formed the human shields to stop the Army personnel redeployment. Indeed, on many occasions Ukrainian soldiers in May 2014 refused to fire into civilions who were able to seize their arms and hardware. Apparently, armed and patriotically minded civilians did not have the sensitivities of the professional soldiers... One more thougt, I consider the mass communication campaign around volunteer battalions as a brilliant "Wag the dog"-type of PR action on a world scale. It completely obscured the movements of the regular armed forces which were pushed into fighting with Ukrainian protesters in Donbass using tanks and artillery. As we know from Newton's laws of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the object responds with an equal force, action brings reaction! That explains the subsequent events.... I know that I am a bore and it is a good time to bid you farewell! With best wishes, --] (]) 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	*I didn't delete anything about the "anti-terrorist centre", which remains there. However, your distinction between an "anti-terrorist operation" and "war" is not one supported by reliable sources. ] — ] 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
	**Not only does it not supported by RS, but also according to numerous encyclopedias the Russian-Chechen wars are called '''Russian-Chechen Wars''' not '''Anti-Terrorist Operations'''. Obviously our user here is maybe a politician of some sort, but he forgets that Misplaced Pages is first and fore most an encyclopedia, not a collection of propaganda material. As to user {{ping|Nabak}} I think he should get accustomed with ].--] (]) 03:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
	**Also, what does Scotland have to do with War in Donbass? I completely don't understand this version of trolling (if its polite to call it that).--] (]) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
	==]==
	As promised {{Done}}--] (]) 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your good work! ] — ] 03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
	:Eventually, I will edit ] article the same way, but for that I would need my whole weekend to be off, and that wont happen till December 16. :( I can do 100 refs in 1 full day, (that includes brakes for food). :)--] (]) 03:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 24 September 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-24}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 37-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=627251169 -->
	==The IP is branching out==
	He failed to get his way on various forums so is now going into other articles with his POV-pushing and original research: .] (]) 15:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	==RIA Novosti==
	Since when did RIA Novosti became ''non-RS'' as you said in ? I for one speak Russian and know that even Russian Misplaced Pages uses it as RS, let alone that the whole Misplaced Pages community will agree on it being one. Maybe you should have rephrased what the anonymous user trying to add? I checked his edit too, I don't see any POV. In my opinion this revert was unjust, although the previous one was fair in my opinion. :)--] (]) 18:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::RIA Novosti is non-RS in this context because all other sources used in the article contradict it, such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, &c. Simply, what it says is unverifiable. ] — ] 18:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Hmm, wont agree. Misplaced Pages have nothing against using foreign language reliable sources, .--] (]) 18:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::It isn't that it is foreign, it is that what it says is unverifiable, and that it is known for producing outlandish stories, as has been debated at ] numerous times (search the archives there for more information). It was decided that cross-referencing was necessary, and that if something produced by a source such as RIA Novosti was not verifiable in mainstream reliable sources, it should not be included. If you can find a reliable source to cross-reference with the RIA story, then it can be included. Otherwise, it is not fit to print. ] — ] 19:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Furthermore, if, as you say they are unverifiable, you can use <code>|trans_title=</code> and/or ask me or other Russian speaking Wikipedians for translation of context. Keep in mind, that the article is about Russian-Ukrainian dispute so it should encompass some foreign language RS. There are numerous of examples: ] (plenty of Polish language RS), ] (plenty of Ukrainian language RS), ] (Some Russian and Ukrainian sources), ] (plenty of Ukrainian and Russian sources). I think I gave you enough examples which prove that its O.K. to do and that they are verifiable. Like, do you see any cross-references in my examples?--] (]) 18:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Like I said, I don't care about the fact that is in a foreign language, nor about other articles. I care about the fact that it is unverifiable, and no reliable sources support the version of events that it is promoting. I also care that the RS/N discussion that was had on these particular Russian state sources in the context of the Ukraine conflict, said that we should cross-reference. If you can provide a cross-reference in a reliable source that verifies these events, then it can be included. However, at present, there is no verification. ] — ] 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::No Western source would ever support a Russian POV. That's laughably ridiculous. You base the NEUTRALITY of a WP article on prejudiced Western sources aimed against Russia in this conflict. All of WP articles relying on it become biased toward the Western POV no matter what, so all of the neutrality is compromised. The only way to uncompomise it is to translate information from sources like RIA Novosti and RT, and put it in WP. You'll see right off that Russia is not implicated in the conflict... But then again, who would want it? Westerners love to sip their coffee reading timelines of war events in the morning, so seeing "Russia isn't responsible" sentence might shock them. ] (]) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	==Tone of Car/Automobile Discussion==
	Hello,
	I'm trying to understand the rename of the ] article and have been reviewing ] and the other arguments that made that change happen. I've been working hard to try and clean up the ] tree and want to make sure we fully discuss any changes to the category space because I don't see hatnotes as useful there due to ]. You may not agree that viewpoint. Fair enough.
	Even if misguided as you see it, my comments are sincere and not "obfuscating". ] (]) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I wasn't referring to you, dear fellow. Don't worry a trifle about it. Keep up the good work. ] — ] 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	Your insistence that the word "automobile" is an Americanism is hilarious when one considers the ]. It was named thus in 1907 by order of ]; was he American, by any chance? ] (]) 19:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::That club was formerly called the ]. It was in fact the first body in Britain to use the term "automobile". "Motor car" and "autocar" were attested prior to the word "automobile" in the UK, and "automobile" never gained currency outside proper names, i.e. in that club's name. "Automobile" is an Americanism, and I've provided the OED to verify that. It is not used in general use in Britain, and hasn't been since a brief blip at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, British legislation uniformly refers to what Americans call "automobiles" as "motor cars". In other words, this is not "my insistence". It is verified by the most reliable dictionary on English language usage, the OED. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, not on personal opinions. ] — ] 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::The word is derived from French. What is American about that? ]&nbsp;] 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Are you being dense? It was imported from French into English, but only ever became common in American usage. That makes it an Americanism, which is what the OED says. The word "tram" (meaning "streetcar" in American English) is derived from Scots, but only ever became common in British English. Hence, it is a Briticism. ] — ] 21:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Pingback ==
	Thanks for the note and sorry for the inconvenience. -] (]) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Image ==
	Why did you revert the image back ? Do you understand what the image says? I think a normal reaction of a normal person who accidentally found himself on Misplaced Pages would be that it's a joke or maybe vandalism by people who use Misplaced Pages for propaganda. Cause these people are probably worried about what happens in the South East and the image reassures them. But why you? Do you understand what it says? And it's indecent, in smaller font it insults Putin and it uses a word that is banned from literary use and it is not safe for children and kind of tells much of the person who wrote it on the wall. I guess there are some people on Misplaced Pages who want to insult Putin and put indecent images everywhere, but I'm surprised that you were the one who did this. Really, what does the graffiti say? And if you can read it, can you explain to me how is this representative of anything? --] (]) 14:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages is not censored, as I'm sure you know. It is representative of the unrest in Ukraine, obviously, because this type of graffiti is now found everywhere. It has nothing to do with "propaganda". It is illustrative, nothing more. ] — ] 15:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::It's not found everywhere. It cannot possibly be found everywhere. Do you know what it says? I just wonder. --] (]) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I know what it says. I also know that this type of graffiti is found throughout the conflict zone. It is representative of the tensions of the unrest that has struck Ukraine. ] — ] 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Well, I was apprehensive in the beginning about it, and more inclined to a picture like File:RussianSpringOdessa20140420 04.JPG, for instance, except for the title of the picture, which is pro-Russian. I'm neutral. A pro-Russian title is not neutral. An anti-Russian graffiti isn't neutral either. Well... Is it more important the content or the title? ] (]) 02:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The picture doesn't have to be "neutral", merely demonstrative. It demonstrates the events that took place. This graffiti appears, is demonstrative, and hence is a good representation of the feelings that are part of the unrest in Ukraine. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the picture. The words that appear in the picture are "non-neutral", but the picture itself is not. We are not endorsing the views of whoever wrote that on the wall. ] — ] 03:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, you're right. After all, these events are not a sort of a hippie movement, and it would be more or less impossible to find a neutral image that expressed the true nature of the events.] (]) 16:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|Mondolkiri1}} What I meant is that the picture says "Lugansk is Ukraine", which is not "representative of the unrest" cause it's a minority opinion in the breakaway rebel regions. Moreover, here on Misplaced Pages the image looks as a war propaganda poster for the current Ukrainian government. --] (]) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There are people saying "Lugansk is Ukraine", and there are people saying "Lugansk is Russia", and there are people saying "Lugansk is New Russia". Of course, we can't include graffiti from every party in this template. However, given that we have this one very good quality picture here, it makes sense to use it. Is evocative of the type of unrest going on. It doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion, which is unverifiable anyway. It is merely a picture of what has gone on. We are not endorsing what it says. ] — ] 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::It may be a picture from the North of the Lugansk Oblast, where most people speak Ukrainian. I guess this kind of stuff provokes strong emotions at this time.] (]) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
	== From Dark Liberty ==
	From Dark Liberty at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests:<blockquote>As you are the only one shifting hard the POV in favor of another term as of October, with the rest of us with rather lukewarm support, I would like to inquire why you are in favor the phrase, and is trying so hard using logical fallacies in order to justify support for this phrase. Remember, I am not in favor of any neologism for any article. And do not give me "I'm helping Misplaced Pages". I want to know why you desperately do support the phrase at this stage, in favor of all opposition.
	"The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest." -RGloucestor
	here is your argument repeated, and here are the problems: 2014 Taiwan protests and Hong Kong protests are both valid, not absurd, as you would think unfortunately, and most readers would agree. Are intelligence agencies aware of every single protest that occurred during the year? I doubt it. And Calling 2014 Ferguson riots as "American unrest" would be equally as absurd.
	Like monkeys trying to call a deer a horse. Wrong political opinions are not relevant here; we're better than that. Misplaced Pages is for human beings. Have some pride in your humanity.</blockquote>
	Feel free to erase this message if you want. --] (]) 07:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
	== The mass graves in Donetsk ==
	It does a poor job of "debunking", as I found many faults in the narrative. For example, the bodies at the morgues were moved there after being discovered in the mass graves. Not to mention they do not explain anything about the captured volunteer who admitted to committing the atrocities.
	] (]) 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
	== OR Noticeboard-Ruthenians_in_Galicia ==
	==Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion==
	Hello, RGloucester. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NORN-notice--> Thank you.
	Please be advised that you are being discussed here:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia
	== ''The Signpost'': 01 October 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-10-01}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 38-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=628117353 -->
	== Please comment on ] ==
	You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. ] (]) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
	==DYK for Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine==
	{{tmbox
	|type = notice
	|image = ]
	|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that a consultative referendum on whether ] should federalise ''']''' in the ] during the ], twenty years prior to the ] in the same region?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
	}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> —] &#124; ] 12:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
	== barnstar ==
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"		{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}		|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
	|rowspan="2" |		|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''		|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
	|-		|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for setting-aside a content dispute to help honestly resolve an edit issue ] (]) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)		|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Awarded for being the top contributor to an article related to the ] and ]. Awarded by ] ] 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
	|}		|}
			{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
	== question ==
	I have some extra time at the moment. Would you object if I renamed the page to "... against ISIS" and replaced the half of the references that were changed back to "ISIL" back to "ISIS" just pending the outcome of the discussion ... essentially just roll everything back 24 hours? (At which point we may need to change it back anyway ...) I think it's an important exercise to establish an interaction precedent if nothing else. But I won't do it if there's any objections. ] (]) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::It seems like a waste. There is no point to going back and forth. Once something is settled, let's stick with it. Until then, let's avoid edit-warring and flipping things all over the place. That's my personal view. Neither title is so bad that it needs to be changed immediately, and we really need to change the culture of unilateral action, in this case. ] — ] 04:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Great point - sounds good. ] (]) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	==Belated, but very much deserved==
	{| style="border: 3px solid #0066cc; background-color: #FFDF00; width:100%;"
	|rowspan="3" valign="top" style="width:5em"| {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
	|rowspan="3" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | <span style="font-family:Palatino;color:#0066cc">'''Order of Merit of Ukraine'''</span style>
	|-		|-
			|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | ]
	|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"| <span style="font-family:Palatino;color:#0066cc">I am honoured to award you with this acknowledgement for the remarkable work you have put into creating, developing and maintaining genuinely neutral and informative articles over the last year surrounding recent events in Ukraine. The integrity with which you have fought off POV pushers from all sides is nothing short of stellar.
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |<span style="font-family:Palatino;color:#0066cc"><sub>''this WikiAward was given to RGloucester by ] (]) on 04:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)''</sub>
	|}
	::Thanks very much! It has been a wild ride. I'm still eyeing the future, but I fear that the old-fashioned "]" scenario has set in. ] — ] 04:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I suspect that was the objective. Let's just say that there are certain superpowers who have everything to gain by putting the crunch on Russia. 'Twas ] already, and only 'over' in name. Any 'stuff' that happens to people who don't matter is 'collateral damage'. You know something is seriously wrong when state sponsored political assassination is televised as a hooray moment. --] (]) 05:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
			|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar'''
	==Cite news==
	I was wondering if your was justified and weather I should follow it. On one hand, I like to use ''agencies'' and ''publishers'' some times but from what user {{ping|Alarics}} explained to me that according to {{tl|cite news}} template we need to use either ''work'' or ''newspaper'' and user {{ping|Redrose64}} agreed with him. Now I am wondering who is right?--] (]) 04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:There is a difference between the parameters. "Work" refers to the literal "work" that the article being cited appears in. "Publisher" refers to the company or organisation that publishes that "work". As an example, an article appears in '']'', which is published by ]. In the case of a Reuters article, for example, the technically correct way to cite it would technically be "agency=Reuters|work=Reuters", however, that is redundant. It makes sense to use only "agency", as that Reuters article, being a wire piece, likely appears in many other "works". In cases where the "work" and the "publisher/agency" have the same name, it makes sense to use the "publisher/agency" parameter. In cases where this is not true, it is makes sense to prioritise the work parameter. In other words, we don't need to fill in the "publisher" parameter for ''The New York Times''. ] — ] 04:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Well, that I got. What about BBC News is it suppose to be "agency" or "work" in your opinion?--] (]) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Changing {{para|work|Reuters}} to {{para|agency|Reuters}} was certainly correct: Reuters is not the name of the published work, but of the news agency - the organisation which supplied the story for reproduction in that work. Changing {{para|work|BBC News}} to {{para|publisher|BBC News}} is debatable. I often come across cases where {{para|publisher}} has been used incorrectly for the name of the work; I think that this is because some people believe that "]" is another word for "]", which it is not. Personally I would have left {{para|work|BBC News}} alone.
	:::Regarding agencies: a real example that I recently came across is on the website of the ''Victoria Advocate'', which begins "By Greg Kot Chicago Tribune (MCT) Dave Mustaine has ..." Here, Greg Kot is the author; Chicago Tribune is the newspaper which Greg Kot works for, and is also where the story was first published; and (MCT) immediately before the start of the text indicates the agency that the Victoria Advocate obtained the story from. If a story begins with something in parenthesis like that, it's almost certainly an indication that the story came from an agency. (MCT) is ]; other commonly-found agencies include (]) and (AP), the latter being the normal acronym for ]. Taking as another example, it is on the BBC News website, so it's {{para|work|BBC News}}; the copyright note at the bottom says "BBC &copy; 2014" so it's {{para|publisher|BBC}}; the text doesn't begin with something in parenthesis, so it's not an agency story. BBC News is an agency only if the website or broadcast where the story appeared does not belong to the BBC - if that same story had appeared on a different website (say, that of the ''Daily Planet''), and the text had begin "(BBC) Investigations are under way ...", it would then be {{para|work|Daily Planet}} {{para|agency|BBC}}. --] (]) 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't think BBC News is ever usually appropriate for the "agency" parameter, however, I think that in their case "work" is inappropriate for one important reason. That's that the "work" parameter italicises the text, giving it the sense that it is one printed work like a newspaper or journal. The reality is that "BBC News" should never be italicised in this manner, as it never represents a "work" in that sense. I believe one can write "BBC News" as the "publisher", given that BBC News is a division of the broader BBC, not a separate company or anything like that. ] — ] 12:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Keep in mind that both "publisher" and "agency" is not italicised therefore it shouldn't matter I think.--] (]) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::It ''does'' matter if the data is used to populate the ] that {{tlx|citation}} and all the {{cs1}} templates emit. --] (]) 14:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The "publisher" and "agency" parameters should not italicise, and don't. "Work" does italicise, and should do. It is meant for works like '']'' or ''Journal of Contemporary Asia''. ] — ] 16:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::O.K. I already began renaming BBC News ''works'' and ''agencies'' to ''publishers''.--] (]) 16:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Another question; Obviously ], ], and ]/] are ''publishers'' but how would you classify ] which is a Pakistani news channel?--] (]) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::I don't know enough about the specific channel, but my general understanding is that television networks can be considered works (if one is citing an actual television programme). If one isn't citing a programme, but just some article on the network's website, then it would be considered a "publisher". ] — ] 22:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::BBC Sport is not a publisher. It is a work; the publisher of that work is the BBC. --] (]) 23:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::That's debatable. "BBC Sport" should certainly not be italicised.
	:::::::::::::You know, when such debates go, I get even more confused. On one hand, it says that ] is a division of ] which is therefore a part of ] agency just like ]. On the other hand, because its a division of BBC North, it makes it ''work'', but I might be wrong. Either way, I will revert 2 of my edits for now, but when the consensus will be reached (and if in mine and RGloucester's favour), then I will put it back. If not, then I will except the defeat in this discussion and will leave it as is. Sounds fair?--] (]) 23:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::My other question, is that while searching for BBC News works I have stumbled on these templates: {{tl|Wayback}} Although I don't mind them and maybe they are good for say archiving BBC stuff, they don't incorparate as much. Like, there is only ''url'', ''date'', ''df'', and ''title'' which makes me wonder on what is their point? It would be a lot better if we will include ''work'', ''author'', ''publisher'', ''agency'', ''date'', and ''accessdate'' with a chance to arternate it to ''newspaper'' or delete ones that are not present in the one template. How is this sounds?--] (]) 02:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::The usual cite news template has archival parameters, so I don't know why we'd ever want to use that template. ] — ] 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Beats me, found it ]. Its may be good on refs where authors are not specified such as BBC News and ], but then it lacks ''date'' and ''accessdate'' as well, and you need to put it manualy. Here is the . It was used only once on sites like ''BBC News'' and ''The Times'' by user {{ping|Synthwave.94}} who is just a clean up guy at the WikiProject Music department. I'm fine with it being used on ''BBC'' and ''Dawn'' since they don't have authors, but ''The Times'' and the rest do have them, which makes me wonder how useful it is? I hope user {{ping|Redrose64}} will have something to say about it. I wont use it till consensus will come to a clause regarding this issue as well.--] (]) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::If you want to show "BBC Sport" without it being italicised, but without incorrectly marking it up as the publisher (which is the BBC), try {{para|department|BBC Sport}} (see ]):
	::::::::::::::::{{cite news |last=Roan |first=Dan |title=Premier League explore taking one regular-round match abroad |date=8 October 2014 |department=BBC Sport |publisher=BBC |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29532996 |accessdate=8 October 2014 }}
	::::::::::::::::You can of course omit the {{para|publisher|BBC}} (see ]). If the webpage that you're using as a ref says "BBC", "BBC News", "BBC Sport" etc. in big letters at the top, it is incorrect to use {{para|agency|BBC}}. However, if that same webpage says "(Reuters)" before the text, putting {{para|agency|Reuters}} is perfectly in order, see ].
	::::::::::::::::Templates like {{tlx|wayback}} are intended for use on refs which do not use templates like {{tlx|cite news}} for formatting. When {{tlx|cite news}} etc. ''are'' being used, the {{para|archiveurl}} and {{para|archivedate}} parameters (see ]) are sufficient to give a link to the wayback page. --] (]) 09:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::O.K. Thank you. Now I guess I can clean up ] a bit from this {{tl|Wayback}} template. :)--] (]) 12:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Is there ANY way I can contact you and TALK to you? ==
	Or are you going to keep reverting any text I add to your Talk Page? ] (]) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::If it is about the Donbass article, please move to that talk page, where I've pasted your comment. ] — ] 02:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::No, it's about you and seriously understanding why do you mark other people's addition as "bizarre" in the summary? Thanks, ] (]) 02:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Because it was "bizarre", and because it read like mangled English. ] — ] 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::"Supporting party" isn't mangled. It means that a certain implication of support may come from that belligerent. I personally have to let you know that if I do edits like that, I welcome any kind of talk about them in my own talk. Were I not, I think I would've put an infobox saying so on top. But of course this is just me. ] (]) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Discretionary sanctions notification - MOS ==
	{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''
	The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding the English Misplaced Pages ] and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].
	Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
	This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
	}} <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
	:Good heavens! Don't risk to be blocked again for trying to write in Shakespearean English!] (]) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Oh, it is nothing like that. I am merely trying to resolve a dispute about British units of measurement, which is something I became involved in a year ago. I don't edit in the area, merely on talk pages. ] — ] 14:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Some disruptive editing on the ] article ==
