Misplaced Pages

User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:33, 22 January 2015 editSimon Adler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,016 edits →Need to be blocked: Excellent← Previous edit Revision as of 04:35, 22 January 2015 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Need to be blocked: addNext edit →
Line 152: Line 152:
::The dispute wasn't about anything substantial other than prose. The first battle was in May, long before the ]. Whatever. I'm getting back to working on drawing up a map for this idiotic battle. If someone feels like writing an article on cyborgs, please do. I'd love to help. ] — ] 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) ::The dispute wasn't about anything substantial other than prose. The first battle was in May, long before the ]. Whatever. I'm getting back to working on drawing up a map for this idiotic battle. If someone feels like writing an article on cyborgs, please do. I'd love to help. ] — ] 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:::A big '''Resolved''' tick is in order then. The cyborg article sounds interesting. Commented and left an additional BBC link on your talk earlier today. Would like to help. Regards ] (]) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC) :::A big '''Resolved''' tick is in order then. The cyborg article sounds interesting. Commented and left an additional BBC link on your talk earlier today. Would like to help. Regards ] (]) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I'd direct you to ]. I haven't started yet, but I plan on getting something going. ] — ] 04:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:35, 22 January 2015

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.
A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

What is the best way to report "link hijacking" edits?

Hello HJ. What is the best way to report to an Administrator of subtle edits in which legitimate links are being re-routed through question servers?

In all of these cases, the original links still works fine. Not sure why the links are being diverted since they eventually gets forwarded to the original links. Does spyware or other harmful programs gets installed during the link hijacking process? The questionable edits do get detected and removed; however, the questionable edits eventually returns, sometimes from a different IP address.

Should the *.com-news.us and *.edu-univ.us domains be blacklisted since all servers at these domains point to the same server and nothing notable appears to be located on this server?

*.edu-news.us points to a different questionable server.

Who do you think is the best set of Administrators that could use this piece of information to help Misplaced Pages get rid of these questionable linking practices? I am just a lowly (and occasional) IP editor who is not familiar with what things that a WP Admin is able to do. Thanks. 107.19.72.102 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. That led down some very interesting rabbit holes. None of the spamming appears to be very recent (the most recent I found was from the end of December), and we're only dealing with about half a dozen edits. I've put two of the articles on pending changes (meaning edits from unregistered editors or brand new accounts will need to be checked before they go 'live' for readers). If the links go to the same place as the original, I suspect it's some sort of traffic measuring, which probably means some shady PR firm is behind it. If it becomes a more serious problem, we can look at blacklisting the domains or setting up a filter, but I'm not sure there's enough yet to justify either. Please do let e know if you see any more of this—the quicker the better—and I'll do what I can to stamp on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback. I agree with you that it is still too early to do anything preemptively yet, but I thought it is best to bring this strange activity to someone with a little more power since this is only what I have detected and this type of activity is extremely easy to go unnoticed (unlike the infamous and infantile "Cheeseburger Guy" you had to block last month). There are probably other hijacked links, but there is no way for us to detect them except by accident.
Just to let you know, when I first investigate (a month ago) the link to www.bloomberg.com-news.us, I was initially sent to some overseas pirate software site, but it has not happened since. So guess is that the editor is experimenting with some server set-up, but it is too early to tell what is this person's motivation, but it is not just simple infantile vandalism or even self-promotion.
  • Only 69.172.211.99 was associated with the *.edu-univ.us diversions.
Just discovered that the *.edu-news.us diversions is probably just unrelated ordinary vandalism that was probably performed by a single person during a single 22 hour period via 95.37.95.219. (You might want to consider correcting your edit to better reflect the original edit before the vandalism .) I just stumble upon this by pure chance.
I hope that this information might be useful to you and other in the event similar cases are later discovered. 107.19.72.102 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A tad bit of aid.