	I've noticed what appears to me to be some disruptive and POV editing in the ] article, namely concerning to casualties and losses. I've already asked the help of ]. Do you think any measures should be taken? Thanks!] (]) 14:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I'll be honest. My opinion is that that article is based in ], and hence likely a mess. I've been ignoring it for the time being. After events settle down, I'll go back and verify/copyedit. As it stands now, I don't think there is much to be done. You could ask for semi-protection at ], though. ] — ] 14:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::And what do I claim to be the basis of semi-protection? Recentism? I'll see what EkoGraf can do about it, and if I notice that the page continues to be disrupted I'll ask for that. Thanks!] (]) 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Addition of unsourced POV content, is what I'd say. ] — ] 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ] added to the Category of "Causes of war" ==
	An IP user added ] to the Category of "Causes of war". It's a very indirect cause. I think it would be more logical to add ] as a cause of war than the Historical background. Do you agree? ] (]) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I imagine it should be removed, but at the same time, ] is also in that category. ] — ] 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but if you look at the content of ] it actually talks about quite more direct causes for the war!] (]) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::That's true. This article is the background of the unrest, which led to the war. You're right. Remove it. ] — ] 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Done!] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Will you withdraw this proposal? Everyone is opposing your proposed name. --] (]) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::No, I will not. I still believe that the move must be carried out. ] — ] 16:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::: I know that vote is not a substitute for discussion. However, opposers have a point, and you are the only supporter. How much rebuttal will you convince them to change their minds? --] (]) 01:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I won't ever change my mind. ] — ] 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Looking at the discussion, the administrator will close it as "not moved". If that happens, will you discuss this with the closing administrator for re-evaluation? --] (]) 02:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I will open a new discussion in a month's time, if that's the case. ] — ] 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: One month's not enough; how about after New Year's Eve (or Day)? --] (]) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Perfectly fine. ] — ] 12:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 08 October 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-10-08}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 39-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=629119243 -->
	== Hist/page - talkpage? ==
	Hello RGloucester, you moved ] with this change ]. However, the talkpage still seems to be the old one (of the now redirect page), should it be moved aswell? I'd do it myself, but I would most likely create more problems trying it. ] (]) 21:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I've paged merged the two. A bot modified the redirect, that's all. ] — ] 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for the quick fix. ] (]) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	==British Isles sanctions==
	I am aware of the problems with the use of British Isles as a side issue of the various Arbcom decisions over the Ireland naming issues. However where are the "British Isles sanctions" you have mentioned documented, because AFAICT for example there is no mention of (or link to) sanctions on ] -- ] (]) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|PBS}} They are described at this page: ]. ] — ] 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	==What should I use?==
	One other question that have arose is that when it comes to sports articles should I use ''publisher'' or ''website'' when it comes to such links as ]/] and ]. So far I decided to change ESPN.com to ESPN since they are basically the same but I still would like to hear your opinion on it.--] (]) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::For those, I believe, you should use the cite web template instead of cite news. ] — ] 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Even if they are covering sports news? I think since you are unsure we should ask {{ping|Redrose64}}.--] (]) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{tlx|cite news}} is for news sources, both online and printed, including sports news. {{tlx|cite web}}, according to its doc, is for "web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template". You can use any of {{para|work|ESPN}}, {{para|website|ESPN.com}} or {{para|publisher|ESPN Internet Ventures}} but using more than one of those is redundant. --] (]) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping|Redrose64}} So in which category will ESPN.com and MLB.com will fit in? Is it web as it implied by ''.com'' or is it ''news'' as it implies by its content?--] (]) 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::If what you're citing is a news story, use {{tlx|cite news}}. The presence of .com in the website name is immaterial - pretty much every profit-making organisation - and that includes such well-known newspapers as '']'' and '']'' - has a web domain ending in either ] or ] (where xx is a country code) and so it doesn't really mean anything when choosing a cite template. As an aside, any company that is still banging on about their .com identity is fifteen years out of date. --] (]) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't consider sport "news", so I'd favour keeping it out of the news template to make clear that it is of a lesser significance. ] — ] 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Acknowledgement ==
	You have done great work in the area of the Ukraine situation. I have generally agreed with your views. I hope that your intellect can help continue the development of WP in this area, whether or not we come to a consensus on the particular point I raised on the talk page regarding a name change. Thanks. ] (]) 00:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Draft sanctions ==
	RGloucester, there's a couple of points in your latest draft that I fear could be problematic, given the love of wikilawyering and interpretation and all the rest that we see so often. But I don't want to bog down the AN discussion with them - it's in danger of becoming TLDR already. Do you think you and i could work on drafts together, say in a sandbox page like ]? It needn't be just us - NE Ent might be interested, and Boson may be back in days - but I'm not sure many others are interested in the detail work right now. On the other hand, if we are going to have to gain wider community approval per PBS, a bit more detail work now could really help. ] (]) 17:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I disagree with PBS about the need for an RfC. General sanctions have never required an RfC. They are usually established at ] through discussion, and Misplaced Pages ], as I'm sure you know. They don't fundamentally change anything for everyday editors, only those who edit war or otherwise cause disruption (and only after he/she has been notified). Regardless, we can establish such a page and work on the wording, but I'm already afraid this has got bogged down into too many details. We need to keep it simple. General sanctions generally are simple. Wikilawyering seems unlikely to happen here. An uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions on anyone who has been notified of the sanctions and is acting disruptively in the topic area. That's a fairly standard definition. Making this complicated is inappropriate. It isn't meant to be complicated. ] — ] 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree it's not meant to be complicated, that's why I offered a shorter version. I don't know what you think of that one, but I'll work with you on yours if you'd prefer. Just for-instance, what are "British units"? No, I don't want to add fifty words explaining that. I 'd rather find another phrase/clause that's as short or shorter. ] (]) 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Can you please paste your shorter version here? I don't think I caught it. As far as "British units", I imagine one could say "units used in the United Kingdom". ] — ] 17:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Sure. First, after quibbling about "strong ties" (and in full knowledge that I'd left room for trimming):
	::::::::::...maybe we can make progress by looking at ] and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:
	::::::::::* Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
	::::::::::* Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
	::::::::::* Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further....
	:::::Second, after suggestions from Boson which I tried to integrate succinctly:
	::::::"Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement" ] (]) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Okay. I figure that my new proposal was meant to incorporate that stuff, and I think it does that well. Could you name the issues with it so that I may revise it? ] — ] 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}Well, I was hoping to collaborate with you on the wording rather than submit complaints to you for your consideration. So, I'll mention a few issues and be off. I'm going to cut down my Misplaced Pages activity and take a lot of pages off my watchlist anyway, WP:AN and WT:MOSNUM particularly. First, here's your text:<br />
	"In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard."
	*As previously discussed, "strong ties" is too encompassing - (]) has strong ties to the UK. That's why I suggested "primarily concerning UK subjects".
	*"Without clear justification" is wrong - it's easy to provide a clear justification for the most heinous acts (cf war), and it's not a Misplaced Pages norm. Hence my "without consensus".
	*"Changes from metric to imperial" - or between different metric systems as in the arguments about using cm, m or feet and inches for basketball players and as certain editors would do for devilment. Simply "switching units".
	*"Systematically" is too open to gaming (e.g. just pick 20 articles at random), 1RR covers edit-warring, so just change "systematically" to "repeatedly" and make sure to say 1RR applies.
	*"Disrupts discussions" by itself doesn't cover trolling by starting discussions, stringing discussions out e.g. ] going round and round in circles (a distinguishing feature of DeFacto that I could easily believe has led to divorce). "Disrupts ... normal Misplaced Pages processes" doesn't clearly cover forum-shopping. Hence my "forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement", which avoids that "British units" phrase too.
	*"the existence of the British units general sanctions" -> "the existence of these sanctions"
	*"Sanctions can be imposed if ... the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes." If they do that anywhere? Or on any matter in UK-related articles? Or only with regard to units of measurement in UK-related articles? It has to be the latter, otherwise that sentence does just apply sanctions Misplaced Pages-wide. But the latter has already been covered, in detail, so this sentence seems superfluous and has already disturbed others as massive sanctions-creep.
	*"the topic or its closely related topics" - "the topic" isn't spelt out. Better to spell it out from the start - that's why I began with "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects".<br />
	Hope that helps. Good luck. ] (]) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I strongly disagree with "units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects". "Strong ties" is not too encompassing for ENGVAR or date formats, and there is no reason why it should be here either. If you read ], it says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", meaning "particular" as opposed to multiple such nations. "Concerning UK subjects" doesn't make any sense to me. I'm in favour of using the existing language that is found in MOSNUM and other parts of the MOS. As far as your other ideas, I do not think that these specifications aren necessary. They are not necessary for other general sanctions such as the ], and I don't know why they'd be here. They are called "general sanctions", and they are certainly not "specific sanctions". We don't need to specifically say "forum-shopping". If it is disruptive, an uninvolved administrator can sanction an editor. "Systematically" is used by the British Isles general sanctions, and is an appropriate phrase here as well. Specifying about "feet and inches" isn't the purpose of these sanctions, and I'm not aware of any dispute in that regard. Even if there was such a dispute, an uninvolved administrator could easily construe "edits disruptively in areas pertaining units of measurement in the United Kingdom" or whatever, as referring to that. We are supposed to have a loose wording, not a tight wording. ] — ] 18:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
	== RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS ==
	There is currently an RfC underway about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">(])</span> 01:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 15 October 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-10-15}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 40-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=629797589 -->
	== Clarification ==
	In an English encyclopaedia strong ties to the United Kingdom is so wide open to misinterpretation and POV as to be intrinsically unfair. For example you say it includes ], but does not include the 26 counties in Ireland, yet the protectorate included that territory in Ireland. Do you see the knots you are creating? -- ] (]) 14:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|PBS}} No, I don't see those knots. "Strong ties" to one country as opposed to others, meaning that if there are multiple countries with strong ties, the "strong ties" principle doesn't apply. That's what the MoS says. Anyway, this is total abstraction, as no units at all are even used in the ] article. Can we please use common sense here, rather than delve into absurdity? ] — ] 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	=="Novorossiyans"==
	Hi, what do you think of ] ]? It's obviously not a serious proposal, and just a pretext for expressing hatred of Russia. Also, whoever it was who made the proposal, he didn't even bother to sign either of his two comments. Finally, as you probably, the rebels themselves, most notably Mozgovoy, want there to be a "unified" Novorossiya, but Moscow wants to stick with DPR and LPR being separate entities.
	I wanted to tell you before that you demonstrate your wisdom by avoiding the MH17 article, but didn't want to intrude on your Talk page.
	I see you just made a comment there. So now you are "involved", so I guess I should do the hatting, unless you object. The IP is from Toronto, btw. Also, I hope your use of the expression "New Russians" was a joke. What kind of people could new Russians possibly be? Whereas it is very clear what Novorossiya is. IIRC, you lost the debate about this naming convention. – ] (]) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Just ignore it. It isn't worth the time. I haven't made any comments about the aeroplane, so I'm not sure what you are referencing. No, my use of "New Russians" is not a "joke". I don't speak foreign tongues (except when I do, as noted on my user page). When speaking or writing English, I write or speak English. In English, the term can only ever be "New Russian". "Novorossiya" is not clear, no more than "Rossiya" is clear. I admit defeat as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, but I shan't change my own usage. Regardless, I fear that this is a great problem on the English Misplaced Pages. Whilst I do appreciate the great contributions of non-native English speakers here, and their ability to combat systemic bias, I do quite hate that many try to foist foreignisms on the English language as a matter of advancing various nationalist agendas. There is not much to do about it, though. ] — ] 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, I think you were clearly wrong in using "New Russians" to refer to residents of Donetsk and Lugansk. A page for ] exists, and it has nothing to do with Novorossiya. As a general matter, I do share your dislike for "foreignisms". For example, I think the article about the Ukraine using "oblast" instead of "region" is very silly. But there are exceptions in the case of which I find the use of foreignisms acceptable. In the case of prominent countries, such as Israel, Germany, and Russia, the use of Knesset, Bundestag, and Duma instead of "parliament" is acceptable. Since what remains of the Ukraine is not a prominent country however, the use of "Rada" instead of "Ukrainian parliament" is not.
	:::As I pointed out in the discussion about renaming the Novorossiya article, if Novorossiya should be called New Russia in English Misplaced Pages, then the Ukraine should be called the Borderland.
	:::There have now been several sensible posts in that thread, so hatting it is no longer desirable. What I meant about the "aeroplane" article was that even though you edit many Ukrainian articles, you have shied away from the MH17 article. I find that to be wise, because the MH17 article is the most contentious article I have ever edited. And I have edited articles on Christian sects. – ] (]) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I've "shied away" from it because it has nothing to do with my areas of interest, and it because it is clearly a great waster of time. I cannot agree with you such matters as "if Novorossiya should be called New Russia in English Misplaced Pages, then the Ukraine should be called the Borderland". There is one essential difference in this case: that Russia is not ever referred to as "Rossiya" in English. If this is the case, purely as a matter of consistency, "Novorossiya" must be "New Russia". Otherwise, the etymological link is not clear. Until we start calling Russia "Rossiya", we ought not be calling New Russia "Novorossiya". Likewise, "Belarus" is properly called "White Russia" or "White Ruthenia". I do not support using such words as "Rada", "Duma", "Bundestag". These are the Supreme Council, State Council, and Federal Diet respectively. I speak Japanese, but I don't call the ] of Japan ''Kokkai'' in English. ] — ] 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Wow, your speaking Japanese is really impressive. I studied Japanese for a while, to ameliorate my Eurocentrism. You make a good case for "New Russia", although "New Russians" still sounds funny to me. I think the deciding factor is that English sources representing "New Russia" call New Russia Novorossiya (or Novorossia, which I think is a bad transliteration). But absolutely the worst convention is the one that the Vineyard of the Saker blogger uses (read his blog to get "poisoned" by pro-Russian sentiment): he calls it Novorussia! Should Novgorod, where I have been accused by an IP of residing, be called New City? – ] (]) 23:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::It isn't that impressive. It is an easy language to learn to speak, though Chinese characters are quite a pain (and beautiful). My academic specialty is in literature/media, and Japanese literature is one of the areas that I study. Plenty of sources refer to "New Russia", and plenty of others sources completely ignore its existence in favour of the DPR and LPR. There is no academic consensus, yet. Like I said, I concede defeat for Misplaced Pages's purposes, but I shan't change my own usage. As far as "Novgorod" is concerned, no. That's because it has always been called Novgorod in English. I like to follow tradition, in this regard. However, it is properly called "Novgorod the Great", as opposed to "Veliky Novgorod". ] — ] 23:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::As a matter of fact, Japanese is a perfect example of foreignisms gone crazy. So many English words have imported for no clear reason, confusing the vast majority of Japanese who have no idea what they mean. Media often use English words even when there are good Japanese equivalents, and result is that people simply don't understand what is being said. This was the case with the word accountability, which was originally rendered in katakana as アカウンタビリティー. Quite simply, this means nothing to an average Japanese. The sounds provide no hint of the meaning. Luckily, the Japanese Language Committee created a new expression from old words in the early 2000s that does have meaning in Japanese as a way to replace the meaningless Katakana transliteration: 説明責任 (''Setsumei sekinin''). This means "responsibility to explain", and is very clear from the characters used. On the whole, I tend to favour ] over using foreignisms, but I'm perfectly fine with using loanwords when they provide a meaning that is unavailable in a certain language. However, I'm strictly opposed to using foreignisms for the sake of it, as it is with "oblast". Quite simply, "oblast" is meaningless to the average native speaker of English, and its meaning is easily replicated with English words. There is no reason to use un-natural foreignisms that one has to look up, as opposed to perfectly good existing words that better convey meaning. ] — ] 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Please stop edit warring ==
	I have noticed you are capable of very constructive work and did acknowledge that in writing. Nevertheless you seem to jealously guard status quo in the articles in which you take an interest. It seems that you are perched in front of your monitor ready to jump in and revert any change I make even if it is an obvious, non-controversial enhancement to the page. I think you are capable of frying bigger fish than, for instance, reverting my edit changing a section head over an international list from "Response" to "International response". Why would you think that is so important? It really seems that you are making an issue of it because you just want to be "right" and in control of the page. Perhaps I am mistaken. I actually do like many of your edits and your positions are usually interesting, whether or not I agree with them. One constructive change for the better that I acknowledge and thank you for refraining from merely insulting other people's editorial approach. When you provide substantive remarks you can really shine. When you insult you don't do your reputation any good. Anyway, I can appreciate your best work, and you have done a nice job running off some of the IP trolls. But remember, in war, any war, including propaganda war or just war or people's war or war of resistance against evil, there is always the risk of becoming like one's enemy. This is a problem on many levels, not just for us...] (]) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I do what is necessary for the project. If you make bad changes, I will revert them. ] — ] 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::: The standard is whether the edits are consistent with WP policy and it is expected that you would justify any modifications accordingly. What is objectionable and can get you sanctioned if you substitute your personal preferences and revert without reference to WP. Transparency and communication are important irrespective of whether or not your are "right". ] (]) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	::: I agree with you recent reversion of "alleged" on 2014 Unrest in Ukraine. But there you also did cite a policy and it was pertinent. ] (]) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Information on Russian army losses in the "War of Donbass" ==
	I found information on the losses of the ] in the Russian-Ukrainian war over Donetsk basin. ] published a news with reference to the site of Russian human rights activist ]. According to Vasilieva the ] lost over 4,300 soldiers in the war. Here are websites that she prepared , , . ] (]) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Post-Soviet Conflicts ==
	I do not want to create a full scale edit war so I would like to discuss this issue here. The only reason a campaignbox has been used for ] is because it is the most relevant thing to depict a violent political or ethnic conflict of any kind. If you want you can change the template to a different attachment but Euromaidan and the Ukrainian revolution must be included as they are by all means violent political conflicts. --] (]) 01:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::They are not wars, they are not military campaigns. Everything else included in that template is a military conflict, and it is called a campaignbox. Euromaidan was not a military conflict, and does not belong in a campaignbox. Please don't pass off protests as a war. ] — ] 01:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::They were not just protests, they were very violent political conflicts, which is what the entire article was made for. Based on what you're saying out of the Southern and Eastern Ukraine conflicts the only one that should be left is the War in Donbass. --] (]) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Crimea was military action, as is Donbass. The "2014 unrest" article should be removed. They were just protests, which had some violence interspersed. The violence was not military. It is not equivalent to any of the wars included in that template. It is not a military campaign. We are not talking about any article. We are talking about the template, which is a campaignbox. ] — ] 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The template was made to match the article so yes we definitely have to consider the article. --] (]) 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::You'll have to make a new template for non-military conflicts. ] — ] 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	== I would appreciate your intervention ==
	{{ping|RGloucester}}, I would appreciate it if you could take another look at ]. I believe that there has been a serious breach of good practice. ] ] 16:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	::It was highly incorrect, what Technophant did. May I recommend that you contact Callanecc, and ask him to evaluate Technophant's use of sanctions notifications? He's a sysop that is most involved in this stuff, and much more suited to evaluate such misconduct. ] — ] 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::It was my mistake here to specify intervention and not check this page for an answer until now. It was this that led to me doubling up the request at ] so apologies with thanks. ] ] 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I am still not sure which if any of the following edits (or others) are inappropriate. What does the policy apply to. Could you add comment below? ] ] 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	::{{ping|Gregkaye}} This edit . That's what I'm referring to. ] — ] 13:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	== logging Syrian Civil War sanction warnings by non-administrator ==
	Hello RGloucester,<br>
	I would like to point your attention to actions done by ] between October 17 to October 22, when he logged 5 warnings of ] by himself and apparently with no report at WP:ANI and actually no violation of 1RR as far as i can see. I clarified to him that he cannot log warnings (see ]), because he is not an administrator and there was no complaint at WP:ANI. I expect he would understand and undo himself before i or somebody else interferes. I would herewith like to notify you about this incident just in the case he will not comply and i would require your assistance. Thanks in advance.] (]) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Oh dear, i now notice you are not an administrator as well. So please familiarize yourself with sanctions logging...] (]) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Nowhere on the sanctions page does it say that only administrators issue sanctions notifications. My understanding is that they are not "warnings" at all, but merely notifications that these articles are covered by the scope of the sanctions. For example, with ] sanctions, anyone can issue notifications as such, as long as they follow the proper procedure (i.e. do not notify someone more than once or use the notifications in a threatening way). ] — ] 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	== 2014 Ottawa shootings ==
	Please see my comments about your recent article renaming at ]. I'd like to gain consensus on a new name. --'''] ]''' 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Concerning to the content about ] ==
	I didn't mean by my edit that it was not important concerning to the War in Donbass... I only thought that it was more important concerning to the ], so I thought that it might be a duplicated sentence. As long as it also belongs to the Russian intervention in Ukraine (or with very minor changes there), for me, it's just fine. ] (]) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (23:06, 23 October 2014, Lisbon/London/Casablanca Time)
	::I think it should be at both, for now. It is definitely relevant to both. ] — ] 22:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I agree. I was just worrying if it wouldn't be considered as a duplicate. ] (]) 22:61, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (23:06, 23 October 2014 Lisbon/London/Casablanca Time)
	::::If it was a significant duplication it might be a problem, but the amount of content shared is minimal, and important to both articles none-the-less. ] — ] 22:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	== A consideration ==
	I may sometimes (though I think not very often), confirm or doubt some edits. That's why I was one of the 1st ones to doubt about the actual Russian involvement, and that's why I was if not the 1st, one of the 1st ones to ask the opinion of Misplaced Pages if Russia was just a supporting or a direct belligerent in Ukraine. Now... My opinion and my edits have nothing to do with Russia at all. They may have to do with the fact that I'm for the self-determination of peoples (as close to here, as the Catalonians, for instance... I don't agree with the independence, but I'm for self-determination). Now, concerning to Donbass, this article, in my opinion, has gone too far concerning about trusting too much the pro-American and some Ukrainian sources and disregarding too much the Russian sources. Well, I watch RT, I don't take all of what they say as the actual truth, but sometime, they may be right!... What are the reliable sources???? The ones that Misplaced Pages considers as reliable sources? And who owns and approves what is reliable or not for Misplaced Pages? I don't wan't to blame the WP administration at all, but, there might be ppl who could be distorting the reliablility of the sources. And this is not pro-Russian. I'd be delighted if the RS tomorrow would be DN, Público, El País, El Mundo, Folha de São Paulo, etc... Spanish/Portuguese speaking RS! ] — ] 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Cultural Marxism ==
	Hello, I'm the person whose been questioning the validity of the term Cultural Marxism, and I was glad when you (someone familiar with the subject of Marxism) took a position on the patchy and questionable content that makes up the wikipedia article on this biased and right-leaning pejorative. Anyways, I'm not an expert on the workings of wikipedia, but it seems your work has been undone: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cultural_Marxism <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== ''The Signpost'': 22 October 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-10-22}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 41-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=630676627 -->
	== please help us ... ==
	... to resolve our little question — ] --] (]) 20:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	* Thank you! --] (]) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Requested move of ==
	FYI, a move of ] has been ]. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --'''] ]''' 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Gamergate sanctions ==
	Are any users allowed to notice people about the general sanctions on gamergate, or only admins? ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|EvergreenFir}} Anyone, per ] and ]. The procedure is explained there. It applies to all ArbCom and community sanctions. ] — ] 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thank you! ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 05:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	*You edit conflicted with me on my addition of . Please put in in the list, I'm not playing this long game. ] <small>]</small> 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{done}} ] — ] 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	Thanks...! Don't mean to be short tempered, but that whole area is so damned frustrating. ] <small>]</small> 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ping ==
	"I am pinging all editors that have participated here. ..." I am posting this here to reduce the drams. To avoid the possibility of accusations of canvassing, I suggest that spend more time carefully looking through what is now a large section and ping all the named users who have contributed to the section. For example to take just the first few missing editors in what is now a very large section that you have not pinged: Psychonau, ProProbly and Callanecc, I have not looked through the list in detail and there are bound to be more. -- ] (]) 10:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:ProProbly is indeffed, but it would probably be appropriate to ping participants in the very closely related discussion at ].
	:I would also welcome changes or clarication in the proposed text to avoid phrases like "clear consensus" leading to more disruption of the consensus-building process. The discussion at ] makes it clear that there are divergent interpretations of consensus. --] (]) 12:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I didn't ping ProProbly because he is an indeffed sockpuppet of DeFacto. As far as the others, I must have missed them. I'll send for them right away. ] — ] 12:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::To ping someone, you must use a new signed post. Editing a post you have previously signed will not ping. See ] {{tq|" if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent"}} and note also the known bugs. ] (]) 12:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I didn't know that. Fixed. ] — ] 13:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Are you sure that you have now pinged all the editors who have taken part in these conversations prior to the start of the current subsection? -- ] (]) 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Other than the unpingable and likely sockpuppet IPs, I think so. ] — ] 13:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Boson}} I've added a link to the ] into the wording. However, you need to keep in mind that the only people that will be able to asses consensus with regard to these sanctions are uninvolved administrators who are well equipped to do so. It is the administrator's interpretation of consensus that will determine whether sanctions should be applied. That's why these are called "discretionary sanctions": they are imposed at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator. In other words, none of the participants' definitions of consensus are relevant, so you needn't worry about that. ] — ] 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Cultural Marxism ==
	] and ] were originally two different articles. They differ greatly in prose and sources. Let's discuss before trying to redirect anything. You chose where... I'm going to fully protect ] as well. &mdash; '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:;Yeah, one is a PoV fork of the other one. Even I was tricked by the "Cultural Marxism" article. I thought it was referring to Marxist cultural theory, but it is actually an attempt to portray the conspiracy theory as reality. The articles must be merged, as per the talk page. Allowing this article to continue to exist is a travesty. ] — ] 23:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::That's a point of view so, no. Your own words: "I'm more of what one would call a "cultural Marxist"". From your user page: "This user identifies as a Marxist." You are not objective with respect to this topic. Stop trolling.] (]) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Of course I'm objective, to the same degree that anyone else. By "cultural Marxist", I meant that I endorse and admire "Marxist cultural theory". Notice the lowercase "cultural". I wasn't familiar with the American political canard, at the time. Having actually taken the time to waste my head on such canards, I've learned that the phrase "cultural Marxist" apparently is now connected to an absurd conspiracy that posits that the Frankfurt School supports the idea of "multiculturalism". That is antithetical to the Frankfurt School, and all Marxisst. In Marxism, and in Marxist cultural theory, the emphasis is on the fact that ethno-cultural identities are constructed, as opposed to innate. They are created by society, usually by the ruling class, as a way to divide the proletariat in groups that cannot stand-up for themselves. It is a form of balkanisation. For a Marxist, the ideal of a human is one who puts aside these constructed differences and places emphasis on his status as a human in fellowship with other humans, working for the collective good. The idea of "multiculturalism" is a fundamentally liberal idea that flies in the face of that, and provides for what is known as "identity politics". These identity politics are a liberal tool, as said before, used to divide people into categories for the sake of demographic marketing. Or, at least, that's what Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer would say. For them, culture in the era of mass reproduction of works of art is controlled by the "culture industry". The differences that "multiculturalism" emphasises are a product of that industry, and used to suppress the proletariat as I said above. Regardless, this is clearly a pointless discussion. I can't believe Misplaced Pages is tolerating this blatant falsity. It is misleading, wrong, and total skewing of everything that Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, and whoever else stood for. ] — ] 00:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I find this explanation of what you consider 'cultural Marxism' (small-c) to be quite helpful, so thank you for sharing. Do you know of any Misplaced Pages page or section of a wiki-page that reflects these ideas? I'm sorry you found the old 'Cultural Marxism' article to be misleading. To be honest, however, yours is the first time I've seen anyone use the term in a different way; the majority of my experience has seen the term used to describe a specific type of quasi-] form of ] that mainly focuses on questions of culture and national identity. I suspect the difference in our experience has been because I've mostly heard the term in American contexts, where you seem to come from a British background. But I would disagree with you that such a difference invalidates the American definition of the term, or means that Misplaced Pages's use of the same was a "blatant falsity" (as you write above). Personally I'd suggest there be a disambiguation page with a separate link to a page or section on 'cultural studies in Marxism' as you and British Marxists understand it. ] (]) 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Please take a look at ], and also ]. There is no difference between American or British usage in scholarly discourse. This fringe theory is not dominant in American scholarly discourse, anymore than it is elsewhere. The idea that the Frankfurt School supports "multiculturalism" or "political correctness" is pure bunk, not supported by sources, and an attempt to create an artificial classification that does not exist. ] — ] 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	== reverted your revert of a third party editor on technical grounds ==
	Ping re War in Donbass per Talk thread thank you] (]) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Administrator search committee ==
	I think that is a really interesting suggestion, the first alternative to RFA that has seemed to me worth considering. When the current RFC fails, I would be happy to help flesh out some details and work up a proposal, if you would like to take it further. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::It was just a spur of the moment thing, but if people actually take-up on the idea and want to work on it, I'd be happy to help draught such a formal proposal. ] — ] 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	==Your threat==
	Just a note to say that I consider your post made on my talk page to be a threat. Maybe I am wrong, and it is just that you think other editors can't read the sanctions notice on the talk pages of articles that are covered by the sanctions, and that they have to be told about those sanctions. However, two facts make that unlikely. You have not posted such a notification on any other editor's talk page (how wonderful that I alone get your attention, should I feel flattered?), and there was no reason to place that notice on mine because I HAVE MADE NO REVERTS AT ALL ON ANY ARTICLE CONNECTED TO THE SANCTIONS. I wonder what povs you have been supporting that makes you feel you need to warn me off. All you have done is to encourage me to take an interest in these articles, and in the other areas that interest you (like Ukraine). ] (]) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I beg your pardon? Please read ]. Editors must be notified of sanctions, and I've followed the proper procedure per ]. It is not a warning, nor a threat. Merely an informational notice, as it says. I have notified many other editors, which you can see at ]. ] — ] 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I do not accept your "pardon", especially after this . What is your explanation for this, should I see it as more harassment, or just a stupid mistake? ] (]) 18:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::An edit conflict removed my log entry, so I fixed it. I am not "harassing" you at all. I have no interest in subject matter, have not edited any articles related to it, and have no prior contact with you. I was merely making sure that proper notifications were issued, in line with the guidelines as such. ] — ] 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Tiptoethrutheminefield}} My apologies. I made a genuine mistake. I forgot that I had logged a notification for you for the ], and not for ]. This was a mistake. Please refer to ]. ] — ] 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Thank you for reversing the Gamergate sanctions edit. I don't consider the notice you placed on my talk page to be helpful in any way (the sanctions are already mentioned on the article's talk page and are referred many times during talk page comments and I had made no reverts or been involved in any edit warring), and I am certain that most other editors would feel the same if it were done on their tall pages. Notices like that are often placed for no other reason than threats and harassment, so why invite bad receptions by posting such notices? You actually have edited articles that come under that topic (talk page edits on several articles), and you have not been warned about the sanctions. Should I issue you with the same notification, and place your name on the notification log? If it is acceptable for you to do it to me, it should be acceptable for me to do it to you. ] (]) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::It is acceptable for you to do that, if you'd like. Once again, I made a bizarre mistake in my mind. I've been working on getting the Gamergate sanctions notices out, but I've never editing any articles related to that topic. I had thought you were one of the editors I was notifying for those sanctions, but in actuality I notified you for the SCW&ISIL sanctions, and had logged it appropriately. However, I must make clear that anyone that uses these templates for "harassment" and "threats" should be reported at the administrators' noticeboard. Please read ]. These messages are never supposed to imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving them. If they are used that way, that's inappropriate. They are purely for notification purposes. All editors who edit pages related to the scope of the sanctions can and should be notified. Any editor can issue the notifications. If you'd like to notify me, go ahead, as long as it is not being done to make a ]. Make sure you follow the proper procedure, though. ] — ] 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Two different editors have used repeated template repostings on my talk page as a form of harassment, so that is why I am sensitive to it (maybe overly sensitive). Little real world point in placing the notification on your page: I see you were the initiator of changes to the sanction, so obviously you do know about it! ] (]) 03:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Cooler heads needed ==
	] is going to get out of hand. Not sure what the best way to go about things are, but if you're around it could use some admin help. ] (]) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Strongjam}} I'm not an administrator, but I've made a request at ] for more administrators to take a look at the page. ] — ] 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::My mistake. Saw your name on the sanctions page and assumed. Your help is much appreciated. I'm obviously inexperienced at this. ] (]) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the AN ping (Even if I'm involved). --] (]) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Concerning to the edit in ] and ] ==
	Hi RGloucester, how are you? I've already deleted the reinsertion of the text, since I actually agree with you. I was just wishing that a consensus would be reached in the Talk Page, and sometimes I have the idea that the English Misplaced Pages article is more leaning to the Ukrainian side that, e.g., the Portuguese, French and the Spanish Misplaced Pages (this one, on the other hand, I think it's too lenient to the Russian side).
	Concerning to the Administrative Standards Commission issue. I have doubts about being a good idea, since as in the case of the War in Donbass article, it's already difficult to control POV, now. By electing the administrators, for instance, in the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedias, some articles maybe taken over by the National-Bolsheviks in the Russian Misplaced Pages or by the Right Sector in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages! And the same goes, for instance for the Arabic vs Hebrew Wikipedias, and Turkish vs Kurdish Wikipedias, etc. It might be taken over by very biased administrators, in some cases. Even your suggestion of electing the administrators by 3 administrators and 3 non-administrators, I don't think it's good enough.] (]) 1:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I had nothing against taking it to the talk page, which is the right action on your part. I'm a bit more ] on the whole, but that's because I tend to have a strong sense of right and wrong. That's often considered a liability in this day and age, but so it is. As far as the ASC proposal is concerned, please do read the full discussion at ] and ]. The goal of Commission proposal is to replace the current ] process, whereby administrators are elected by the community. It would only affect the English Misplaced Pages, not the Russian, Ukrainian, Kurdish, or whatever Wikipedias. ] — ] 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well, I also have a strong sense of right and wrong, but maybe our perceptions are slightly different, since (maybe) I get more information from non-English speaking countries' media than you do. Concerning to the Administrative Standards Commission, I'll read the discussion more extensively. I'm not so worried about the English Misplaced Pages, since it's a global language where POV from one side can be more easily controlable by more reasonable editors. I'd be more worried about other Wikipedias.] (]) 1:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Each Misplaced Pages has its own processes and procedures. They vary widely. Proposals made here only affect this Misplaced Pages. It's true that I tend to read British news. I don't read American newspapers or news, other than ''The New York Times'', as I find them to be generally horrid. Sometimes I read French news, and sometimes I read Japanese news. More often I read Japanese news, but that's very very different from the English media, and tends to be mostly insular in focus. ] — ] 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I watch regularly France24, and I think it's a quite good one. Portuguese and Spanish media are not really international media (apart from the Portuguese and Spanish speaking world, naturally).] (]) 1:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	A side issue maybe, but the most active contributors to the Russian-language Misplaced Pages used to (I'm talking 7 or 8 years ago) have a reputation for having very high standards, higher than those on the English-language Misplaced Pages. Maybe being in an emerging democracy made them more acutely aware of article misuse and possible propaganda. Don't know if that has changed since then. ] (]) 03:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 29 October 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-10-29}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 42-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=631406560 -->
	== ] ==
	I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See ], in which I mention your user account -- ] (]) 17:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	== ] November 2014 ==
	You are mentioned at ] about recent incidents. You can comment there. --] (]) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	== War in Donbass - Where it is and where it goes ==
	Hello again, RGloucester! I praise you so much because you've actually edited more than 50% of the ] article, by what I've seen. But, as I said to you before, we might have slightly different perspectives about this issue. So, now, I've invited ] who I know is Ukrainian, she is very aware of the Misplaced Pages rules (she has a long experience), she has a great integrity (more than you and more than me) and she is the right person to analyse this, and to come to a conclusion about it! I have to way for her answer about it, and so you should do! I'm quite sure that what she will say, I'll agree with her. You're a great editor, RGloucester, but she's acturally from there, and that's a great plus! ] (]) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	{{YGM}}
	== ] specifically applies to chronological subtopics. ==
	] states:
	{{quotation|Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, '''such as chronologically (''e.g.'', ])'''..., the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page.}}
	Pages dividing historical events into shorter periods are not disambiguation pages. They are just not. Please help fix this situation. Cheers! ] ] 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::This is not a "history of" article, it is a timeline. That would only apply if "War in Donbass" was split into articles by time period. The timeline itself is not a "broad concept" in the way that "history of" is a broad concept. ] — ] 19:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::: That's just wikilawyering. This is not an article like "Phoenix" where it could be a city or it could be a mythical bird. This is a list of timelines within a specific conflict. ] ] 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't understand your comparison. "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a broad concept. It an editorial division of content, nothing more. It is helpful to have the navigation page, so that people have easy access to the content. The redirect didn't make any sense, and one IP has already complained about it. ] — ] 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping|BD2412}} Instead of making a mess and overriding a talk page discussion, perhaps you could participate there? ] — ] 20:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: A disambiguation page with hundreds of incoming links needing to be fixed is a "mess". If it is "an editorial division of content, nothing more", then it is clearly not a disambiguation page - it may be an index or a list, but disambiguation pages exist because things outside of Misplaced Pages are coincidentally given the same name, not because we choose to divide things up. Should we make ] into a disambiguation page because there are articles on the ] and ]? This amounts to the same thing. ] ] 20:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::: Can I please just have TEN MINUTES to edit this page without you jumping in? Go have a cup of coffee, or fix some disambiguation links, while I attempt to create an acceptable fix, please. ] ] 20:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, we shouldn't make "Barrack Obama" a disambiguation page, because that's an actual topic. "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a topic. It was an article created because the main article was too long, so that we could a sub-article for total chronology and details. Of course, now the timeline was too long, so we've split that up to make it easier to read. That doesn't change the fact that "Timeline of the war in Donbass" is not a topic found in reliable sources. It is an editorial division of content that exists to make content easier to access. If you want, remove the "disambiguation page" template. However, don't make a mess, restoring content that was split through talk page discussion and for good reason. I strongly object to your changing stuff without discussion on the talk page there, and trying to achieve a consensus. You've been reverted per ]. Please start working on the "D". ] — ] 20:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I have proposed a fix on the talk page. It does seem that it would be unruly to condense the three sub-topics into a single topic page, but that does not make them cease to be subtopics. ] ] 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::They're sub-articles, not sub-topics, and they're sub-articles of ], not ]. ] — ] 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: A sub-article is merely an article on a subtopic. There is no distinction that I have ''ever'' seen made between "sub-articles" and "sub-topics" before, and in any case we avoid disambiguating pages that are "sub-" anything to other pages, because that indicates that they are related. Disambiguation pages are for unrelated topics. Are these timelines not subtopics of ]? ] ] 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I understand that. I was never defending it remaining as a dab page. I merely was making clear the necessity for it to remain as a navigation page, as you've now implemented. I strongly opposed treating it as a "broad concept", however, because no, the timelines are not "sub-topics" of ]. They cover the same topic, merely the content is presently differently and in more detail at the timeline. ] — ] 21:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: It might still be useful to offer a summary of key events covered in each of the three timelines split out, so that a reader coming to see about a particular event (like the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) will know which timeline to look in to read about that in the context of the timeline. I will also propose this on the talk page. ] ] 21:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Disambiguation link notification for November 3==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	:]
	::added links pointing to ], ], ] and ]
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes==
	] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 12:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC){{z48}}<!--Template:Please see-->
	== A barnstar for you! ==
	{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
	|-		|-
			|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the ] and ]. Awarded by ] ] 7 March 2022 (UTC)
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I started out on Misplaced Pages not that long ago, last April. You were one of the first users I came into contact with. I've stalked your talk page for a while. I noticed your recent rfc dilemma thing and upon further investigation, I realized I wanted nothing to do with the bureaucracy of Misplaced Pages. Thank you for inadvertently helping me realize that. Now, I'm leaving forever. Keep fighting the everlasting, pointless fight. ] (]) 18:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	|}		|}
	::An efficient bureaucracy can do wonders, but a corrupt one can only halt progress. In this case, it is not a problem of bureaucracy, but one of lack of accountability. I'm stubborn, though. This is a sometimes admirable trait, a sometimes annoying trait. It is who I am, however. ] — ] 19:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
			== Alternative names of the ] ==
	It's really how convoluted it is to me. I can't take it anymore. All I ever did was rollback vandalism. I tried to avoid getting into anything else at all costs. I used to dream about becoming an admin, though. Though all I ever did was rollback vandalism. But apparently that doesn't really do anything to make you admin. It was a dumb dream anyway. If you couldn't become an admin, then I had a whelk's chance in a supernova. Welp, it was fun, for a while. ] (]) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I've never wanted to be a sysop. Not only would no one support me, but I'm quite a ]y person. I do good work in the clerking department. I'm better as a functionary. If adminship was about being a functionary, I'd do well. In its current state, however, it isn't about administering, but about being a politician. I'm no politician. Never have been, never will be. I don't like pleasing people if they don't deserve it, and I don't compromise on my principles unless someone can convince me that there is a good reason for doing so. But, at the very least, I can thank you for your contributions. Good luck in your endeavours. ] — ] 19:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
			Hello, RGloucester! I noticed you have undone my edit where I shifted the alternative names of the war from a footnote to the first line, citing the policy ]. However, this only mentions considering usage of a footnote in the event of foreign names, so I cannot understand your disagreement with my edit. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thank you! ] (]) 18:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
	== Please weigh in more ==
			::Where there are more than one or two alternative names, as in the case of this article, the guidance specifies the usage of a separate section of some kind, to avoid cluttering the first sentence of the article. Footnoting is one commonly-used method of creating this 'separate section'. ] — ] 20:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::OK, I see it now, thank you! {{=)}}
			:::By the way, I'm curious about something else, if I may ask you: I've just noticed you have indented your reply twice instead of just once. I have seen users do this, but I do not understand the reason. Why did you do this? Doesn't talk page policy say we should indent just one level more than the comment to which we reply? ] (]) 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
			== War in Donbas ==
	I often disagree with your edits but I think in the huge mess on ] you probably have a much better idea of what is going on than 90% of the people arguing on the talk page. It is not entirely clear to me at this point where you think things should go. I agree with your shocked comment expressing disbelief, it is a really weird article which at this point I think belongs userfied until it is "ready for primetime". ] (]) 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I want it gone, plain and simple. Merged to the Frankfurt School conspiracy talk page. ] — ] 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::: I am inclined to agree, in fact my first instinct was afd but then when I could see what it was, a creation of propagandist mindset, yeah, it goes there in the dustbin of conspiracy theories that never gained ]. Merged to a mere talk page, I assume that is what you mean, not even warranting mainspace, ] (]) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