I don't want to come across as "partisan", as the fellow I'm about to ask about accuses me of, however, I noticed whilst browsing the newly created log for all discretionary sanctions that you "warned" JzG recently not to "bring up his administrator status during a content dispute". For the past few days, since he restored content unilaterally that was deleted by AfD (an action I took issue with), he has been hounding me with threats of "blocks". He opened a frivolous AN thread, which you may have caught. Finally, he's just done what you formally told him not to do. I'm getting tired of it. Yes, I will admit that I told him yesterday that I thought he should lose his tools for his flouting of policies. You know that I'm not a coolheaded person, but I genuinely believe what I wrote. However, I don't want to go into the details of this absurd dispute if I don't have to. I'm sure you are aware, even if only vaguely, of what has been going on with the "Cultural Marxism" article. Regardless of the business with that article, I'm just astonished that this fellow was able to unilaterally restore the article sans a deletion review, and that no one cares, despite the deletion policy. I'm also astonished that he is now allowed to actively engage in the content dispute, and claim that his opinion is worth more than other editors, as he did when he undeleted the article, saying that it was "notable" despite the deletion discussion result. Now he is trying to use his imaginary "rank" to badger me and "remove" an obstacle. I'm not surprised. RGloucester — ☎ 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi RG, just noting that I've seen this but I seem to have an awful lot of rabbits running in different directions at the moment. I'll look into it tomorrow (well, later today; ugh, bedtime!) hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'm grateful for your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP violator is back

Hello! I'd like to notify you that User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (also editing logged out under the IP 213.114.147.52), whose 2-weeks block instated by you for ongoing BLP violations/unverified edits/ethnic warring expired yesterday, resumed adding unsourced information to BLPs: 109.160.25.35 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've indef'd him and temporarily blocked his IP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WilliamTillman35

Hey H, WilliamTillman35 seems like a duck of WTillman29? I've done zero due diligence, but on the name, it probably warrants an eyeball. Love, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I look through the edit history, I notice this edit where the user attempts to suppose what's going to air in September 2015, which was the impetus for my AIV report that you responded to. Same goes for this prediction, which occurs after my reversion of the WTillman29 troll. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've indef'd the pair of 'em. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments

Who do you think is going to replace the "entrenched editors" when it is clearly demonstrated that anyone who dares to challenge the Gamergate POV will be attacked, doxxed, harassed and smeared by an off-wiki mob, and will then get a topic ban for their troubles after said anonymous mob crowdsources "evidence" against them? Who is going to step forward in this climate when even arbitrators are not safe? Anyway, quite frankly, if I'm topic-banned here I have no further interest in contributing to this project as it will be clearly demonstrated how valued editors who risk their personal safety and sanity to protect living people from organized character-assassination campaigns are: Not at all. Good luck with this mess, and I bet you'll be singing a different tune when 8chan goes after you. It'll happen, just you wait. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken on worse than these loonies and lived to tell the tale (observe the number of revisions to this page that have been deleted or oversighted, for example). I know it's unpleasant, but loonies are sort of my stock in trade as an admin—that's how I came to this mess in the first place—and I guess I've built up a thick skin over the years, and I have good mechanisms for blowing off steam when I feel my sanity is in danger.

I actually think you're one of the least worst offenders in all of this. You handled things less than ideally, but you didn't get into silly feuds or create massive timesinks on noticeboards, and you've certainly done a lot of good work in upholding BLP. It would be nice if there were such a thing as a "non-punitive topic ban", because I think you've had whatever dragging over the coals you deserved already; the issue is that for as long as you and Ryulong and Tutelary and TDA and a few others are active in the topic area, the focus is going to be on you and your actions and not on where the article goes from here, which is only going to preserve the acrimonious atmosphere. It needs fresh eyes. I don't think we've had any significant interactions before GamerGate, so it seems entirely possible to me that you've just spent too much time gazing into the abyss rather than that you are a 'bad editor'. I think it would be in everybody's best interests if you went back to writing about Alaskan wildernesses and agreed to voluntarily separate yourself from GamerGate.

Other people will step in to see that the topic area doesn't become a trollfest—I know it doesn't seem like it, but look at, say, Scientology or Israel-Palestine; once ArbCom has cleared the decks, other editors have stepped up. We'll also have discretionary sanctions, rigorous methods for dealing with SPAs, and better enforcement mechanisms (AE is much better watched and he procedures clearer and longer-established than GS/GG/E). While I wouldn't bet anything I'd care to lose that there won't be further disruption after the case, I do envisage it being dealt with more swiftly and more robustly—as I'm sure you've seen, I've been stamping on disruptive editors (on both sides) since I first got involved in this mess, and we're likely to get more admins being equally robust once the case closes (not least because the dozen or so admin parties will have the cloud of vexatious accusations lifted). Look after yourself—and I mean that sincerely, I know what you've been subjected to, and just because I'm hardened to it doesn't mean I'm blind to the toll it takes on people's wellbeing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're too late to make that statement, Harry. The attacks on GorillaWarfare are Exhibit A of what will only be even more to come, against you and everyone else remotely involved. This is not some ordinary difficult topic area, Harry — this is a topic area saturated by vicious, dedicated trolls looking for any sign that their harassment campaign works, and the minute ArbCom tells them it worked, they will go right back at it with the next five editors. I have no interest in going "back to writing about Alaskan wildernesses" for a project that punishes dedicated, long-term encyclopedia editors for standing up against character-assassination campaigns. I'm not asking for a gold watch and a pension or even a simple "thank you" for holding off a horrendous smear campaign — I'm just asking for my scalp not to be handed over to 8chan and KiA. But you apparently think that's the right thing to do, so whatever. As I said, good luck and keep law enforcement contact info handy for when they come after you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The off-site coordination is a significant complicating factor, yes, but there are plenty of trolls in the geo-political battlegrounds who are just as nasty (and one or two who are probably even nastier) and even more determined—some of them have been at this for nearly a decade and show no signs of stopping. I don't want to see you punished. I do think it would be best for you and best for Misplaced Pages if you voluntarily walked away from the topic area at least for a while until your rediscover what it was you liked about this place. Can you imagine, for example, how big a target would be painted on your back if you were the lone survivor of the entrenched editors there? All the discussion—on Misplaced Pages and off—would be about you and none of it would be about the content of the article. I know I wasn't about when all this blew up and you got the thin end of the wedge. I'm sorry about that. Had I known what was going on, I'd have stamped on the abuse as hard as I could (as I've been doing since I entered the fray). I know it's very hard to see any of this as a 'good thing', but walking away from GamerGate voluntarily wouldn't be a scalp to your harassers (nor would a topic ban in my opinion, when you're about the only major party for whom there isn't a siteban proposed), and other editors will step up to stem the tide of effluent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocks n things

Hey HJ! Thanks for speaking up at my talk page. I'm generally trying to keep it relatively open for discussion, even among IPs/new accounts/etc.—I'd rather end up accidentally humoring a sock for a bit than blocking/reverting someone trying to discuss things legitimately. That said, the extra hand is much appreciated when it comes to obvious socks and all that. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Molly. That's your prerogative. I don't make a habit of policing other people's talk pages, but there's far too much mud-slinging going on wrt GamerGate and it's taking (or perhaps it has already taken?) its toll on people who may or may not have something to answer for but who don't deserve the flak they're taking, including you. See the section above, for example. And not to put too fine a point on it, but that pisses me right off. Oh, and wrt this edit summary, no I'm not certain in the sense that I could pin it to a specific editor. Feel free to reinstate the comment and unblock the IP if you want. I'll eat my hat if it's not a sock, but as you say sometimes there's no harm in humouring them. (Oh, and I meant to link to WP:SCRUTINY but ... too many shortcuts!). All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I do appreciate your help with the mudslinging, both for me and others. I shouldn't get involved with the block decision on that IP, considering it was posting about me, but will un-un-unrevert the comments for transparency's sake. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the deal