			I realize you've been working on Ukraine for a while, so seriously: where else were there pro-Russian protests besides Donbas and Crimea? If the statement is accurate I don't care about the cite. Your point about the lede is well taken and thank you for enforcing it. I assumed, based on stuff that is probably irrelevant in this context. I still think it's kind of synth, but my real concern is whether it is accurate, and if it is I don't care enough to argue about synth. So ok, you probably do know better than I, but when you get a chance could you please share an example or two to reassure me about that? Thanks ] (]) 15:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
	== Closure of the RfC on general sanctions ==
			::Please read ], which has detailed, referenced information about the protests. The most significant ones outside of Crimea and Donbas were in Kharkiv and Odessa, but there were also protests in other oblasts. Please note, pro-Euromaidan protests were held concurrently. These are also documented in that article. ] — ] 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::thank you for the answer; I will do that. I agree that Odessa, while close to Crimea, is not in it, and the same is true of Kharkiv and Donbas, which may also be further apart. I actually have read that article a couple of times but was working on something different at the time. I will read it again for this context ] (]) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
	I know we talked about the closure briefly on ] . But I talk to you directly, about the closure. It seems to me you are involved in this conflict area. Do you disagree? And as such I believe your closure to be inappropriate. Its possible someone that was uninvolved could close the RfC, maybe even as a ] close. But as an involved editor, with PBS disagreeing, I don't think a closure was appropriate. --] (]) 22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::]. RfCs are an informal process, and if they are so obviously farcical, I have every right to remove the RfC templates. I "disagreed" that there should ever be an RfC, but he didn't care about that. I specifically told him not to use my proposal for any RfC. He didn't care about that. In that case, I hardly care whether he "disagrees" at this point. Farces must be rendered for what they are: farces. ] — ] 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]". Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:::: getting back to this: I am currently quite preoccupied with other things, but I have gotten deep enough into this to note that Odessa is actually quite far from the Crimea, my mistake on that. Also, while I have not yet had a chance to re-examine the 2014 pro-Russian protests article in the detail that I apparently should, the map there definitely indicates that those protests were more widespread than I had previously noted, so thank you for the civil reply, which is unusual in this topic area. ] (]) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
	==Concerning to Self-determination==
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	I support self-determnination of Donbass (or Novorossiyan people), as well as I supported self-determination of East Timorese people from Indonesia, as well as I support Tibetan and Uyghur self determination of people from China, as well as I support Chechen self determination of people from Russia, as well as I support Catalonian, Basque and Galician sel determination from Spain (whatever the bureaucratic issues may be!) And I also support the Russian self determination in Estonia and Latvia, the Kashmir self determination in Pakistan and India, and the Ladakh self determination in Kashmir, and the Shan and Chin self self determination in Burma. RGloucester, you seem to, under your "superior^" moral stance, seem to be protecting the higher moral ground of the world. Portuguese haven't been perfect. But now now, like the Spaniards, we've been granting to Sephardite Jews, the right of return. And though we haven't have such ""ppl" as Cortez or Pizarro, we had Padre Antonio Vieira (no excuse for having had 5 million native Americans before the Portuguese colonization and less than 1 milion after it, I'm ashamed as a Portuguese). I'm really ashamed. But I'm afraid that you're not so really ashamed. In my lifetime I've dealt witout any racist or similar, wth blacks, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Turks, even Inuits, Indians (either Dravidians or Aryans), Arabs, Jews, so on, so on. We're Portuguese! You've contacted with ALL PEOPLS IN THE WORLD (apart from Siberians)! EITHER WE, PORTUESE ARE THE SUPERIOR PPL IN THE WORLD....... OR ARE THE SIBERIANS! ] (])
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
	::I'm opposed to all nationalism on principle. I believe that ethnic boundaries are constructed by man, not innate, and that such boundaries are used only by political opportunists to take advantage of the proletariat. Humans are all the same, in their hearts and souls. There is no reason to play games, whereby some people are X, and others are Y. We may speak different languages, practice different religions, but the essence of our humanity is the same, nonetheless. Who or what is a Portuguese? Who or what is a Malayan? A human, that's what they are. We must work for the good of humanity as a whole, not for our own personal interest, and not for the interest of some balkanised faction that exists only to cast people as "other". There is no "other", only human. Arbitrary boundaries cannot separate us from our human sameness. ] — ] 06:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	:{{If you're against all nationalism, assume that every person in the world has the same rights! And renounce your own rights because you're british and submit to the UN rights! If it can't be so, recognize that other peoples may wish to have their owen right, including sovereign right... not only based on what insterests to USA or (UK... though UK hasn't been relevant for 70 years, if that was the case India would still belong to UK).... let's assume that Eastern Ukraine and Central-Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine have different interests, which is a FACT! Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian, Western Ukraine is pro-EU (they must be mad, me being a Portuguese and I know what does that mean) and Central-Eastern Ukraine so-so. So, I'd be glad that Ukraine would a kind of a Turkey... which doesn't give a shit about EU, doesn't give a shit about the Middle East, so on... but if thet want to embeace the shit that we have embraced here in Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Hungart and Ireland... come in! You (Ukraine) will miss Russia soon! But Donbass doesn't have to be so stupid! I'd be glad to be with Brazil! And I'd be far better! Don't obligate (and they won't allow to be in Donbass) to be slaves of Germany! This is for you, Gloucester! We're independent in Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Turkey, Ireland and Eastern Ukraine! Whatever you think is meaningless to us! You fucked us, now you fuck you (well, most the Germans, actually, sorry Gloucester)! FUCK THE GERMANS! kick me if you wish! I'm tired of this anglo-saxonian-german bias. ] (]) 10:48, 5 November 2014 (GMT - London-Dublin-Casablanca) 8:48, 5 November (Buenos Aires/Brasília/Rio de Janeiro Time), 12:48 Helsinki/Athens/Istanbul Time, 13:48 Moscow/Simferopol Time.
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
	:Well, Sorry it was not really for you!...Well, do what you with. You said you had your convictions, So do I, and they're not pro-Russian. I'm PRO-KURDISH and PRO-TIBETAN and that has nothing to to with Russia. If you want to scre me because of Ukraine, do it. That won't prevent me from being a friend of a very Ukrainian friend that I have here, Iryna Harpy, neither to work hard for Ukrainian hard-working workers, with whom I work, nor will that prevent me from having my own ideas or working with hard-Thai workersd!] (]) 11:04, 5 November 2014 (GMT - London-Dublin-Casablanca)
	::I was merely expressing an opinion. I'm strongly opposed to ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics. I always have been, and I always will be. However, I don't know why you think "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian". Eastern Ukraine is not pro-Russian. It never was pro-Russian. There were pro-Russian elements, surely, and certainly many people were more weary of the EU, probably rightly. But most people in the East are not and never were "pro-Russian". Most of the people who opposed the present regime have been either killed or forced out. Who's left, a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape. That's not much of a place to live in. There is a reason why Kharkiv is still under Ukrainian control, there is a reason why Northern Luhansk and Donetsk are under Ukrainian control. You're taking a complicated situation and making it simplistic. It's especially true if one takes time to go through the historical details. As far as "German slaves", I'm not sure what you mean. Germany is largely responsible for the current crisis in southern Europe, certainly, but it isn't as if the Spanish or whoever did not willingly take the money the Germans offered. Less then slaves, more like indentured servants. However, if you make a deal with the devil, what do you expect? ] — ] 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::For someone working in cultural studies, which overlaps with media studies, it is funny how the Anglophone media is able to mislead you baout what is happening in Donbas. You wrote: "Most of the people who opposed the present regime have been either killed or forced out. Who's left, a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape. That's not much of a place to live in." Have a look of videos of the election . People turned up in large numbers – and not just "a few radicals and a few elderly people" – and they seem to have a high degree of civic spirit. Contrast that with the Soviet-style dour mood at the Ukrainian elections. If you watch those videos, it is impossible to avoid the impression that it is Ukraine, not Donbas, that is occupied. (Ridiculously, the VICE news reporter still considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. But what do you expect: that is USG policy, and VICE is a "news" outlet of the US State Department. Also, the short video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting up a Russian school is worth watching: it is an illustration of how the Ukraine is now controlled by fascists.
	:::You also write: "I'm strongly opposed to ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics." That is the Anglophone liberal ideology, expressed most succinctly by Margaret Thatcher's claim, "There is no such thing as society." See how a thinks about these issues:
	::::the US has no other identity but its class identity . It is a class system without a national consciousness. This allows extreme forms of exploitation without a sense of remorse or the kinds of intra-tribal affiliations, which otherwise may act as a deterrent against the worst expressions of class on class exploitation.
			== Discussion to move Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation to Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement ==
	::::The Russians, as Slavs, and less discussed, as Turks, on the other hand, have a very different history. Eurasia is a giant land-mass, existing as a ‘big space’ within which '''allows for the self determination''' of this spectrum of European, Slavic, Turkic, and east Asian peoples. It possesses no shortage of lebensraum, and its various peoples have not undergone the deracination process. These peoples have thrived in various organized forms of disorganization, and their various larger political-space building processes have experienced expansion and contraction. These repeated cycles of expansion and contraction over hundreds and thousands of years have given a great impetus for the development of local and familial bonds and social organization, transmitted inter-generationally within the multi-generational household. Layered over this, a developed sense of not just being a population, but rather belonging to a ‘'''narod'''’ .
	:::In the case of Russia, what you call "ethnic, racial, and nationalistic politics" is what real leftists call having an authentic cultural identity, one not dissolved inside unbridled markets. – ] (]) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::It has nothing to do with "Anglophone media". I have good friends that I met at university from northern Luhansk, and also from Donetsk, so I have personal ties to this mess.
	:::::There is no such thing as "authentic cultural identity". Identities are constructed, and can never be "authentic". Radical divisions, gender divisions, ethnic divisions, class divisions that exist only so that the ruling class can easily control the masses. Balkanising the proletariat is the essence of liberal ideology: that is, for liberals, we are all "individuals" privy to our own identities, and hence different and apart from each other. Likewise, nations are "individuals", apart from other nations. It is "divide and conquer", essentially, because the proletariat is divided it can never defeat the ruling class. This type of "apartness" is the essence of liberalism, and separates people from the essential nature of their humanity. There is absolutely no difference between class distinction and racial distinction. They serve the exact same purpose, and exist for the exact same reason. The reality is that there is no such thing as a liberal individual. The concept of the individual is based in distaste for the "other". There is no "real leftist" who would support the notion of an essentialised culture. The idea that "peoples" exist is a farce. There is only one people, and that's humanity. However many differences we may have in language, religion, &c., the similarities between humans far outweigh the differences. It is quite clear that you are nothing more than a modern liberal, of the most distasteful kind. I feel sorry for you liberals, for you are caught up in the machinery of existence, and ignore its sweetness and light. ] — ] 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Do you still believe that the only people left in Donbas are "a few radicals and a few elderly people with no escape"? For all I know your "good friends" from Donbas are Ukrainian nationalists who were brainwashed by the Ukrainian educational system. I take it that after the people of Donbas rose up against the fascist junta, your friends moved to western Ukraine, where liberals think that .
	:::::::Wouldn’t it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the shit out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. '''Not from the nationalists, but from liberals''', from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place – why not kill them all?
	::::::Do your good Ukrainian friends agree? The reason "Kharkiv is still under Ukrainian control" btw is that the locals didn't act in time to preempt political repression from Kiev (people being disappeared, as happened to citizens of earlier US client states such as Chile or El Salvador), as the people of Donbas did. – ] (]) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Why is it that your fellow countryman Graham Phillips can understand what is happening in the Ukraine, but you can't? Does the girl fighting with the resistance strike you as one of "a few radicals and a few elderly people"? The Anglophone propaganda machine has made you inhabit a hyperreality having nothing to do with the actual situation in Ukraine. – ] (]) 22:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Why is it that you are so dense, then? If the world doesn't fit neatly into the box you've prepared, you provide revolting nonsense about "eastern Ukrainians being exterminated". Spare me the nonsense. I'm no friend of any nationalist, Ukrainian or otherwise. One of them is from Donetsk, and fled to live with friends in Kharkiv. The other is from northern Luhansk Oblast, in an area controlled by the government, but flooded with refugees. One is a Russian-speaker (Donetsk), and one is a Ukrainian-speaker (northern Luhansk). Neither of them have any desire to submit to extermination of any kind. You are nothing more than a firebrand, sensationalist and liberal, and have no place in the Platonic elite. ] — ] 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Did you follow that link? I gave a direct quote from the ]. Do you think that contributors to and editors of the LRB are "dense"? That article is titled "Why not kill them all?", a sentiment that I think is accurately represented by the word "exterminate". Your dogmatic and unceasing denial of what is happening in the Ukraine is a wonder to behold. Do people who compulsively express contempt for and dehumanize people who fight for their freedom, as you do with eastern Ukrainians, belong with "the Platonic elite"? (Actually, you gave yourself away there. Evidently, you believe that you belong to an intellectual elite, which gives you every right and justification to hold working class people in contempt. And that is exactly the attitude of western Ukrainians towards eastern Ukrainians that was described in that LRB article, which you obviously have not read, possibly because doings so might undermine your narrow world view. I guess the LRB is not elitist enough for you.) – ] (]) 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I think it was fairly obvious that the "Platonic elite" remark was a joke. Honestly? Please take your fire and brimstone elsewhere. ] — ] 00:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::So was the "firebrand, sensationalist and liberal" part a joke, too? Because you just repeated it, with the "fire and brimstone" crack. Either substantively reply to the points I've made regarding your open contempt for the separatists, or stop expressing your contempt for them at every opportunity. You side with western Ukrainians against anti-junta Ukrainians, even though the ''LRB'' has made clear that even western Ukrainian ''liberals openly advocate the genocide of eastern Ukrainians''. You ignore that inconvenient fact, so you can go on smearing eastern Ukrainians. Stop smearing them, and I'll stop the "fire and brimstone". Misplaced Pages is not a forum for expressing hate speech. Genocide is not a joke. – ] (]) 01:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::How in heck can I be "smearing eastern Ukrainians" when the only Ukrainians I know are from the east? Perhaps your vision of an "eastern Ukrainian" is different from mine. As far as the "junta" is concerned, all I can say is ]. ] — ] 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:@RGlouster. I am sure that ] would be mostly on your side in this dispute and ashamed of arguments by others. ] (]) 22:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Somehow, I don't think that Herzen would have fondly approved of this video, produced , showing a young man mutilating himself by giving himself scars following the pattern used on the traditional Ukrainian shirt called a ]: (Ukraine: hardened by pain). The article on Herzen says that "The words of Herzen that Berlin repeated most insistently were those condemning the sacrifice of human beings on the altar of abstractions". – ] (]) 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I checked your materials (links) above. The article by the US journalist does not name any person "on the Ukrainian side" who would advocate any killings or executions. On the other hand, your video indeed showcases DNR fighters, one of whom (the girl) promises do not take any prisoners and kill all Ukrainians and Russians on another side. ] - remembers song "Future belongs to me" from ]? I am not sure if you read non-fiction writings by ] on Russian history (I did). He was so critical of the ] - you would probably call him a ]... ] (]) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::It was a curious conversation that was developed here. I was hot-headed when I started, for that I am sorry. Though, concerning to the issue of "genocide", that's clearly a huge exaggeration. But, there has been a very lenient position in these articles concerning to the Ukrainian official attitudes. Both parties are responsable, namely those that are not from Donbass (the Ukrainian government and whoever supports it from a geopolitical point of view and Russia). There has been a rule by one side of Ukraine against the other half of Ukraine (and that was already happening under Yanukovitch, no doubt, but persists). I've seen some comments by Mikhail Gorbatchev that are worth to be listened. Concerning to Poroshenko, I guess he tried to unify the country, but because of forces that are alien to him, he's failing. Concerning to the rebels, no doubt they don't have clean hands, but their existence is a consequence of the divisive political movement that happened during Euromaidan, which was promoted by EU and USA (with the knowledge of that very unpleasant component of it, so, in fact, EU and USA ended up dividing Ukraine more than it was, whatever their rethoric is).] (]) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
			I note you had participated in the discussion on the ] move and/or ]. There is currently a currently a similar discussion ongoing at ] where your input may be valuable. Kind regards.] (]) 12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	== A battle worth fighting ==
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.png==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
	I don't understand what the objective is of this flame war on your user page, no disrespect intended, but your talents - and those of your conversants - would be much appreciated back on ]to help merge it or delete it or reform it Since you are already on that page this is not canvassing it is just a ping seeking your feedback on recent edits which you may have been too busy to notice, thanks. ] (]) 23:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
			==] nomination of ]==
	*{{ping|Wikidgood}} Some people like playing with fire. Regardless, I think that no possible edit would redeem that article, and I'm set on having it merged. I'm waiting for that discussion to close. Hopefully the closer will disregard the many ] opposes. ] — ] 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
			]
	:: I could not agree more Glucouster but methinks that a few strokes of thy nimble word-sword would dispath many a heathen interlope if thy were to grace the said merge page with thy illustrious participation In the meantime, the quality of what is merged remains in play. ] (]) 23:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
			A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ].
	== Notice of ] ==
			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
			:Hello, RGloucester,
	{{Ivmbox
			:It looks like you didn't receive CSD notifications but several of the UK cabinet template categories you created have been marked for CSD C1 speedy deletion as empty categories. I guess whatever templates they held were deleted recently. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
	|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A community discussion has authorised the use of ] to curtail disruption related to ] in the ].<br> Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in ]-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions ].
			== ] of ] ==
	] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged ]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
			]
			The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
	This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. ] — ] 23:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
			<blockquote>'''No significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Misplaced Pages:Notability.'''</blockquote>
	| Commons-emblem-notice.svg
	| icon size = 50px}}
			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	== File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg ==
			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	Since you seem to be particularly interested in this image, a headsup to ].--] (]) 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
	== Alleged ==
			'''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 09:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
	As you insist to point to WP:Alleged, I suppose that you would remove the (alleged) in the ] article, as ISIS presence is clearly sourced.--]]<font color="Purple">KID</font> 21:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I don't know if I would or would not. I don't involve myself in Arab affairs unless absolutely necessary. ] — ] 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	==House of Assembly==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ].
	I'm slightly bemused by your move back. Was "of Jamaica" part of the body's name? Cheers, ] ]] 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::The closest comparison is the ]. Let's remain consistent. ] disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical. ] — ] 21:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Hmmmm. Most of them seem to be at the parenthical title (see ]). I agree we need consistency, but not in a way that involves inventing proper names. ] ]] 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::PS, I've readded the "Politics of" template – I really can't see any logic in the "essentially unrelated" comment - the template is about politics of Jamaica and contains links to the current parliament and its institutions. Being ugly is not a reason to avoid it. Cheers, ] ]] 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Being "ugly" is a reason to avoid it. Page design is important. The title is not invented. Given this nonsense, I will be forced to request that the page be speedily deleted, as is my right. ] — ] 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::No need to throw your toys out of the pram. If you nominate it for speedy, I'll contest it – a national legislature is clearly notable. I'll ask for a third opinion. ] ]] 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Perhaps you should read the criteria I am using for my request. You can write it yourself with templates and whatever else you want, after it has been deleted. I merely don't to want to be associated with incorrect and poorly designed pages. By the way, this was not a "national legislature". The national legislature was the British parliament. ] — ] 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I know the criteria, but I'm not sure whether you've applied it correctly given my edits to the article and whether it can be declined or not (and indeed whether it would be ok for me to delete it and recreate it with the same text). I've asked at ]. ] ]] 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Also, I'm intrigued by your "don't want to be associated" claim. What do you mean by that? ] ]] 21:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::If my name is attached to the page, and it looks like crap, that will imply that I support poorly designed pages. Design is very dear to my heart, and so, I certainly don't want people thinking I condone template stupidity, or poor design. I do not tolerate anything that looks poorly, whether it be a page, person, or telephone. ] — ] 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Well if you're ok with me deleting and then simply creating a new article with the same text, then I'll do that. Is that ok? ] ]] 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Go ahead. All rights released. Ha Ha! ] — ] 22:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::OK, have done. ] ]] 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::{{ping|Number 57}} Whilst you happen to be on my page, would you do me a favour and restore ] to ]? An editor moved this talk page to that title without consensus, and now the talk page is separate from the article. ] — ] 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Assuming you meant ] (this is where the article seems to be now), I've done it. ] ]] 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::::Yes, that's what I meant. My apologies for accidentally dropping the date. Ta! ] — ] 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
			The discussion will take place at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
	== Sanctions ==
			To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
	As you know, I have been working as long as you, possibly longer, to sort out the horrible mess that is ]. You saw what happened to my last attempt to achieve and effect a minor change (removal of three words quite sensibly suggested by one editor and boldly edited by another) by consensus at ]. Assuming good faith and responding to other editors' opinions that they believe to be valid is not wikilawyering, regardless of whether that is what other editors are doing.
			== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
	I think it would be appropriate if you were to strike through your ill-chosen remarks at ], which seem to suggest that I am wikilawyering and/or acting in bad faith. --] (]) 21:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I refuse. Playing around with technicalities in closures, policies, and whatever is "Wikilawyering". I call a spade a spade. Don't be a spade if you don't want to be called one. ] — ] 01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Sleep on it! Taking this opportunity to overturn the defectively worded text that does not express what you meant it to and replacing it with one with more legitimacy would be the better course. --] (]) 02:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::No. Sanctions are already in effect at MOSNUM, so it doesn't matter. ] — ] 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	== This is just a note, but... ==
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	...I would suggest that you archive much of this talk page when you can. It is getting rather large. However, it is your talk page, so you can decide what you do with it. I just thought I would bring that up. ]&nbsp;] 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	== Moved the page ==
			</div>
	It shouldn't be under the talk namespace, so I've moved it. I'll be switching the redirect at WP:ANI so it goes to the right place (so we can have an actual talk page for it). ] (]) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
			</div>
	::We shouldn't have a talk page for it. Everything needs to be contained on that page, or on the GS/GG sanctions talk page. Sub-pages don't get talk pages. It is at talk for a reason, by the way, which is to allow easy creation of sections for reports. ] — ] 02:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1124425184 -->
	::: Hmm, kind of weird, but OK. ] (]) 02:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I have a variety of templates set-up to make the page work, so messing with the page like that really screws them up. Please don't do stuff like that. ] — ] 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::: I won't apologize for my ] edit but what I will say is that I wasn't aware of such and thought that instead of cluttering the page with comments (which I could've put mine on a talk page, rather than the page itself), it would be on the talk instead. But yeah, kind of iffy about this, but probably won't do anything else with it. ] (]) 02:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I've done an alternative format, using magic words, and adjusting the header template. ] — ] 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks, that works wonderfully. ] (]) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
			== Merry Christmas! ==
	==Notice==
	I'm sure you already know what you're doing is ], but here's a formal notice that you're about to exceed 3RR at ] and further editing in my namespace will be reported as vandalism. Take it to the talk page.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, Mr Vandal. I bow down before thee, prostrate as I am, for I am nothing in comparison to thy flowing grace and water. ] — ] 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
			<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]]{{Center|]}}
	==Disambiguation link notification for November 13==
			'''Hello RGloucester:''' Enjoy the ''']'''&#32;and ''']''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand ]. Cheers, ] (]) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
			]{{paragraph break}}
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	== speed del tag at ] ==
	?!? please explain. --] (]) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	::It was a joke. I've never seen more petty arguing over nonsense in my life. ] — ] 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Shoulda put it on the talk page.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
	==You've got mail!==
	{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 12 November 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-11-12}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 44-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=634161175 -->
	== Concerning to your messages and edits ==
	Oh, RGloucester, you've talked to me as if you had the moral highground about the Donbass people. Do you know what they actually want? To be Ukrainian, independent or Russians? Well, there are a lot of Ukrainian speaking people in Donbass, a lot of ethnic Ukrainians that speak Russian (I've met some Russian-speaking Ukrainians, and I haven't either noticed that they were glad to be Ukrainians or that they would rather be considered as Russians, though they refused to speak in Ukrainian (according to my Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian mates who talk wih them and found that almost unacceptable to them... well, OK, I thought then, they're Ukrainians, why do they speak Russian instead of Ukrainian... and finally I found why... It's because, whatever their surnames are, they've always been brought up in a Russian environment. Obviously they speak Russian better than Ukrainian. Then I remembered the Basque Country case, where most of them speak Spanish (more preciselly Castillian), while they still have a strong Basque national feeling. It's because Castillian has been imposed on them for centuries, but that doesn't prevent them from being Basques! Ukraine can't either in Donbass, Kharkiv, Odessa, Zakarpattia and even less in Crimea, convince them that they're Ukrainians, if most of them are not! Concerning to relative (not absolute) proportions of people, Ukrrainians may be a majority in Kharkiv and Odessa. In Zakarpattia I have a lot of doubts. But they certainly are not a majority in Donbass or Crimea. I wouldn't have any problem at all if Madeira or Azores wanted to be independent, though they're ethnic Portuguese! Why is there this fuss about Crimea and Donbass from the West? Isn't it just because it's against Russia? I guess it is! Sorry for saying! And by the way, I support self-determination in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, but I'm not anti-Spain! I love Spain! ] (]) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not going into this type of discussion again. I think I've made my position clear. I don't claim any "moral high-ground" about anything. I think you are misreading the situation, personally, but that's your prerogative. ] — ] 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Concerning to the removal of Poroshenko ==
	Yes, you're right, he's the cammander-in-chief, I have enough respect for him in order not to actually blame him for what has happened in Eastern Ukraine. As I told, he tried to make peace but he was overwhelmed by other forces, both from Ukraine and from Russia. Concerning to the rebels, I give them as much legitimacy as I may give to Catalonian, Kurdish, Basque, Kashmiri, Chechen, Tibetan, etc separatists, so I can't blame them unless it arises any fair argument that they've commited war crimes worse than Ukraine or the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, as I told, I respect and I actually agree with your correction. Sorry for having been not very sympathetic towards the Ukrainian position, but apart from Poroshenko, noone else there has actually made anything to gain more sympathy from me. Read and listen to Gorbatchev's positions about this issue. He's very respected, he ended the Cold War and he's still a person worth to be listened, not only the Anglo-Saxon newspapers (which often differ from other languages' sources, e.g. France24, Al Jazeera, and several others that you may not know about) Thanks for reading.] (]) 03:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I attended a lecture by ] on the subject just the other day. He's a pleasant fellow to listen to, and an all-around nice fellow, but his ideas are way off. A lot of these old Soviet fellows have ideas that are far from reality and bathed in nostalgia, and don't even line-up with Putin's version of events, whilst vaguely supporting him. Regardless, I don't know what Poroshenko has or hasn't done, but I do know that he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and hence must be included, as you say. I would insist that you avoid the term "Anglo-Saxon". This is not the year AD 900. There is no one in this world who is an "Anglo-Saxon". Even from a purely ethnic perspective, modern ethnic Britons are a diluted mix of Gaelic, Germanic, Brythonic, and Norman blood. What's more, immigration has allowed for many other ethnic groups to gain a foothold in the English-speaking world. "Anglo-Saxon" is not an apt description at all. Spare us the archaic terminology. There is no reason why you can't write the "Anglophone media". ] — ] 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Thanks for the little correction ==
	Though these links were not hurting the article, but for technical or aesthetic they might well be deleted. I'm sorry that in the last weeks I took a different position about this issue, since I don't support neither pro-Russian, or Basque or Kurdish terrorism, but I've also consulted sources that are not from English-speaking countries (namely France24, for instance) and others, as well, since I understand Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian. I appreciate a lot the attempt of Poroshenko to reach an agreement and to welcome back the Donbass people as Ukrainians! However, there have been pressures, both from Russia (which is in a bloc that is not mine) and from the West (which is in my bloc, so I feel I have duty to criticize it, when necessary) to prevent any peace agreement in Eastern Ukraine. I honestly think you have the intentions, but Iryna, for instance, I think she has a better perception about the issues (since she's Ukrainian, and not from the East, actually). Sorry for my most fiery moments, but it's because I've discovered some shortcomings related to "reliable sources", and Iryna too, and you can not accuse her for being pro-Russian! Herzen yes, Iryna no. Have a nice afternoon! ] (]) 14:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I have no issue with being fiery. I'm a bit fiery myself. In fact, according to the ], the element associated with me is ]. We all have a right to our own opinions. The thing about Misplaced Pages is, though, that we have to put our opinions aside and write with neutrality in mind, based on reliable sources, even if we disagree with what those sources say. I'm all for cultural and political critique, but this isn't the place to publish our own ] about world-happenings. If we want to do that, we can write papers, or write a blog, or whatever. Here, though, we are bound by certain standards. You must understand that I'm no fan of Anglophone media, anymore than you are. If I were to go on diatribes about that, I could provide some illumination. However, I recognise that for the purposes of this encyclopaedia, we must use sources that are reliable in the context provided. "Reliable" means that they are given credibility by the majority of people, or have some renown. That's simply what is required in this context, if Misplaced Pages is to have any credibility itself. And so, I do the best I can to make sure that the articles I write reflect those sources. ] — ] 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Requested Move Discussion at ] ==
	There is currently an requested move underway ] and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">(])</span> 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Good news from me ==
	No longer in Ukraine, now "in Kobane with the Kurds"... I mean I'm only writing, I couldn't compare myself with a 1.5 year old Kurdish girl or kid, that will be where I'll be now! I'll try to see it from a kind of "Moroccan" point of view, since it's the only Arab country where I've I don't think the Turks have been impartial in this war (they're too busy with their own Kurds). But if any from me matters, here it goes: Don't be so much impressed about English-speaking evidences! These are my final words (I hope!... when I just say I hope I worry about myself I may come back today I had wonderful ASEAN, oh so much better places the Slavic countries... sorry for this)] — ] 00:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Since I've now started to edit ISIS (and not Eastern Ukraine), I'd thank you if you could deliver some opinions about my edits. I'd also thank you that you might consider Al-Jazeera, France24, DW, inclusivelly RT, TRT (which in this case may be as controversial as RT in Ukraine), Al-Arabiya, and El Mundo, Le Monde, Folha de São Paulo, Público, Diário de Notícias, Corriere della Sera So not any other anglo-saxonic source. As you can see they mention Catherine the Great (whose statue I've including in the backround article) and I also wished that an image about the holocaut in Ukraine could have been added in that article. And I can promise to you, they all hate ISIS! hate the Donbass rebels. Concerning to that issue, I can give you a link that in my opinion analyses perfectly the Ukrainian problems: (I hope you watch it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kGoueDg&index=1&list=LL6heCwDGlmzgQvzdXpteiqg .
	You have never demonstrated any consideration for the self-determmination of peoples!
	:::Please, as I said above, the word is "Anglophone sources". There are no "Anglo-Saxonic sources", unless you're citing ]. I'm not much aware of what is going on in the Near East, at the moment, so I suppose I can't be much help. Perhaps you should ask EkoGraf, as that's more up his alley. ] — ] 21:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Disambiguation link notification for November 20==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 14:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Useful video ==
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kGoueDg&list=LL6heCwDGlmzgQvzdXpteiqg . I'm now on ISIS, but I think this is useful for the Ukrainian War informations.
	] (]) 23:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	== WP:NPA ==
	Hi.
	I noticed your comment about me (). There is a policy on wikipedia (Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks) which says:''"Comment on content, not on the contributor."''
	Please be so kind to respect this policy. Thank you and all the best.--] (]) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	::It isn't a personal attack, and in fact you accused the existing editors of the article of the same thing. If you are able to do that, I am able to criticise you for the same thing. You've opened yourself to criticism here. ] — ] 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Can you include your signature in the closure? ==
	Regarding ]. Recently you . Could you modify this so your signature is visible? Thanks, ] (]) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Done. ] — ] 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
	== ANI Notice ==
	<s>
	] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. And now you're notified --] ] 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)</s>
	I'm very sorry about that. I got emotional and lashed out to something in a way and place I shouldn't have. I hope you can forgive me. --] ] 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Battle of Ilovaisk ==
	Yes. The very best reason of all. The voices in my head told me to do it. <small>Which sounds better than confirming I am an idiot.</small> ], ], ] 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Barnstar! ==
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|]|]}}
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I know this is what you were least expecting coming from me, but you do a great job at managing the articles involving the ongoing War in Donbass and for that I give you this, great work. ] (]) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
	|}
	::Ta! Whatever I may say, it often doesn't represent my true opinion. As I said, I have a sharp tongue. As I told ] above, I'm a bit ]. Unless you happen to be ], you shan't be able to extinguish my flame. I shan't complain about receiving a barnstar, as you might imagine. I do what needs to be done. ] — ] 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I want to say too that I am sorry for last night I was a bit tired and way off base. - ] (]) 20:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Yesterday ==
	Sorry for being a bit of an ass yesterday. We may disagree, but I wasn't terribly civil. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Such is life, dear fellow. I'll have you know that I've been on the receiving end of Mr Corbett before, so anything you say is likely to be nothing more than a trifle. I don't hold it against him, though, nor you. ] — ] 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Cheers. :) ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Two requests regarding GamerGate==
	Hi there! Long time no see. Would you mind (1) reviewing the behavior of {{user links|Zakkarum}} and (2) reviewing my close of ]? If you feel the close was improper, please feel free to undo it. Cheers. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not an administrator. Please ask one of the administrators that comments at ]. ] — ] 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Silly me... saw you on ] closing threads so I assumed that you were for some reason. Thanks anyway. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm merely serving as a clerk, essentially. I'm the one that established the page, created the infrastructure, &c. ] — ] 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
	==As promised...==
	I promised you that when I will have time I will try to archive other articles. So, today I did two, with 2 more to go: ] and ].--] (]) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks very much! Your work is always appreciated. ] — ] 02:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
	== not helpful ==
	I've removed this . I get that GG just sucks, and appreciate the efforts of yourself and the other admins trying to deal with it, but slipping into personal attack territory is perhaps a sign to take a break? Just because someone comments at AN doesn't mean you have to respond; just let the post speak for itself it's more effective and less work. <small>]</small> 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I needn't "take a break". I have a right, just as much as anyone, to note the density of other editors in certain actions. It is merely an observational process, whereby I evaluate whether such editors sink or swim whilst surrounded by a field of deep water. In this case, the editor sunk quite quickly. My apologies if you took it some other way. Whether it is an "attack" or not depends on one's perceptions, but I highly doubt that this could be construed that way. ] — ] 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 26 November 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-11-26}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 46-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 21:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=635731996 -->
	== Crimea article ==
	What "games" are you exactly talking about?? There is no consensus reached for Volunteer Marek's and My very best wishes' version, the version ] and I have put in is the version present earlier this month. There is currently a discussion on the talk page and it is not over so I don't know what "games" you're talking about. --] (]) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
	== What a pitty ==
	I just saw the talk page of ]. I don't know who was correct in the discussion, but due to your use of language we lost a great Misplaced Pages contributer (see ). Please, try to solve problems without strong language next time. ] (]) 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I didn't use "strong language". In fact, he attacked me and called me a fool, despite his disrupting of Misplaced Pages processes. He was blocked for that. He "retired" of his own will, and is free to return whenever. It certainly had nothing to do with me. ] — ] 14:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::{{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}, RGloucester is correct. While Nickst was a good contributor, even the best of contributors can overstep the line (an understatement in this instance) to become tendentious editors. Unfortunately, Nickst did fall into a pattern of disruptive editing ignoring consensus, moving pages while move reviews were still underway, and basically trying to pre-empt and call the shots on articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine. Personally, I think his retirement message is an excellent example of how ungracious he was/is capable of being: that is, it is the equivalent of a tantrum. --] (]) 22:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Hello ] and ], thank you for your responses. I see that my reaction to RGloucester was not fair and much to direct. I see now that it was Nickst using strong language. I screened his talk page (too fast) and thought it was war between the two ending in retirement. I didn't want to blame RGloucester but I thought it could have ended different (as it is in many cases, and such a shame if people are leaving Wiki). Sorry RGloucester! Happy editing, ] (]) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel. Agreed that it's unfortunate to lose essentially good editors when Misplaced Pages is struggling to retain editors. Hopefully, Nickst will cool off and return when he's ready to work collaboratively and be civil again. He'd become snappy and snarky with editors he'd worked well with previously, including myself. I'm counting on the addictive nature of Misplaced Pages to eventually lure him back. If this happens, I'm certainly more than happy to welcome him back and deem it water under the bridge. We're all prone to throwing hissy fits and having bad days, but developing a consistently aggressive attitude to editing and other contributors does nothing to enhance either the content or the editing atmosphere. A pleasure to meet you, and happy editing! --] (]) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Non-admin closure ==
	Hello RGloucester. Regarding your ] at&nbsp;] you probably shouldn't have closed it by yourself. The non-admin closure page states that closures are inappropriate if there is a: "lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well."
	I'm not saying your closure was necessarily wrong, and I'm not going to revert it, but just saying you shouldn't do that in the future if you've been participating in the discussion yourself. Pretty bad that no admins were interested in closing it, I know. --]] 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm well aware of the procedural no-no I committed, but I'm also aware of the principle of ]. There was no reason to let that charade continue, allowing tons of off-Misplaced Pages co-ordinated SPAs and IPs to come in and make a mess. Not only that, but they targeted my person. Policy supports my closure. It also allows us to avoid facilitating these SPAs, who were using that "article" as a soapbox for a variety of unsourced fringe ideas. ] — ] 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	::Actually, {{u|Pudeo}}, RGloucester was advised by an uninvolved admin that, as the merger proposal was opened in October and had seriously run its course plus, closing it was not only appropriate but desirable. I've spent the last hour reading the arguments and, per policy and guideline based arguments, merge (or delete) is evident as being the only course of action. An article dedicated to ]? Regards (from an uninvolved editor). Happy editing! --] (]) 00:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::There is no need to defend me, Iryna. As soon as I stumbled across that mess, I knew something was wrong. The way that the article shifted from day to day, to different versions of conspiracy theories involving "" and various other canards...honestly, I can't believe that such an article was tolerated for so long. I feel confident in this action, even though it was out of process. When the process fails, we haven't got much choice. ] — ] 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::I stumbled across the article through Ymblanter's talk page and couldn't believe it existed. It's been a particularly fine year for trolls. I swear there are days when I feel that "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" ought to read as "red carpet treatment for any idiot who's been blocked from YouTube". In all honesty, what's not to feel confident about. Just off to light fresh candles in my Wolfowitz shrine (I've installed it in the kitchen next to the crockery). --] (]) 02:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Info ==
	Since I haven't taken your talkpage off of my watchlist for some reason, I noticed the IP vandal/troll's post. From what my informant has told me, is that the /pol/ (far-right chucklefucks) boards of 4/8 chan were complaining that Cultural Marxism got redirected to Conspiracy theories. What I think is going on, is that the /pol/ idiots will try to brigade Misplaced Pages into putting it back. --] ] 03:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not familiar with the underbelly of the internet, but I appreciate your candour. Thanks very much. ] — ] 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Seems my informant was off by a few letters , but to her credit /pol/ started it. --] ] 03:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	I am not far right. I am Jewish, not related to Gamergate (it is bizarre and idiotic), and I hate both far right and far left. You are far left, so I hate you. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::I'm not "far left", Mr IP. Please explain what your concerns are, and I'll be happy to address them. Since you are persistent, I'll grant you a cup of tea. Soothing chamomile, if you like. The reason I removed your comments was because they were inflammatory. In English, we must be concise, simple, clear, and nice. Those are my rules for human communication. That is, unless someone warrants a bit of a chiding. I don't see how I've warranted such, however. Please point it out, for me. ] — ] 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::FYI, RGloucester, the IP is longtime banned ]. There's no point arguing with him. Unless you agree with everything he says, he'll start posting death threats to you, as he has against innumerable other Misplaced Pages editors and administrators (most of whom tried to be nice to him at first, just like you). ] (]) 04:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	== A cup of tea for you! ==
	{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Something for you to sip on while ignoring the gamergate blow-ins until they blow themselves out of the project: approximately all of about 5 minutes for the more intelligent ones. ] (]) 04:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	|}
	== Thanks ==
	Whoever that editor is who posted to both of us, they're upset with me because I rev/del'd some stuff of theirs on another editor's talk page. ] (]) 06:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	::No problem. ] — ] 16:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Disambiguation link notification for December 6==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	== French government pages ==
	* I have reverted your text-merge of ] (about political parties) with ].
	** Before moving or text-merging those pages and/or page ], please discuss at ]. ] (]) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't understand, Mr Appleyard. As far as the Government is concerned, I'll have to revert you. That body simply isn't called the Cabinet. "Cabinet" means something else is French. It's a total kibosh. You can do what you like with the "Political system" and politics articles, but I shan't be subjected to an RM for a blatant falsity. ] — ]
	== Stunned confusion ==
	I saw your recent comment at Jimbo's talk page. I think I have a rough idea of what it is you are talking about in general, but hope that the "I give up" is not a statement of retirement, and would appreciate it very much if you provided a slightly clearer indication of what specifically happened here. Maybe some of the others of us who frequent that particular dramah board might be able to help in some way. ] (]) 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I doubt it. It isn't even worth engaging. I've been wasting my time for more than a month on that piece of rubbish, and I shan't waste any more. I'm the type of person that prostrates himself before authority. I respect the sovereignty of His Majesty, being the stout monarchist I am, and recognise my own inferior will. ] — ] 20:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Specifically, what piece of rubbish in particular is being discussed here? ] (]) 20:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::Look at Mr Wales's contribution history. ] — ] 20:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	I just stumbled into here as a result of ] showing up in ], a category that I patrol. So, I have just briefly looked at this to try to sort it out. I see on your user page that you have a user box which says you identify as a Marxist. Now you say that you are a stout monarchist. Can you explain? Are you being sarcastic? Or can those two ideologies be compatible? I see at {{section link|Talk:Cultural Marxism|Merger proposal}} that you recently closed a lengthy discussion in which you were an involved party. Perhaps you could reopen it and solicit an ] party to determine where the consensus is and close the discussion. Thanks, ] (]) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not involving myself in anything associated with that "item" any longer. Please enjoy it. As far as Marxism and Monarchism are concerned, they are quite compatible. Let us hail the great ], extraordinaire socialist and bringer of health and wellbeing! For my rationale, please see the above section, entitled ]. ] — ] 21:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::OK, thanks. I'm still scratching my head though. The ] article has no mention of monarchs, the ] article doesn't mention Marx, and the bio of ] doesn't get into either, except to list the monarchs he served under. Just from my quick search. I'll review the section above. Did you request any "sock puppet investigations"? ] (]) 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You'll just have to take the time to read Marx's writings. Perhaps the Frankfurt School, who seem to be at issue here. Some connections are not too hard to make, though it takes a certain mind to make them.
	:::::No, I didn't request anything whatsoever. However, having been provided with multiple links to message boards in Lower Slobbovia, it was quite clear what was going on. One of the links is on this page, one of them is at the article's talk page. They are scattered around, here and there. I shan't link them myself, as I hardly want to be associated with such people. ] — ] 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 03 December 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-03}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 47-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=636782601 -->
	== admin prop. ==
	I opposed your proposal regarding creating an elected body to appoint administrators, but I give you props for conceiving an idea and putting it forward and then endeavouring to defend it. Cheers. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]</span>''' 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Peculiar ==