Before I continue, can I be frank, or should I beat around the bush? --DSA510 Pls No AndN 06:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.00.
Make improvement of the entire encyclopedia your first priority at all times, and be sincere and devoted to that goal. Check your own assumptions several times first. Then, be frank, but not a jerk. You will get a good response. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@DungeonSiegeAddict510: What Cullen said! Remarkably well-put, actually. There's no need to beat around the bush on this page—brevity is the soul of wit and all that—just think about the sort of response you're looking for before you hit save. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I don't remember making this. Eh, while I'm here, read the thing on my talkpage. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 17:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wager that I was going to say something along the lines of: "you're all really stupid for not just deleting the article until 2016". I think. I still stand by that statement. But nobody ever listens to the madman. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Were it solely up to me, it would be deleted and salted until 2020. Or maybe 2050! But nobody listens to me, either! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey! I gave myself time like you said, about 3 months to be more precise, and dropped in a request for Rollback again after getting my feet wet with pending changes reviewer. Think you can take a look here? RegistryKey 12:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've responded, but I don't think it was the response you were looking for. Sorry, I could have overlooked that edit-warring report had it been less recent, but not when it came within hours of your rollback request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP who reported Aethiopia was a sock of Til Eulenspiegel

71.246.148.163 (talk · contribs) is Til Eulenspiegel, who has been socking since he was blocked. I'd given up on the range contribution tools until today, when I checked his range again and found him. The range has been blocked. You might want to seee . Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I suspected there was something fishy going on, but I was just clearing an RfPP backlog and didn't have time to look into it much further. I've unprotected the article. The range contribs tool can be temperamental; sometimes asking for only a small number of results (like 10 or 20 isntead of the maximum 30) gets a better response and if I need more, manually changing the URL usually works. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Good tips, thanks. The contributions tool has just been discussed at. I'm sure he'll be back on another of the ranges he uses. This is typical Til. I like seeing it on his talk page, shows what sort of editor he is. Do you remember his all caps rant about DBachmann and me that would have had him blocked had he not 'retired'? Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Til is very devoted to the religious principles of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and, unfortunately, some of them are, well, kind of unusual, like believing that the bastard son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba was given the Ark of the Covenant when he left Jerusalem, and brought it to Ethiopia, where his descendants (more or less) are counted by at least themselves as a bit of a privileged people, a lot like the people of Israel saw themselves. The racial divisions between some of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia today are pretty extreme and intense, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the background, John. Luke (et al), I always find it slightly amusing and slightly sad that most editors manage to get along with each other just fine, or at least manage to avoid people they dislike as afar as possible, but that when somebody ends up blocked because they can't play nicely with others, it's never becuause of a problem with their conduct—there's always a conspiracy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • John, Luke, all we need is a Matthew and a Mark. Unless Harry and Ben want to write new gospels? :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock assist

Hey H, could you please take a gander at this sock report? Somehow this guy is still editing freely. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ seems busy but I'm an SPI Clerk in addition to being a (talk page stalker) so I took case of that case for you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why semi-protection move protection?

of Arbcom Motions page ? NE Ent 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) corrected NE Ent 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to be blocked