	Why were you the closer of the discussion to merge ] when you were primarily the one outspoken to merge it. This seems like it runs afoul of someone 'uninvolved' closing the discussion. It would be like an administrator who nominated an article be the one to assess the consensus and delete it. It doesn't seem unbiased. I'd like to get your thoughts. ] (]) 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I provided my rationale in the section above, ]. I repeatedly requested for various administrators to close it, and all refused. I also put in a request at AN/RFC. No one answered. Meanwhile, a large stream of SPAs and IPs organised on message boards, and started attacking the article's talk page long after the initial discussion had ended, and was awaiting closure. As such, after a month of being open, the farce was clear. Tired of this intransigence, I closed the discussion in line supported by Misplaced Pages policy, and ]. It was clear that policy did not support the article then, and still doesn't. I do what needs to be done, and always have done. However, as His Majesty's will is clear, I submit as his loyal subject. He acted in accordance with his prerogative, as I did myself, and I respect him for that. ] — ] 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	::: Alright, thanks for being colloquial about it. I don't consider it right but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Thanks. ^^ ] (]) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	== A cup of coffee for you! ==
	{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | We may have differing opinions on how this should be handled, but it's all in good faith. I hope this helps relieve some stress with all the commotion and that you could maybe rejoin us for discussion soon. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00">'''''] ¦ ]''''' </font></small> 16:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	|}
	== Come Join Me On The Bench ==
	I've retired from Misplaced Pages after , but have been keeping half an eye on the place in order to finish an article I'm writing. In that pursuit I saw your retirement notice today.
	I offer no comment on and Misplaced Pages here, of course, but obviously the formula that is working effectively in some BLPs is also being applied with effect to ]. You're an expert on Misplaced Pages rules and conduct; if you could not contrive an effectual defense for a reasonably clear community decision, it may well be that no defense can be made as matter now stand.
	I'd welcome your thoughts on how something can be salvaged from the wreck, or how people of good will and high standards might now proceed. My email address is on my user page.
	And, in any case, please accept my thanks for your long labors and my very best wishes for the future. Your colleague in retirement, ] (]) 17:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	: redacted actually naming the subject on our minds, per complaint at ArbCom. ] (]) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Warning ==
	You are edit-warring and being rude to editors to bulldoze your own apparently ideologically driven ideas through. You need to desist, or there will be negative consequences. ] ] 05:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I did not edit war. I reverted unilateral page moves that had no consensus. In fact, all of the participants in this row should be aware of that, given that we were all present for the ] discussion whereby all these unilateral moves were reverted last time. Please gain consensus before you defy Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and the English-language. I appreciate your threats, as it means you feel that a wider consensus as determined by the now widely-advertised RM that has been set-up is disconcerting. ] — ] 05:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Barnstar==
	{| style="border: 1px solid blue; background-color: yellow;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''<font color=blue>The My Personal Copyeditor's Barnstar</font color>'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for your efforts the past months to make my edits on Misplaced Pages a lot better by copyediting them! ] for doing it; but really happy that you do that! ] (is also a ] song).<br> — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	|}
	:Thanks! I'm best at cleaning stuff up, and working on prose. Your ability to amass sources and information is of great value to the project. It's a team effort. Appealing to each person's strengths is an important part of teamwork. ] — ] 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ANI stuff ==
	You're acting like Martinvl on one of his bad days. You're too good of an editor to lose over something silly like this. I'd like you to consider a unilateral withdrawl, not because you're wrong, but because you have more important things to do. ] (]) 00:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	::There's just too much stupidity to handle. Perhaps that's "uncivil", though I don't think it is. The reality is, we have a lot of stupidity floating around here these days. The whole business of the "Cultural Marxism" article was the tip of the iceberg. At least in the case of Martin, he was incapable of realising what he was doing. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing. I'm doing it is because there needs to be some challenge to a culture that tolerates and encourages stupidity. When I say "stupidity", I don't mean something innate to a person. I mean pure happenstance, something that everyone is capable of (). People can ignore sources for hours on end, they can invent nonsense out of thin air, they can canvas tens of off-Misplaced Pages activists to support their indefensible cause, they can pretend to be civil and neutral when they are clearly not (]), they can misuse sources, repeat arguments over and over again. All for what? So Mr Wales can intercede on their behalf and enshrine stupidity in a reliquary that we as Misplaced Pages editors should all worship? It's just nonsense. Absolute and total. ] — ] 00:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::There are challenges and then there are ''effective'' challenges. If your argument can be dismissed due to civility or pointiness then (I'd argue) it's not as effective as it could be. If you think it best that you nail yourself to the mast over this, that's absolutely your right to do so. As a possible alternative, I'm willing to take a look at "Cultural Marxism" and see if I can help. ] (]) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Never mind it. I've washed my hands of that article. At present, I attempted to deal with editors who want to eliminate the word "]" in various contexts on the basis that no one understands what it means, contrary to reliable sources and common sense. Never mind that, though. I hardly want to be accused of "canvassing" again, so spare me the trouble. "Civility" should not serve as a bulwark for stupidity, the unencyclopaedic, &c. ] — ] 01:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Fair enough. You've done a lot of good work here, and I hope you come across another topic soon where the stupidity quotient is lower. Be well. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Warm fuzzy==
	Hang in there, my friend, this too shall pass... ] (]) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I beg your pardon? ] — ] 00:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
	::: All the Cultural Marxism-related angst... ] (]) 07:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
	I agree - you're the person providing sensible and cited arguments, while everyone else is basically misusing calls of fallacy and otherwise being obtuse to try and shut you down. Good on you for sticking to the high road! ] (]) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 10 December 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-10}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 48-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=637617807 -->
	== More riots ==
	I ran out of space at the 30-article limit for my request to undo your reverts of my maintenance moves, and left out a few such as the three Harlem riots: ], ], ]. As far as I can find, these are uniformly lowercase in sources except when they appear in citations to the 1977 book Capeci, The Harlem Riot of 1943 or the 1944 article Kenneth B. Clark, "Group Violence: A Preliminary Study of the Attitudinal Pattern of Its Acceptance and Rejection: A Study of the 1943 Harlem Riot." So can we just fix them, or do you need another big to-do? ] (]) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	And on ] it's almost as stark; I'd remove the unneeded parenthetical, too. Someone was just following a pattern they'd seen. See and ; compared to all the caps you see . ] (]) 05:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I support decapitalisation of the , , and riots, per the Britannica. Go ahead with those. I do not support decapitalisation of the Houston Riot of 1917, per of sources. This one appears to be predominantly capitalised. I definitely do not support dropping the year, either. It seems that "Houston riot" in many of your search results is referring descriptively to the event, rather than using its name. ] — ] 05:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'll move the 3 and note that you are willing to give weight to web pages over books. Sheesh. Books like use it lower case even with 1917; the ones you're seeing are mostly titles of books and a thesis, which does not imply the event has an accepted title. The only book I saw using it capitalized in a sentence was a compendium of rebellions, a perfect example of expert style, capitalizing their own stuff; oh, and the Jim Crow Encyclopedia, a classic. We can take it up later. ] (]) 05:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::Look, Mr Lyon. You're asking me to take cursory glances, here. If I take a cursory glance and see vaguely reputable sources using capitalisation, I'm going to say it should go through RM. This decapitalisation matter is clearly controversial, as you saw at the mass RM. Let the process work. ] — ] 05:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I try to avoid controversy and just do uncontroversial moves; so I'm trying to at least get the noncontroversial ones taken care of. RMs are a pain, and bring out all manner of stupidity. I started a discussion at that page; maybe it will reveal a noncontroversial alternative. ] (]) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Lists of British ministers ==
	At ] you posted at 15.49 today that "prior to the late 19th century, there were many fewer posts in the ministry than there are now, meaning that often all members would be in the cabinet". I simply cannot understand why you would make such a statement when it is so demonstrably untrue. Yes, there are a lot more MPs on the Government payroll now than there used to be. ''20th Century British Political Facts'' (page 71) gives a total of 106 paid government posts at 1 January 2000, of whom 22 were in the Cabinet, compared to 60 paid government posts, of whom 19 were in the Cabinet, at 1 January 1900.
	But still during the nineteenth century, for every Cabinet minister, there would be numerous junior ministers. Every Secretary of State had at least one Under-Secretary; for every President of a Board there was a Secretary to the Board. For every First Lord of the Treasury there were several Junior Lords. And that's just the ministers who were directly involved in running the country: the law officers and all the political posts in the Royal Household like the Vice-Chamberlain and the Master of the Buckhounds were all ministers but were not in the Cabinet. If you look at the ], for example, there are about 15 Cabinet ministers, but about 65 office-holders in the ministry in total. This is definitely "prior to the late 19th century".
	Going even further back into the eighteenth century, it could be argued that even minor posts in the Royal Household like Gentleman of the Bedchamber should be included in "the ministry", as they were political appointments made by the government of the day. It has never been the case that all—or even most—government ministers have been in the Cabinet, for as long as Cabinet government has existed (i.e. since about the time of Queen Anne). ] (]) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I did not say that there were no junior ministers. Merely that ministries overall were smaller, and that the structure of junior ministers was less labyrinthine and important than it is today. I'm referring to ministers proper, of course. Many of the earlier "ministerial" posts do not bear a resemblance to the work of a modern minister. Whilst what you say is true about such Royal Household posts, they can hardly be called "ministers" in the modern sense. ] — ] 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Iraqi insurgency 2014 Timeline ==
	There is big problem. The whole section is constantly outdated, and everything is very decentralized not in a good way, your help would be appreciated if you have the time--] (]) 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
	::As much as I'd like to help, I'm not that interested in the Near East. I don't think I'd be that useful. I was convinced months ago that the whole way that Misplaced Pages deals with the current conflict in the Levant and Mesopotamia is a mess, lacking any central articles or form of organisation. However, I'm not sure what can be done on the matter. ] — ] 20:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Okay then.--] (]) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Leave the page alone. You have no crystal ball. You can't possibly know anything about the longer term impact of the story. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I'll leave it alone, as I don't particularly care. However, it is representative of the corruption of our purpose that ITN creates. ] — ] 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
	==GAR==
	], an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Your arguments and tone ==
	I don't know how you can prove your point on naming and notability as you did in ] and ]. Perhaps you have gotten rebuttals, and sometimes you succeed. Nevertheless, I don't know how you connect well with others such as me. I can't advise you to take a wikibreak and see the world. However, no offense, but perhaps you should slowly adjust your views and arguments to look less silly. Maybe I should do the same too. --] (]) 20:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	::No. I'm a silly person. Regardless, all of my arguments at that discussion are based in policy and guidelines. As usual, though, people are content to ignore them to turn Misplaced Pages into a blog. ] — ] 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	::: Well, some people, including serious ones, don't get your humour. --] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::It isn't humour. ] — ] 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::: How do you call it if it's not ''sarcasm'' either? --] (]) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I don't refer to it as "anything", other than an argument that is based in our policies and guidelines. ] — ] 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ITN Criteria ==
	Perhaps you could propose a new criteria for ITN, that we should not post newly created articles. I think this might address your ] concern. What I think you've been arguing is that we should showcase articles that come into the news, not articles that are recently written in order to chase the news. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
	::That encapsulates my view, Jehochman. I shall think of something to propose. ] — ] 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
	== reply ==
	left a reply on my page, forgot how to do the user@ reply thing to get you a notification --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Let 'em have it ==
	Just allow the Neo-Nazis to have the page, then Jimbo's actions can reflect their true nature. Allow the intro to mirror the Metapedia page, and use Lind(someone designated by the SPLC as pushing the Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory) to be the main source. It fits right into the trend on the Talk page anyway, and Misplaced Pages will get what it deserves. ] (]) 07:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
	== User: Speccy4Eyes may need to be informed about the policy on units for UK articles. ==
	Hi RGloucester, User ] may need to be informed about the policy on UK units. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Units_in_the_United_Kingdom.
	Please see:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Wright_(footballer)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Speccy4Eyes
	] (]) 11:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
	::You can issue notifications, Mr Glass, as long as you follow the procedure specified. I've done so. ] — ] 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Talkback==
	{{talkback|Iryna Harpy|Malaysia Airlines|ts=05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 17 December 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-17}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 49-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=638594830 -->
	== "Ongoing" ==
	Hey RGloucester. On the project page is this policy (which I helped draft) for those stories in the Ongoing section of ITN on the front page. I hope this helps clarify what I mean, if I've not done a good job on the talk page! ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	"An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article listed as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness."
	::That is not a "right". Regardless, do not comment here. Comment at the talk page. ] — ] 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	== You are out of touch ==
	Seriously. If you are still so confused about your involvement in closing anything related to the topic, I really think you shouldn't edit any topic. You are completely out of touch with how this whole thing works. --] (]) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not "confused" about anything. A proper action is a proper action, no matter who takes the action. I did what needed to be done in the circumstances at hand, and I've explained myself numerous times in that regard. The only reason I was forced to do what I did was because of administrator intransigence. ] — ] 05:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::If what is proper is so obvious, then let someone else close. You were involved from the moment the discussion started. I'm not saying you weren't right. I'm saying you fucked everything up by closing when you were so obviously biased and involved. You made this worse. --] (]) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::Maybe. Probably. But it was frustrating that an admin forced the Merge vote after it was obvious to most that there was no such thing(sans the conspiracy theory and UK cultural studies) as the article suggested, and then allowed SPAs and anon ips to overrun the Talk page for over a month without closing the darn thing. Frustration probably got the better of Robert. He made the right close, but shouldn't have been the one to do it. ] (]) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree that I wasn't the person that should've done it. I only did so because everyone else refused. Again, if an administrator had closed it when I had asked them to, no problems would've arisen. ] — ] 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::You keep using the term "SPA" for anyone who disagrees with you. What does it mean? ] (]) 00:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't use the term for "anyone that disagrees with me". I use it for accounts canvassed from off-Misplaced Pages advocacy websites for the sole purpose of disrupting Misplaced Pages. ] — ] 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::I just want you to know I appreciate your dedication to the project, reliable sources and reality. But I would suggest to let the 'article' be now. And to others who have tried to help to do the same. The SPLC and others are watching this, which is being organized by , and . So let the decisions that are allowing an antisemitic canard become a legitimate article on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] (]) 02:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Pullman Strike and Homestead Strike decapitalization effort==
	Hi. I've enjoyed your comments in the decapitalization effort. Didn't see a comment from you on the talk page of ], which is undergoing a decapitalization effort, so if you don't know about it you may have an interest. Thanks. ] 15:32 21 December, 2014 (UTC)
	::I've withdrawn from all such matters. There is no point in fighting the endless tide of Lyon. ] — ] 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::There is no fight, because as an editor he has a right to his say and is doing all of this, in his own mind, for good reasons (hence, assume good faith). But you and I and others have a right to our say as well, and giving up on that is worse than the issues themselves. I only found out about all of the decapitalization attempts when Dicklyon changed the capitalization of several Civil Rights Movement pages, trying to decapitalize Misplaced Pages's African-American Civil Rights Movement article collection (which is very good and, very arguably, the best on the web). On the Pullman Strike and the Homestead Strike I point out that all anyone has to do is Google or Bing the terms, lower case, to see that the common names are capitalized. In any case, the best of holidays to you, and may Santa bring you many treats and other goodies. ] 13:12 22 December, 2014 (UTC)
	==Your suggestion==
	*. Please realize: this is not about articles and content, but about users. If you file a request, you must specify all users/parties of the case and demonstrate with diffs in your request their problematic behavior. Whoever they are (you did not tell it yet), there might be a "retaliation". For example, they can collect all diffs where you reverted someone to show that you are an "edit warrior", etc. So, I still advise you against it. ] (]) 20:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
	::As I haven't edited the article, it hardly matters what I've done. I don't really care. The problem must be solved. ] — ] 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::I too could not care less because I probably will not be around. When you submit a case, you do not really know what will be the scope, if it is to be taken. For example, if you tell that user "X" is a party to the case, arbs could wish to examine his behavior in the whole project, rather than in specific article. Same is about the filer of the case: arbs normally examine all parties. You made a lot of reverts on various pages. That will be a matter of scrutiny. Simply looking at your edit history and talk page, I can see people who were disappointed with you. They ''might'' show up with evidence against you. But this all hypothetical, because the case will probably be rejected. ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't care. Threatening me isn't a way forward. I'm not filing any case, yet. As I said, I would prefer that an uninvolved party file it. I have nothing to do with the Malaysia Airlines article, which is the scope of the dispute. If you are going to continue with threats, I suggest you get off my talk page. ] — ] 05:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I don't think MVBW is threatening you. They're just stating the sad fact - based on experience - that during an ArbCom case all the worst trolls and grudge-holders come out of the woodwork. Even if somehow the ArbCom arrives at a reasonable decision in the end - and that's an "IF" the size of Texas - it's usually after months and months of serious nastiness. All kinds of opportunist usually show up to get their kicks and and complain about something you might have done months ago which pissed them off. Bored teenagers make an appearance and troll basically everyone trying to amp up the drama. Busybodies who like to stick their nose in to everyone's business come running and pontificate, accuse, and generally irritate all. Folks who like to play "lawyer" on Misplaced Pages consider these cases as some kind of "practice" for the bar exam that they'll never take. In short, 9 times out of 10 ArbCom cases, even when justified, are not worth it. Especially when there are other avenues. Which there are here, since the article is already covered by an ArbCom case, and that's conscientious use of WP:Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE) which has not been done.
	::::::If this gets accepted it will be a huggggggeeeeeee waste of time. I don't want to have my time wasted.] (]) 06:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::In all sincerity, unless this is filed by someone who hasn't been involved in any of the articles surrounding events in Ukraine (and that person has long time clout), it's going to bring in all of those elements and more. It's not one for the likes of regulars who have a high enough profile to have made serious enemies to apply to ArbCom. No matter how carefully and tightly it's presented, it'll be off the charts once the POV-ers and generally misguided get wind of a potential carcass. It's better to beat the pots and pans on the article's talk page and let them pick themselves off. --] (]) 09:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Having done research on how these cases go, Iryna, I can say that I do not think that this will be a problem. Whilst I'm obviously aware of the Malaysia Airlines article, I'm not particularly involved in it. If I don't file the case it won't be filed. I'm perfectly willing to be collateral damage, if that's what happens. We'll see what happens. If I have enemies, it is because I deserve to. There isn't much to be done. ] — ] 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::(since you asked on my talk page). Please keep in mind that by including editor X in the list of parties for an arbitration you create him a lot of trouble. I responded on Arbitration page only because you included me as a party, and that was my opinion. ] (]) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::It is hard to say that you are not a party given your heavy involvement in the article...there won't be any trouble if you've not done anything wrong. ] — ] 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I advised you not to submit the entire case. That would save you and others a lot of time and nerves. Yes, I made 46 edits on this page , just about as many as you did. Yes, that makes me "involved", just as you are. But this is merely an example that all your statements during arbitration will be a matter of scrutiny. Please be more careful in the future. Fortunately, I will be out for a few weeks. Happy holidays! ] (]) 23:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::All my edits were at the start in July, and were only copyediting. Those had nothing to do with the dispute, whereas you have been heavily involved the in the talk page dispute and the DRN case. Not submitting the case would be to allow this problem not to be solved, and to allow continued disruption. There is no reason to allow it. ] — ] 23:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::By filing a case without merit you did not solve, but created disruption. If you really wanted to minimize disruption through administrative intervention, rather than through collegial discussion (and believed this is the way to go), you had to do the following: (a) to identify the person who you think creates disruption; (b) to report him/her to WP:AE. That is what I said you a month ago. Why are you not following my advice? My best guess: you would like to avoid responsibility, because filing an WP:AE case about someone else would make you a possible subject for sanctions, while filing an arbitration request and pretending to be "an uninvolved party" would be safer. This is not going to work. ] (]) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::No, I haven't filed an AE case because all the editors involved need to be evaluated. It is a systemic problem, not one of an individual editor. I have no fear of being sanctioned, as I've not done anything with regard to the dispute or the article. Please desist. By the way, if you think I should be sanctioned, please file an AE case. I'm happy to submit to your all-seeing eye. Given that I've not done anything at the article in question, let alone edited it, I'm happy to be the subject of scrutiny. I don't see how I'm involved in a dispute at an article that I have not edited since August. The only edits I made were copyedits. How exactly does that render me "involved" in this dispute? ] — ] 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ] deletion ==
	I know you're probably tired to hell of the horde of psychopathically ideology-driven SPAs and sockpuppets pouring across the fields like the Mongols to sap the life from the nation, but ] is up if you're still interested in debating the topic. At this point you might as well write a single rebuttal document, tag each clause and have your entire argument be made of comments pointing out the exact clause their argument applies to. ] (]) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Request ==
	Please do not post a comment on my talk page again unless you are '''''<u>specfically</u> required to do so by Misplaced Pages policy'''''. I do not accept comments from editors such as yourself. Thank you. ] (]) 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Reply==
	In reply to your notice , I must tell that, yes, if you ''arbitrarily'' included people to the list of the "parties" (as you did), I assume that you want them be sanctioned. That is my interpretation. ] (]) 06:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	::It isn't arbitrary. I included everyone that was either active in the DRN case, or active at the talk page. You were active at both. I don't want any parties sanctioned. All it means to be listed as a party is that you are a party to the dispute, which you are. If I've missed anyone important, feel free to add them as a party. The purpose of arbitration is not to eliminate editors. It is to solve disputes, i.e. arbitrate them. ] — ] 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::No, the only purpose to include people to the "parties" is to have some of them sanctioned (because what else Abcome can possibly do in the subject area already covered by discretionary sanctions?). You probably assume that all decisions by Arbcom are fair. No, this is not the case. In fact, the current WP:AE procedure (with administrators who work there) is significantly quicker and fair than arbitration. ] (]) 16:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I believe the purpose of the committee is to arbitrate the dispute. To decide whether people's behaviour fell below par, how to resolve the dispute, whether to impose 1RR or other article-level sanctions, or whether to impose sanctions on editors. Their goal is not to "sanction" editors, but to resolve the dispute. If that means that they need to sanction someone, after reviewing the evidence, they'll do it. AE cannot possibly be quicker or fairer, nor can the ARBEE sanctions be said to have worked. If they had, we wouldn't be here now. That DRN case would not've happened, and TParis would not've said that he was "afraid" to enforce ARBEE, and this dispute would not've continued over months. ] — ] 17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::This is nothing special. A lot of administrators do not want to take part in AE enforcement. We have a lot of disputes in a lot of articles. This article is actually in a good shape, and the dispute has been ''de facto'' resolved per WP:Consensus. There is no need for DRN or administrative intervention. What happens are a few contributors (I think only two, not counting SPA) who want to get an upper hand in a content dispute by mobilizing administrators and editors like you. ] (]) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::If a few contributors are making a mess of the article and have prevented peace for months, that's worthy of arbitration. ] — ] 21:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	==Disambiguation link notification for December 23==
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Seasonal Greets! ==
	{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
	----
	'''Hello RGloucester, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. <br>
	Happy editing,<br>
	] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
	''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
	|}
	:Season's greetings aren't complete without a carol: a for your festive pleasure. --] (]) 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Iryna! ] — ] 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-24}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue 50-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=639231839 -->
	==Arbitration request==
	I probably should reply to . Here are my points:
	#I do not know if arbitrators will accept your reasoning for submitting this case (rather than using WP:AE), but I do not.
	#You did a very bad thing by submitting this case, contrary to recommendations by several users. This is bad because such requests do not really resolve anything, but only increase tensions, and two examples are your recent discussions with Beyond My Ken and Bdell. This is the reason why unreasonable/battleground requests can be a reason for sanctions ''per se''.
	#Merely including me in the list of parties, for example, can be enough for me to stop editing here, temporarily or permanently. No, this is not because I did something wrong. Simply being tired from animosities on this site is a good reason, although I also have others.] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	:OK, I modified my statement in line with your suggestion above. Happy New Year! And I am going to make a New Year present for myself: stop editing here... In addition, I will be on a real life trip for a few weeks without internet access. I hope everything will be finished by then. ] (]) 13:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
	::Thank you, MVBW. ] — ] 01:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::I just want to thank you for your attempted intervention in the MH17 article. As you may recall, I joked at one point that you were smart for staying out of this article. It is truly a . – ] (]) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::Unfortunately, I can not agree. Asking to sanction a number of named parties in this request (what else Arbcom can possibly do in the area already under discretionary sanctions?) and providing no diffs to support problematic behavior by specific users was a typical battleground request, in my opinion. ] (]) 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Can you withdraw the AFD? I think you've done enough nominating events that occurred recently. Maybe wait for twelve months? --] (]) 19:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	::No. Articles on non-notable events must be deleted. They corrupt the encylopaedia. ] — ] 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	::: You nominated ] for deletion, which failed for now. Why not nominate ] for deletion, which failed thrice or twice? --] (]) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't know what "you didn't build that" is, and I don't care about it. I care about the non-notable events that have articles. These articles must be deleted. It isn't my fault some people can't see the guidelines in front of them, or that the administrators that close the discussions don't bother to read the arguments. The articles must be deleted. They will be deleted. ] — ] 20:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::: The arrogance of yours is a contribution factor to your rushed nominations on decently developed articles. Also, it's a factor to your inability to judge how notable "you didn't build that" is. It's a stupid phrase, overly used by lame politicians, that should have never had its own article in the first place. --] (]) 22:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Stop it both of you. George, there is no point in bickering with RGloucester. And clearly the article will not be deleted and the users are not in favor of deleting the article, so the bickering will not lead to anything good my friend. To uer RGcloucester, comments like "They corrupt the encylopaedia.", and "it isn't my fault some people can't see the guidelines in front of them, or that the administrators that close the discussions don't bother to read the arguments." - they seem to be over the top. Come on, for example in the mentioned AfD every single user disagrees with you. I am not saying that you are always wrong but in this particular case you clearly are. Sometimes a withdrawal and co-operation with improving articles can be a better option. Cheers.--] (]) 00:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You are always wrong, BabbaQ, and you have no argument at each and every AfD you participate in. You don't care about guidelines. You admit that you don't agree with the policy of ]. You don't care about the encylopaedia. I have no words for you. Do not comment on my talk page. As for you, Mr Ho, none of my nominations are rushed. I will delete this articles. They are not notable. They will be deleted. ] — ] 04:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::RG, the attitude of "I don't care, they will be deleted, that's that" is against the Misplaced Pages ethos of cooperation and consensus. I've noticed you like citing policy as though it's scripture. I remind you that Misplaced Pages works off precedent as much as rules; that policy can (and does) get ignored; that what is 'hard and fast' for one circumstance can be 'flexible' in another. In short, you don't always get what you want; you must be willing to ignore rules/policy, compromise, and cooperate; you must show willingness to accept criticism, argument, and alternatives to rules. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 06:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::I've not seen much of this "Misplaced Pages ethos of co-operation", and "]" is rooted in our policies and guidelines, not in ]. They are clear, on this matter. It is not a matter of gospel, it is a matter of simple reality. Regardless, I mustn't do anything. You must stop supporting corruption, then we'll talk. Until then, I shan't be tolerating such tripe spread across our pages. Anyone that does not take ] or ] to heart ought not make a message on this page. I fear that my poor front room will be dirtied. ] — ] 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:: I have nominated articles for deletion before, but sometimes I made wrong nominations on wrong articles for wrong reasons. That got me blocked before I got second chance. Therefore, I turned my life around and realize that Misplaced Pages is a tool for good... and evil. At least I clearly have seen that cooperation, teamwork, and stuff are most effective ways of improving Misplaced Pages. Too bad Misplaced Pages has flaws too. With teamwork, we'll do our best to alleviate the web's flaws with policies and guideline, like ], ], and ]. Perhaps when this is over, with teamwork, you may add complaints in ] or ]. --] (]) 06:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Oh, believe me, I've seen the good that collaboration can do. I've seen good articles written as a result. However, the simple reality is that some people in this world are not worth collaborating with. One must make the best effort one can, but if there are no results, one cannot keep at the same thing. One must do what works, not what fails. The thing is, you lot are misinterpreting the guidelines and policies, such as ], and ], to your own benefit. That's not wise. Regardless, if you'd like to write a blog, or write newspaper articles, please do go to some other place. ] — ] 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::: What are examples please? --] (]) 07:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::] does not mean guidelines and policies can be ignored wholesale, nor does ] mean that the majority rules in AfDs/RMs regardless of what policy says. As ] says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". In other words, just because a few people say "sources indicate notability" with nothing to back it up, that doesn't mean that policy or guidelines can be overridden. If people don't agree with the guidelines or the policies, they need to go rewrite those policies and guidelines. Until that's done, they can't ignore them. ] — ] 07:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: RG, I agree that IAU does not mean rules can be ignored wholesale. But you know what, policies *in general* don't have to be followed wholesale either. As it happens, I've been at the recent receiving end of a whole glut of unsuccessful AfDs and I'd rather they had been successful. I felt a bit put out and grumpy as a result of losing so many arguments. Now, though, I just carry on and hope that I can make constructive changes elsewhere. If your proposed ITN draft doesn't get accepted (and as it's a draft you won't permit amendments for, I think that's gone somewhat stale in any case), don't take it as a personal slight. Don't take this AfD as a personal slight either: as I said in the discussion over there, the London helicopter crash article was saved via an unsuccessful AfD and as such can be used as a precedent for similar events to have articles written and retained. This is how Misplaced Pages works - not through your rather brusque and belligerent attitude. I wanted to work with you on a basis of compromise only a few weeks ago: I'm not sure, reading your posts here and elsewhere, that you're able to meet other people half-way. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 10:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::First of all, I told you not to make another comment here. Do not do it again. Secondly, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. Misplaced Pages is not based on precedent. I will delete these articles. Now, if you please, get off my talk page. ] — ] 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: I tried advocating changes on ] without avail. One editor found changing the policy unnecessary. Okay, I'll ask another question: which situations, like an AFD or a requested move, follow what you describe? Was it ] or some AFD? --] (]) 07:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm not referring to any particular situation, nor am I advocating any changes. I'm only asking for the enforcement of the existing guidelines. They will be enforced, at some point. ] — ] 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Well, there are ] and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As for enforcing, there are banning, blocking, protection, and administration in ]. Oh... there is ]. --] (]) 21:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::: George, you have my full support in trying to find a middle ground with RG. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I believe I said something to you about making messages here. I don't do the wishy-washy middle. ] — ] 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Your ] nomination of ]==
	Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 19:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Cultural Marxism AfD for someone who isn't familiar with Misplaced Pages's process ===
	I noticed on the AfD page for Cultural Marxism you announced ''"A panel of three uninvolved administrators has been organised to close this discussion. These are: Spartaz, Huon, and Samwalton9. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"'' I was wondering what you could tell me about how these administrators were ''organised'' (as uninvolved administrators) and how you were informed about it - is it the case that these three just saw the article on ] and elected themselves (deciding for themselves that they were uninvolved), or was there a more formal process to it? I ask as I feel questions will be raised elsewhere on the net, and I want to understand the process before I defend it. --] (]) 02:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
	::It is common to request a panel for contentious closures. In this case, I made ]. The first three administrators that answered the request formed the panel. ] — ] 02:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thank you very much for this information, I'm glad to hear wikipedia has helpful participants like you contributing and helping others (specifically me) to understand these things better.--] (]) 03:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Question about Cultural Marxism and GamerGate ==
	These two topics are more than likely ones you never want to look at again for some time. But, noticing how you were the creator of ], I'm wondering if you can answer me this question. Now that Cultural Marxism is currently redirected to the ], does that mean the sanctions template would need to be added onto the talk page? And, seeing how there are talks about it not being directed to the right page to begin with, or being deleted was the right choice (different can of worms I know), would any future redirection dictate the sanctions template be placed on their talk page as well? ] 07:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
	::My personal opinion is that the sanctions do not apply to any of these articles. However, you'd need to ask at ] to see what administrators think. ] — ] 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Your ] nomination of ]==
	The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 17:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Happy New Year RGloucester! ==
	<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;{{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
	-->" class="plainlinks">]]
	{{Paragraph break}}
	{{Center|{{resize|179%|''''']!'''''}}}}
	'''RGloucester''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable ], and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
	<br /><br />
	{{Center|1=<small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.</small>}}
	</div>		</div>
			<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}}
	::{{ping|Iryna Harpy}} I wish you the same! Let's hope this year is better than the last one. ] — ] 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]
	== ''Malaysia Airlines Flight 17'' request for arbitration declined ==
	This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case|next|640470026|declined}} to be heard by the Committee. The arbitrators felt that they would rather see this issue brought to ] for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions which are ]. Please see the ] for further potential suggestions on moving forward.
	For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=640470178 -->
	== Help please ==
	You gave me the big warning about English player heights so are you the uninvolved administrator? If you are will you please give sanctions to Michael Glass for systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus and to PeeJay2K3 and Qed237 for edit-wars over such a change. They keep stressing me for trying to stick to the rules you warned me about. Or is this all a big joke on me? ] (]) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I believe the following link is worth reviewing:
	:Note the belligerent tone in this diff:
	:Also this link:
	:Ditto Speccy4eyes" edit history
	It appears that all but one of his edits on player height, except the first, have been reversed.
	:I have tried to be polite to Speccy4eyes at all times and I have never reverted one of his edits. Nevertheless, I note that he has targeted me by name in several edit summaries. Something funny is going on here. Speccy4eyes' behaviour is very reminiscent of DeFacto's sockpuppets, including the personal targeting. ] (]) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
	A penny for your thoughts Sir Richard! I'm afraid to edit any more on this as it seems that they they can change units and are always right where I can't and am always wrong. Why am I warned and they aren't and why isn't Mr Glass given sanctions? ] (]) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
	::My proper style is that of "grace", i.e. "Your Grace". Regardless, this is not a matter I can do anything about. If you have a complaint about an editor within the scope of the sanctions, please place it at ]. ] — ] 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 31 December 2014 ==
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-31}}
	</div><!--Volume 10, Issue -1-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=640656404 -->
	== Page moves ==
	Why are you moving all of the articles back? What do you mean by "finished event"? ]&nbsp;] 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Those pages are about the protests, i.e. finished events. Only the war is ongoing. ] — ] 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Okay. Thank you for the clarification. It looks like ] will need to be expanded by at least some amount. It currently does not appear to provide sufficient summaries of the events it goes over. Those are just my thoughts. ]&nbsp;] 21:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I agree with you. I'm trying to reorient the articles so that the chronology makes sense. The crisis article is a summary article, and the 2014 article is for the protests. That'll make life easier, I think. ] — ] 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Dustin V. S.|Iryna Harpy}} I think I've rationalised the structure of the articles appropriately. Have I missed anything? Do you think it makes more sense this way? ] — ] 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::The changes you've made so far make sense. Whatever has been missed (particularly splits still in need of development and those being developed even though there's OR being used to depict them as ongoing) will be picked up on quickly enough. I think focussing on the main articles is the best place to start. Trying to unravel everything simultaneously is an exercise in futility. --] (]) 03:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::RGloucester, the changes you have made so far appear to make sense. ] is now referenced with greater frequency and is still in need of expansion, including more in-depth summaries, but everything appears to be working out at the moment. We can work out any problems (if they arise) via talk page discussions in the future. I hope I did not complicate things with my many page moves yesterday (which for ''me'' was January 2). Thank you for going to the trouble of working with all of these page titles. ]&nbsp;] 04:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::On a side note, is "Ukrainian Crisis" ever used as a proper noun? Some users seem to disagree on whether to write it as "crisis" or "Crisis". ]&nbsp;] 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::In so far as grammatical accuracy, no 'Ukrainian Crisis' is not a proper noun (nor does its usage have anything to do with proper nouns like Thames Valley, Victorian Brewing Company, etc.). 'The Great War', for example, is not a proper noun. Regarding the latter, it has become a signifier for an historical period. Using 'Ukrainian Crisis' is merely mimicking this naming convention to designate events. In the context of significant coverage, it isn't really OR to use it for titles but, per MOS, it's tipping the scales. Certainly, for text in the body of articles, it should be depicted as Ukrainian crisis (or, more accurately and dependent on context, the crisis in Ukraine). --] (]) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I've put those in lowercase, to match the main article. My personal preference, no doubt, is for titles to be uppercased for aesthetic reasons, as has been done for centuries. That's what I was doing at the time I wrote the summary article. However, now being more familiar with the MoS's position on this matter, it is clear that it should be lowercased. ] — ] 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Understood. I'm 'old school' and tend to bypass such 'mistakes' when I proof articles (er, copyedit) simply because that's the convention for titles. Title should be titles... but this is Misplaced Pages. Compromises must be made despite ones abhorrence for Newspeak. --] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Of course. We may not be a print encylopaedia, but I do think it would help to pay a bit more attention to how sloppy and useless many of our article titles look. ] — ] 05:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::While the most widespread way of writing titles would involve it being written as "2013–15 Ukrainian Crisis", Misplaced Pages does have some of its own standards. At the same time, I notice that many sources appear to be using "Ukraine Crisis" to refer to the subject, with the "C" capitalized. Take "]". The war is referred to as such as that is the name given to the war. Otherwise, it would be "Korean war". I believe a similar situation ''may'' apply here at some point, but until there is enough widespread usage of "Ukraine Crisis" or "Ukrainian Crisis" to refer to the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis, we will have to follow Misplaced Pages's standard naming conventions. Sorry if I repeated much of what was said above. ]&nbsp;] 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::Yes, Dustin. I'm now well aware of what ] says on the subject. ] — ] 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	== you are skewing the writing up of the sources ==
	'Witnesses also said that separatist fighters abducted, tortured, and killed their neighbours.' - but this, and much else, is ignored in your version of the sources you cite. you are cherrypicking. - from the first paragraph - 'Ukrainian militia and separatist forces are responsible for war crimes, Amnesty International said today. The organisation accused Russia of fuelling separatist crimes as it revealed satellite images indicating a build-up of Russian armour and artillery in eastern Ukraine. ' - it s the very sources 'guilty' of 'geval' - please read your 3 sources carefully before knee-jerk reverting my edits at least. ] (]) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm not "cherrypicking". The separatist crimes are mentioned elsewhere, and all across the article. That paragraph is only supposed to be a summary of pro-Ukrainian battalion crimes. Playing this tit-for-tat game is ]. ] — ] 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	::The lead is the lead - and you are not using those sources scrupulously enough imo. ] (]) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I am using them "scrupulously". The lead is divided into paragraphs, to summarise the whole article. Each paragraph summarises a different aspect of the article. The pro-Ukrainian government crimes are in one paragraph, and the separatist crimes are in other paragraphs. There is nothing confusing about this. I know exactly what the sources say. They are referenced below, in the rest of the article. The lead is not the place for the body. It is a summary, an introduction. ] — ] 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: ' An Amnesty International investigation into allegations of execution-style and other deliberate killings by pro-Russian separatists and pro-Kyiv forces has found evidence of isolated incidents attributable to both sides, but not on the scale reported by Russian media and authorities.' - one gets absolutely no sense of this conclusion from your text however. it is skewed pov disemboweling of the sources. whether it is elsewhere is beside the point imo - you are not using the 3 sources scrupulously in this section . anyhow I agree to disagree. ] (]) 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::It doesn't need to be there, because it is mentioned elsewhere. That lead paragraph is only a summary for pro-Ukrainian government crimes. I don't see how this is hard to understanding. It is basic article writing. ] — ] 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Reading the lead only one would believe Amnesty International had criticized only one side - when the sources, sources you are citing and have provided, paint a very different picture. So you are misrepresenting - badly - the position of Amnesty in the lead ' I don't see how this is hard to understanding' - (sic). ] (]) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Read the paragraph prior. No one reading this paragraph would think that the separatists were pure as angels. ] — ] 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	== 2014 Policy Brutality Protests in the United States ==
	Hi. You mentioned that you moved ] to ] but I am not able to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::It isn't in the mainspace. It is still in your sandbox. Click the link you just linked. ] — ] 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ''The Signpost'': 07 January 2015 ==
			The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
	<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
			<blockquote>'''Orphaned and redundant to the ]'''</blockquote>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2015-01-07}}
	</div><!--Volume 11, Issue 0-->
	<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
	* ''']'''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (]) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	</div></div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=641384801 -->
			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	== AFD Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis ==
			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	Result of AFD on ] is consensus of keep/strong keep - OK to remove the AFD tag? ] (]) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::No. '''Delete'''. ] — ] 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 17:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
	== AfDs ==
			==Concern regarding ]==
			] Hello, RGloucester. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that ], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months ], so if you wish to retain the page, please ] again&#32;or ] that it be moved to your userspace.
			If the page has already been deleted, you can ] so you can continue working on it.
	Hey I just want to say that I have thought many times to get rid of stuff here on Misplaced Pages that just isn't needed or doesn't comply with policies, unfortunately when it comes to hot current events you are going to have lots of eyeballs on the pages involved. In short, I recommend you wait a week or so before you start an AfD for a current event unless you are sure the article would be deleted even if it were expended upon. I am saying this to you as all of these AfDs closing as snow keeps must be frustrating to watch. - ] (]) 23:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::It isn't frustrating. I'm well aware that people are content to revel in recentism. That's the way it is. It is the greatest disease of the digital age, and it will be quashed. ] — ] 01:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
	== Regarding ] change... ==
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
	...I believe that may have been a mistake considering that it occurred immediately after moving the page ''to'' the proper target. It is not particularly importance; I just thought I should point that out. ]&nbsp;] 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 17:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
	::You're right, Dustin. It seems that I'm actually the one that made the initial error with ] (not sure how I managed that). Fancy that. At least I've fixed it now. ] — ] 02:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21#2014 Ukraine crisis}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== 2013–2015 Ukrainian crisis ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
			== Always precious ==
	I have started an discussion on the ] talk page to discuss the move that we dealt with a couple of days ago. I'd love for you to participate in the spirit of cooperative editing. - ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">(])</span> 01:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			]
			Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 06:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Thank you for your memory of this great honour. I hardly feel worthy, but I will endeavour to be of whatever little value I can to this encyclopaedia in future. ] — ] 02:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 02:28, 13 August 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. RGloucester has not edited Misplaced Pages since 15 July 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