I need to be blocked, again. I'm about to engage in edit-warring, because an editor insists on destroying prose that I spent hours cleaning up. Therefore, I prefer an instantaneous block, rather than a 3RR report. That's too much burden on him. My next revert will break 3RR, so please be prepared. RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor he is talking about that was about to report him for a 3RR violation is me. And he just committed his fourth revert. I am also obliged to note he has threatened to continue reverting after he is unblocked. EkoGraf (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You do not need to be blocked. You need to just stop editing the airport battle article for a few days. I am sure User:EkoGraf would be amenable to a hold for a few days. The article belongs to us all. Nothing terrible will happen. I am sure you have many other areas of interest that you can edit which will cause you less stress. Please take these comments of mine in the spirit in which they are intended, an attempt to reach out to a colleague who is perhaps under some stress at the moment. I have suffered from this curse too. With kind regards Irondome (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Irondome I tried talking to him and find compromise wording, but when he says that whatever I do he will revert me even if he is blocked and when he is unblocked he will continue reverting until he is blocked again just so he could get it his way I don't see a lot of space for a compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be willing to act as a bridge if both parties would be amenable to that, even though I have some real-life worries myself at the moment. I have been following the debate, and I have no POV whatsoever on the subject. I am also relatively competent. If not, that is fine. Regards to all. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Irondome I would appreciate it really and be thankful if you could find a way to resolve the issue. My only request is that the bolded title of the article and the battle be shown in the first sentence of the article as we do with all of our battle articles. Nothing else. User:HJ Mitchell usually I would agree with you that sleep may make things easier, but I already had experience with RGloucester in the past and he was never in a compromising mood, and wouldn't hesitate to revert as much as he want without fear of getting blocked and even asked for it. Guess that's why he has already been blocked 3 or 4 times in the last few months. EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, my first block, the only one until last week, was caused by your same tendency toward meat grinder-cadenced English. The second one was farcical, and the third was self-requested. However, if you want to block me "three or four" times for fun, feel free, Eko. There is nothing to compromise on. WP:BOLDTITLE is clear, and it isn't in the interest of anyone to use meat grinder-cadenced English. If you have a better idea, feel free to pose it on the talk page (as I asked you to do before we even started this charade). RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I suggest we meet at the relevant talk page at 9pm GMT today for preliminary discussions and to find a way through. If RG does not wish to participate, then obviously I can do no more. If User:RGloucester is amenable, then maybe we can achieve our common goal, to improve the encylopedia. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:IrondomeUser:HJ Mitchell His statement There is nothing to compromise on says it all. User:RGloucester you again look at one rule of WP:BOLDTITLE while ignoring the first two and pretending they don't exist. Also, Misplaced Pages is not your private encyclopedia that you revert anybody who disagrees with you. And your calls for talks I have learned are empty. You call for talk but when a person tries to compromise you simply say My way or I revert. PS Forgot to mention his removal of sources. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't "remove any sources". I remove a citation per WP:LEADCITE. The first two bits of WP:BOLDTITLE don't apply, which I've explained. I do not say "my way or revert". You simply haven't proposed a better way, nor have you discussed it on the talk page. We wouldn't be here at all if you'd followed usual WP:BRD procedure, and simply taken it to the talk page, as I asked you do to repeatedly. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So will all meet at 9 tonight to resolve this on the talk page? If I get a clear refusal, of course I shall desist. That is all I can say. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:RGloucester You removed a source that was agreed to in a previous discussion between three editors which is in violation of that established agreement. You simply haven't proposed a better way, nor have you discussed it on the talk page. Untrue, I have been discussing it with you all night and even re-arranged the text of the paragraph to try and compromise but you didn't like it again. And since we are on the subject, I didn't notice you proposing a better way except for always calling me a destroyer of prose and reverting each time. Since we are at it. Here's your chance. Make a proposition for a better way. I'm waiting. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Irondome I appreciate your offer and like I said I would want to take it, but RG obviously said there is no compromise. PS 9pm doesn't work for me because I'm going to bed soon, its already 4 am where I am now, and am not feeling to well ether, got a cold for the last week. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know of any "established agreement", but I do know that "three editors" does not make consensus. You discussed it on my talk page, not on the article's talk page, excluding other editors. I don't see a better way. All I see is that we must follow the MoS, and that the MoS makes clear that this is the best way to write it. You've not provided any substantial sources to justify your claim that "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" is either formal or widely-used. Regardless, content discussions should be done on the talk page (like I asked you to), so that editors can discuss with other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:RGloucester It does make a consensus on a compromise when it was a dispute and discussion between the three of us and we reached a 3 out of 3 agreement. Even if you were included 3 vs 1 is again per WP policy enough for a consensus and we don't need your sole approval. Your main issue here seems to be that you don't like the title of the article and I already told you that you can request a name change per proper procedure, which you ignored. And once again, you ignored my request for what you termed a better way and disregarded the first two rules of BOLDTITLE. I ask again, what is your better way? EkoGraf (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The title is fine, but it is WP:NDESC, not a proper name. The first two "rules" don't apply. It isn't a formal or widely-used name. You've not demonstrated that it is, because you can't. RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:RGloucester Even if it was not a formal or widely-used name, which I don't agree since we got a source (demonstration) that you removed, that does not negate the second rule. The second rule says that if it is not a formal or widely-used name to include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. So in what way does rule number 2 not apply? EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it isn't easily accommodated in the sentence without redundancy, and causing a crappy sounding sentence, which is also part of the guideline that you should read (note the "Mississippi River floods" example). One source does not demonstrate "wide-usage" or "formality", and that one source called it the "so-called second battle of Donetsk airport". I don't know if your English is good enough to tell you what "so-called" means, but it means that author thinks it shouldn't actually be called that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Because it isn't easily accommodated in the sentence without redundancy And what is the redundancy in this case? PS I don't know if your English is good enough to tell you what "so-called" means I know what it means and there is no need to be condescending. EkoGraf (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Writing "The Second Battle of Donetsk Airport was a battle over Donetsk International Airport in Ukraine during the war in Donbass that broke out in September 2014" is dumb. When the title is a description, merely write it in prose, rather than trying to repeat oneself and work one's way around the description. That's what BOLDTITLE says. There was nothing "condescending" about it. If you know what it means, you'll know why it is not a good source for claiming that "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" is "formal" and "widely-used", especially when it is the only source you have. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:RGloucester That's not the sentence I put. And when you write it like that it really is dumb. What I wrote (in combination with some of your language as well) is "The Second Battle of Donetsk Airport started on 28 September 2014, as part of the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine between separatist insurgents affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the forces of the Ukrainian government. This battle followed an earlier one over control of the Donetsk International Airport in May 2014, which left it in Ukrainian hands." If we would only change the second sentence to maybe "This battle followed an earlier one in May 2014, which left the complex in Ukrainian hands." I am than not seeing any redundancy. Are you? EkoGraf (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing meat grinder-cadenced English that doesn't link to the airport. How about this?