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.

Greetings from WikiProject:Ukraine

	Have a good day!
	Thank you very much for taking part in the project! I know you did a lot for the topic of Ukraine on English Misplaced Pages – please continue Your work is appreciated. -- Ата 12:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

I hope you're well and have a better 2021 than 2020. Got vaccine? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Lyon. I wish you well. I haven't had the best of years, but I expect we've all had our share of troubles. Unfortunately, vaccines are not availble to my age group yet, and problems with the Oxford vaccine may well mean I don't get one any time soon. I'm at a very low risk for catching the disease, let alone suffering from it, though, so it's not at all urgent. I figured I'd drop in here to see if I can do any good in my spare time, but I admit to being reluctant to allocate any more than a trivial amount of time to Misplaced Pages. I'm jaded, one could say. In any case, I do hope that your participation here is productive! Misplaced Pages's still quite valuable to readers, I reckon, even if it has become a quagmire for its contributors. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Quagmire is right. "Something is wrong on the Internet" as I tell my family late at night as I keep hacking at it. My wife and our siblings and Moms all got our two shots. My son managed to get to a first shot today, with a short drive from Sacramento to Davis. It's coming. I did have a work-related success lately, as you can see at this page. And other things are generally OK, though WFH is not that much fun. I actually bought some AZN stock, so not happy with the Oxford problems. You back in the UK? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And since you do near-native Japanese, you might want to know that my book has been translated: ヒトの耳 機械の耳 ―聴覚のモデル化から機械学習まで. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been ensconced in Edinburgh for some time now. I'm glad for your success. I too have had some luck...I had an article published just a month ago. If only I could be freed from the trappings of this plague, I might feel somewhat better about my place in the world! RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on getting article published. I have an article that was rejected without review by 7 journals in succession, before I managed to get it reviewed at PLOS ONE. They liked it, but needed some revisions, which I have now done. Hopefully they'll say OK this time. It's outside my usual space; see preprint of an earlier rejected version. Re Edinburgh, I went there in '81 right after getting married (yes, 40th anniversary coming up). Work I presented there inspired Peter B. Denyer to some of his work, and we became great friends. I even had the obligatory taste of haggis. But not since have I been there – or tasted that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello. It's been a bit more than a year since I threw my toys out of the pram for this article. I hope you forgive me - I was going through a pretty hard time in the background aside from being sensitive in general, which made me a bit overly aggressive and protective of what I deemed my property. I think I'm ready, after a recent return to WP, to take the article to GAN with your blessing. Roniius (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sensitive, ha! Ask anyone around here who's sensitive, and they'll probably say it's me. You have nothing to apologise for, and your work speaks for itself. For my part, perhaps I was a bit of a curmudgeon, and for that, I am sorry. I would be happy to see that article reach good article status, and I believe that it meets the criteria. If you need any help with copyediting or anything, let me know. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

An apology

Everyone's time is valuable and I know how emotional deletion discussions can get especially if your the nom. Anyway, I didn't intend for it to get out of control as it did. Sorry about that. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sasaki Tōichi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sasaki Tōichi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sasaki Tōichi

Hello! Your submission of Sasaki Tōichi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Rule H7 at DYK?

I was just wondering in light of this most recent review, what your thoughts were on rule H7 found in DYK's guidelines: Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Onepage? Unfortunately "hookiness" is a rather subjective concept left up to the interpretation of individual reviewers. It seems to me that this is where this conflict centers. It might be helpful to hear how you think reviewers should engage with this criteria. Perhaps we need some better clarification on how to tackle this criteria within the review process as a community. It occurs to me that the reviewing guide doesn't give much guidance on this point, and maybe some updated language within the review guide itself in order. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sasaki Tōichi

On 22 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sasaki Tōichi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that China expert Sasaki Tōichi was chastised for referring to Sun Yat-sen with the honorific sensei? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sasaki Tōichi), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:2014 Ukrainian revolution#Requested move 25 June 2021. Here is Misplaced Pages's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Misplaced Pages! Thank you very much! ——Serial 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that there is some kind of Buidhe cabal...very interesting how you all come out of the woodwork. It's quite funny you see fit to 'welcome' me to Misplaced Pages when I've been here for ten years. In any case, I get the message. I've been here long enough. When faced with this sort of cabal, the best thing to do is submit and recognise that Misplaced Pages is frankly, a miserable and disgusting place where cliques and activists reign supreme. A waste of time! RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies, I didn't realise you had been here a while. Even so, saying another editor is intent on causing trouble, and that they should be punished, is still—regardless of tenure—very much a WP:ASPERSION and an assumption of bad faith. All of which you'll know already, of course, because you've been here so long... ——Serial 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, what I've learnt after 10 years is that a spade must be called a spade. But, I will take my leave. I have better things to do than waste my time here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Russo-Ukrainian War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russo-Ukrainian War is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Renat 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Continually changing 'Americas' to 'America' without consensus

Hello RGloucester. Thank you very much for your comments, I am very sorry to hear that my contributions were not considered constructive, at no time did I try to undermine the integrity of the articles, nor is it my objective to change the Americas to America. My intention with the editions is: 1 to show both options exist and that both are valid, the most common being the plural form, 2 to show the option that “American” is primarily a citizen of the United States of America, in the language English and later an inhabitant of “The Americas” or “America”. This with the aim of showing different points of view (giving priority to the most common option) but avoiding presenting each one of them as the "truth". In each edition I tried to describe the edition I did and also attach hyperlinks showing the reference or reliable source that I was using, to give a justification to the edition, all of them being in English.

Merriam-webster Collins Dictionary Dictionary Cambridge Britannica Oxford Learners Dictionaries The Library of Congress (USA) Worlddata Info

Were these sources deemed unreliable? if that's the case, do you know why? The observation made to me was “Continually changing 'Americas' to 'America' without consensus ” Do you know how I can achieve that consensus (using both options)? Or do you know who / whom should I present the information to to achieve it?

I am fully available to present the information correctly so that my contributions are considered constructive.

Thank you very much and I am waiting for your answer.

Felipe Randolfo (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Felipe Randolfo

@Felipe Randolfo: Discuss the matter at Talk:America (disambiguation). If your point of view gains consensus, only then can you proceed to change articles. I warn you, however, that this is highly unlikely. The usage of 'American' to refer to anything other than a citizen of the United States of America in English is so incredibly rare as to be confusing, and unlikely to be understood by readers. This is the English Misplaced Pages, so we write in English. Carrying over Spanish-language conventions into English is not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Hello RGloucester.

Thank you very much for answering most of my questions, sorry I don't know if you had the opportunity to read or review the links I provided but none of them are in Spanish, all of them are links to encyclopedias or articles in English: • Merriam-webster • Collins Dictionary • Cambridge Dictionary • Britannica • Oxford Learners Dictionaries • The Library of Congress (USA) • Worlddata Info In each one of them it is shown that both options are valid for each one, the first being the most common: America (USA / Americas), American (USA / Americas), since these reliable sources show that both options are valid. Is it not possible that Misplaced Pages also accepts it? If what is sought in Misplaced Pages is to comply with the pillar of the "neutral point of view" All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all the views of the majority and significant minority.

Thank you very much and I am waiting for your answer.

Felipe Randolfo (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Felipe Randolfo

Dictionaries categorise all potential meanings of a term, even those that are obscure and not presently used. Merely because something is found in a dictionary does not mean that it is representative of what people actually use, or will be readily understood. On the contrary to your point, using 'American' to refer to the continent would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an obscure viewpoint that is not commonly held by English-speakers, and would likely be misunderstood. I think you can understand this type of disruption with an example. How would you like it if I went to the Spanish Misplaced Pages and began introducing 'Americano' in articles relating to people from the United States. By your logic, I could do this, because said definition is found in the dictionary of Royal Spanish Academy (see No. 4). I don't think you'd find that acceptable, and for the same reason, your changes here are not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Hello RGloucester.

The situation is: I do not want to change one thing for another, that would be totally incorrect, I mean that in the case of the continent both options can be shown, and in the case of the "demonym" it can be used for other things that are not exclusively related to USA putting as an example articles / topics already existing in wikipedia:

• Organization of American States, • American Convention on Human Rights, • American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, • Organization of Ibero-American States, • American Mediterranean Sea

I would also like to comment that although most of my references are from dictionaries, this is not the case with "Britannica" which is also an encyclopedia, "The Library of Congress" which is a library and "World data info" which is a database, these 3 reliable sources without problem show that both cases are acceptable and therefore do not belong to a minority or something unacceptable that seeks to legitimize.

And apart from you being an English-speaking person, I would also like to have the opportunity to review the reliable sources that you are using as support for your argument to have a better understanding of what you are commenting on.

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your response.

Felipe Randolfo (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Felipe Randolfo

An example of what you have done is this edit, which is flat-out unacceptable. No English-speaking reader would understand 'American poet' as meaning anything other than a poet from the United States. This is the sort of behaviour that you must stop. It is indeed true that 'American' can refer to the continent in English, but only in very specific contexts, which do not include use as a demonym for people from the Americas. If you don't have a grasp on what those contexts are then you should not be making these sorts of changes. As I said, it would be equivalent to me going to some Spanish Misplaced Pages article and changing estadounidense to americano, on the basis that Spanish dictionaries list 'US person' as one definition of americano. Sure, in theory, americano can mean 'US person' in Spanish, but that doesn't mean that my using it in any specific context will be correct or understood. You would agree that if I wrote that Allen Ginsberg was a 'poeta americano' on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, you'd likely revert my edit, would you not? This is a simple matter of comprehension. In any case, I would suggest that this sort of behaviour is generally unhelpful, and that you instead direct your attention to writing and improving articles. Editing Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT is not tolerated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop.

I'm writing a discussion. Bear with. DBD 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A discussion? After many years of repeatedly changing names to a non-existent style without consensus! Colour me shocked! RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wuhan Nationalist Government

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wuhan Nationalist Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Misplaced Pages page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Misplaced Pages pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ch (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wuhan Nationalist Government

A tag has been placed on Wuhan Nationalist Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

redirect from CORRECTLY capitalised title to article recently moved to correctly capitalized title, ie circular; sorry didnt know how to explain

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ch (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukraine government formation 2014 dec

Template:Ukraine government formation 2014 dec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukraine PM confirmation 2014

Template:Ukraine PM confirmation 2014 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Timeframe and scope of Revolution of Dignity

Continuing our discussion on Talk:Revolution of Dignity. I want to rewrite the article 2014 Ukrainian revolution, because I agree with you that the broader scope is more appropriate. Revolution of Dignity took place from November 2013 till February 2014 and not only in February. Can you help me with this? I have already a list of RS for this, but probably you have more. And also English is not my native language. The article should not become fork of the article about Euromaidan movement, but focus on the revolution itself. And after the article is rewritten in the new broader scope, then of course we can rename it back to Revolution of Dignity or to 2013-2014 Ukrainian revolution whatever is dominated in the RS. Delasse (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Delasse: I support your proposal, but sadly, I have suffered an injury to my arm that necessitates an avoidance of computer work for some time, so I cannot be of immediate assistance. I apologise for the inconvenience. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester Thank you for your support. Get better soon! There is no rush, this topic was not touched so much from 2014, it can wait several moths more. I wish you a full recovery, Misplaced Pages and we need you :) Delasse (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion re:EEng

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

The clarification request you filed has been closed and archived - you can view the permalink to see the outcome. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

For your rational even-handedness on the articles concerning the Ukraine conflict. Nationalists on articles concerning all things eastern Europe can be quite taxing. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Republic of China National Assembly elections has been nominated for renaming

Category:Republic of China National Assembly elections has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine

Re , any misrepresentation on my part was due to operator error and was unintentional. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, don't worry about it. And thank you for your level-headed approach to this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I do what I can. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Donbas

Hello. You reverted a change because "Sorry, this is chronologically inaccurate. Crimea happened before Donbas, and Russian troops were already present on Ukrainian soil long before the DPR was proclaimed!". The issue is that I never mentioned Crimea, nor did the passage I was editing, and never implied anything about Crimea. Russian troops may have been present on Ukrainian soil, but according to Russia were either not their people or there of their own volition. In either case, all I said was that Russian military forces were ordered in, which is true. I think your reversion of my edit should itself be reverted. Vrrtigo (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The implication of your text was that the war began after the republics were declared. This is not the case. It began with the annexation of Crimea. Hence, your text was inaccurate. I've tried to address your concerns with the existing text, which was admittedly in a sorry state. RGloucester — ☎ 04:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no state of war between Russia and Ukraine until February 24th 2022. There was civil war since 2014 in Donbas, supported by Russia, and Russia annexed Crimea in a surprise attack unopposed by Ukraine. There was condemnation, but no war between Russia and Ukraine. We need to be accurate.Vrrtigo (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a load of codswallop. Take a walk over to Russo-Ukrainian War, the article you yourself linked. Read the start date, and what it says. If you are referring to an official 'declaration of war', in the first place, such things don't matter (what WP:RS say does), and in the second place, one hasn't been issued even now (despite media proclamations to the contrary, see this article for more information), with Russian troops bearing down on Kyiv. In any case, discussions about article content ought take place at the relevant article's talk page, not here. If you have further concerns, please express them there. RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, arbitary lines in the sand, and I feel like you are protecting turf. Vrrtigo (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to give such WP:ASPERSIONS the luxury of a response. If you have a problem with the sources cited at any of these articles, or some other problem with article content, the article talk pages are the places to raise it. Good day. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation

I made my first ever post on here commenting on an article name and was attacked and accused of all sorts of things by some probably self-interested party. I appreciate the academic explanation you provided in response to my argument. 67.245.186.65 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. I understand that your concerns were legitimate. Misplaced Pages works in strange ways, and it takes some time to get used to them. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Modi ministry

Template:Modi ministry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Different disambiguation pages for Ukrainian crisis

Hello, RGloucester! I am asking you as an experienced editor in this topic. Why are there different disambiguation pages Ukrainian crisis, Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) and Ukrainian political crisis? Do I understand correctly that for each term we needs to create a separate disambiguation page and not to rely on the output of the wikipedia search engine? And why Ukrainian crisis and Ukrainian political crisis does not have the (disambiguation) qualifier in the title, but Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) has? Sorry for maybe stupid questions, I do not fully understand why it is done this way and not otherwise. --Olchug (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for asking. The reason we have separate disambiguation pages for each specific term is because each one can refer to different things. 'Ukrainian crisis' can refer to a number of different events, and so can 'Russo-Ukrainian crisis' and 'Ukrainian political crisis'. As for why some have no 'disambiguation' in brackets, please see the WP:DAB guideline, which explains this. To put it simply, in cases where there is a primary topic redirect to some article, the bracketed 'disambiguation' is used for the disambiguation page. For example, you will note that Russo-Ukrainian crisis presently redirects to Russo-Ukrainian War. I don't know how legitimate this primary topic redirect is, but that's how things are arranged at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So far, I have two thoughts. First: various events in the sources are called the 'Ukrainian crisis'. Some of them were intra-Ukrainian crises (i. e. internal Ukrainian crises listed on Ukrainian political crisis), and some were Russo-Ukrainian crises (listed on Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation)). And Ukrainian crisis should just be a combination, a union of Ukrainian political crisis and Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation). Second: I believe that there is a primary topic for 'Ukrainian political crisis' and this is the 2013-2014 events. Since all other crises were either not so significant, or were not only internal Ukrainian, but were Russo-Ukrainian. So I want to suggest moving page Ukrainian political crisis to Ukrainian political crisis (disambiguation), and redirecting 'Ukrainian political crisis' to Euromaidan (which isn't even linked on the disambiguation page right now!) or Revolution of Dignity. What do you think about it? Before opening discussions, I want to consult with you whether my proposals have any perspective. --Olchug (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really agree with your proposal. On Misplaced Pages, we only list articles on a disambiguation page if reliable sources are attested as referring to a particular event specifically by that name. Additionally, we must have an article on the subject being listed. I have never heard of the Euromaidan specifically referred to as 'Ukrainian political crisis' in English, and this sounds frighteningly similar to the Russian portrayal of events. I am aware that the Russian Misplaced Pages page refers to them as such, but this simply isn't how English RS refer to the events. However, if you want to make a proposal, do so by opening a requested move discussion at Talk:Ukrainian political crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is a weird one, it combines under one title both the Revolution of Dignity and the initial stage of the Russo-Ukrainian war, namely the pro-Russian unrest of 2014. Although Russian is my native language, I don’t understand what that article is about :-) --Olchug (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for being the top contributor to an article related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Alternative names of the Russo-Georgian War

Hello, RGloucester! I noticed you have undone my edit where I shifted the alternative names of the war from a footnote to the first line, citing the policy WP:LEADALT. However, this only mentions considering usage of a footnote in the event of foreign names, so I cannot understand your disagreement with my edit. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Where there are more than one or two alternative names, as in the case of this article, the guidance specifies the usage of a separate section of some kind, to avoid cluttering the first sentence of the article. Footnoting is one commonly-used method of creating this 'separate section'. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see it now, thank you!

By the way, I'm curious about something else, if I may ask you: I've just noticed you have indented your reply twice instead of just once. I have seen users do this, but I do not understand the reason. Why did you do this? Doesn't talk page policy say we should indent just one level more than the comment to which we reply? LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

War in Donbas

I realize you've been working on Ukraine for a while, so seriously: where else were there pro-Russian protests besides Donbas and Crimea? If the statement is accurate I don't care about the cite. Your point about the lede is well taken and thank you for enforcing it. I assumed, based on stuff that is probably irrelevant in this context. I still think it's kind of synth, but my real concern is whether it is accurate, and if it is I don't care enough to argue about synth. So ok, you probably do know better than I, but when you get a chance could you please share an example or two to reassure me about that? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which has detailed, referenced information about the protests. The most significant ones outside of Crimea and Donbas were in Kharkiv and Odessa, but there were also protests in other oblasts. Please note, pro-Euromaidan protests were held concurrently. These are also documented in that article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the answer; I will do that. I agree that Odessa, while close to Crimea, is not in it, and the same is true of Kharkiv and Donbas, which may also be further apart. I actually have read that article a couple of times but was working on something different at the time. I will read it again for this context Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

getting back to this: I am currently quite preoccupied with other things, but I have gotten deep enough into this to note that Odessa is actually quite far from the Crimea, my mistake on that. Also, while I have not yet had a chance to re-examine the 2014 pro-Russian protests article in the detail that I apparently should, the map there definitely indicates that those protests were more widespread than I had previously noted, so thank you for the civil reply, which is unusual in this topic area. Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian crisis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian crisis is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to move Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation to Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement

I note you had participated in the discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine move and/or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian Wars. There is currently a currently a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation where your input may be valuable. Kind regards.79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.png

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British cabinet templates

A tag has been placed on Category:British cabinet templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz 21:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RGloucester,

It looks like you didn't receive CSD notifications but several of the UK cabinet template categories you created have been marked for CSD C1 speedy deletion as empty categories. I guess whatever templates they held were deleted recently. Liz 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic

The article People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Misplaced Pages:Notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello RGloucester: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Proposed deletion of File:Flag of the DPR.jpg

The file File:Flag of the DPR.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned and redundant to the svg realisation on Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Felix QW (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis

Hello, RGloucester. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberalism task force

Template:Liberalism task force has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gamergate sanctions

Template:Gamergate sanctions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gs/Ecig notification

Template:Gs/Ecig notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gs/GrG notification

Template:Gs/GrG notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gs/PW notification

Template:Gs/PW notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gs/UKU notification

Template:Gs/UKU notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"2014 Ukraine crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2014 Ukraine crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 2014 Ukraine crisis until a consensus is reached. Yorkporter (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your memory of this great honour. I hardly feel worthy, but I will endeavour to be of whatever little value I can to this encyclopaedia in future. RGloucester — ☎ 02:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories:

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
• Wikipedians who opt out of template messages