Fighting between separatist insurgents affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Ukrainian government forces broke out at Donetsk International Airport on 28 September 2014, sparking the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, a part of the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine. This followed an earlier battle over control of the airport in May 2014, which left it in Ukrainian hands.

I believe this is a generous compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Its perfect. EkoGraf (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am comfortable with 9pm Friday evening. Talk page. An uninvolved editor volunteering to find common ground may help. I suspect all editors involved are deep in their trenches (I do nor include User:EkoGraf or User:RGloucester in that) An editor who has no opinion on the subject may help. I would like to hear from User:RGloucester on this. I believe the issue is quite straightforward and can be resolved. If I am rebuffed by RG, then very well. Even a piss off Irondome will do at the moment. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Irondome That would be good, I appreciate it, we will see how the situation develops until than. EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That was one of the other things that annoyed me. You changed one of my "then"s to "than". "Then" is for time. "Than" is for comparisons. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And I really don't care. Not obliged to speak perfect english when talking to you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. However, you are obliged to write proper English when you produce articles, which was what I was referring to. RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this hinges upon the short lived cease fire which came into effect earlier last year. This would appear to be the differentiation of the "first" and "second" battle. If we can find RS which support that there was in fact a cessation of hostilities for an appreciable length of time then we may be getting somewhere. Just initial thoughts. The ceasefire does not appear to be mentioned in the article. This may be grounds for further investigation and may change the direction of the argument. This whole dispute may be resolved if we investigate this line further. Initial impressions. Do we have consensus that the ceasefire was the hinge that dictated the line that there were in fact 2 battles? My last word for tonight. A charred dinner awaits me and a few hours sleep. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The dispute wasn't about anything substantial other than prose. The first battle was in May, long before the Minsk Protocol. Whatever. I'm getting back to working on drawing up a map for this idiotic battle. If someone feels like writing an article on cyborgs, please do. I'd love to help. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A big Resolved tick is in order then. The cyborg article sounds interesting. Commented and left an additional BBC link on your talk earlier today. Would like to help. Regards Irondome (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd direct you to Draft:Cyborg (War in Donbass). I haven't started yet, but I plan on getting something going. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)