User talk:RGloucester/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Mediation?

I see you’re a socially-conforming person who know how obtain the favour of a superior. It’s not so bad currently. Rather than to blame me for my (perceived) faults, you could try to mediate (with Dennis) the end of the conflict. After his “amendment” the fate of the infamous “short-lived country merger” discussion is not particularly important (the article even may be eventually restored in spite of Dennis’ opinion, after a year or so). But I insist on a severe admonishment to Dpmuk in exchange of a possibility for Dennis to save his face. It is my primary condition. I do not know how admins decide who is an alpha and who may be slaughtered (if necessary), and I do not want to learn it, but you can. When sysopped boys/girls will see that they aren’t protected by the tribe in the case of a costly mistake, they will be more reluctant to attack users on the first call of a brass hat next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

On the second thought, I do not know who namely makes serious decisions here (except Jimbo and ArbCom). I’d appreciate your help if you have some thoughts on it, but if you haven’t, you may drop it completely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The first place one usually goes is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation After that, if it fails, one goes to WP:ARBCOM. However, the aggrieved party must make the appeal. However, I'm not sure how it will turn out. Requests for mediation usually go fairly well, and are neutral. I'd expect that that place would be the best place to start. RGloucester — ☎ 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey

You seem to have deleted my support.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. There were a series of edit conflicts, and that must've accidentally resulted in the destruction of your comment. Please restore it. My apologies. RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem, it seems Zarcadia is taking care of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No harm done, I got an edit conflict myself as I was restoring. It's back on there now. Zarcadia (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your good edits at Crimea

Hi RGlouceswter: Earlier today I saw your good edits on the Crimea page dealing with Politics. This morning when I looked at the page it was marked with templates and requests to clarify the current military occupation in Crimea and various U.N. votes regarding Crimea. User:DeC appears to be saying that this is the best we can do, "Sometime in 2014 the Russians entered Crimea"? This seems substantially short of the mark. I support your good edit and would support you in returning it in some useful way. FelixRosch (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea edit

The referendum was done by non legit officials with nonlegit procedure etc.The whole world is telling that was not legit. So this is not even neutral. If 100countries are telling that it was not legit and 3countries are telling that it is legit because of the corruption. It is not neutral. It would be with different coralation at least 70/30. My opinion.

We can't take opinions here, that's the point. It doesn't matter whether I believe the referendum was legitimate (I do not). The fact of the matter is, we have to present both sides. Please discuss this on the article talk page, not on my user page. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diet of Galicia and Lodomeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft

Good job on the draft, I'll try to help. It seems you already have an IP vandal…that was fast. --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising. I've never seen more PoV pushers than with these Ukraine articles, as of late. It is absolutely ridiculous. I appreciate the help. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Single purpose IP that just appeared to come on these articles and push this Russian conspiracy stuff. That he's citing wiki policy like WP:CIVIL and NPOV leads me to believe it's some sockpuppet. Good grief. Sorry for reverting on your draft though, it's just frustrating. (do drafts count as your sandbox or is this public?) —Львівське (говорити) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It is considered public, so anyone can edit it. No ownership. I don't think edit warring is tolerated, though. However, I've never seen an instance of edit-warring on a draft before… RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
first time for everything ;) --Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

it's hard to decide where to edit and i dont want to do double the work. maybe this article should be a very parred down version of the DPR article until we decide? --Львівське (говорити) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it should be left alone, as it demonstrates how unnecessary it is to have separate article. If you'd like to pare it down, go ahead, though. Editorial judgement, and all that. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


regarding your new map, and this was brought up on the talk before, but should there not be a cutoff for what constitutes a protest zone? the issue was that kherson's largest protest was 400 people, which was relatively small --Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This map doesn't differentiate between protest size. As long as there was a notable pro-Russian protest of some size, I believe it should be noted. The table can provide details on specific numbers. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
in which case, is that one protest notable?

This article implies that the issues in Kherson are notable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war

And now the user UA_Victory starts correcting the casualties and losses according to his POV and deleting the sources. 2-5 lost in battle https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses here you have the pictures of for sure more destroyed tanks a more clear source you won't find... 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Everything he has done has been sourced. I can't read Russian, so I don't know what your website says. However, destroyed tanks do not equate to human casualties. Regardless, there is nothing I can do about it. You have to constructively discuss the changes you disagree with on the talk page, without making personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Regardless the tanks, he is reconstructing the whole article. This guy is using figures from "blogs" which even the Georgian government sees higher -> see the casualties. This guy is a joke and probably even paid just look at the last edits. I'am not interested in discussion with him, anyway this is the best example of propaganda on Wikipedia. It's a real shame about Wikipedia. --Wrant (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes it has been sourced but he just uses other figures than mentioned in the sources.--Wrant (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern, but you have to remain civil. Making personal attacks, for example, accusing people of being 'paid' or of promoting 'propaganda' is not going to get anyone to listen to you on Wikipedia. If you really are concerned that the user in question has a conflict of interest, then the proper thing to do is to report him at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The instructions on how to do this are located at that page. If you really are concerned, if your concern is genuine, then you must remain civil, and avoid making accusations that are unfounded. Provide links to the specific edits that you consider to be a problem, and why. Administrators will then be able to evaluate the claims you are making. This is the best help I can provide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

pro-russia article

Just a heads up, but Cmoibenlepro is adding fake stats (or at least, its not in the sources hes citing) to the public opinion section. The section already cites the IRI stats, and his links go to the new york times, neither mention "identifying as citizens of donetsk" or whatever, it's just made up stuff it seems to me. Good stats from the IRI could be integrated into the above section.--Львівське (говорити) 17:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've checked out the references, and they are verifiable. I'll integrate them, and adjust sourcing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
i'm confused, i checked and it didnt pass the sniff test to me. What page is the 'residents of donbass' thing? --Львівське (говорити) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
ohh, i think the way he combined the nyt and iri stuff made me think he was only talking about the iri --Львівське (говорити) 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it got all muddled up. I tried to parse them out better, so the separate polls have their own paragraphs. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
you da man --Львівське (говорити) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Your removal of a link

Stop editing in a manner that is not supported by Wikipedia rules. Obey to process! ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What process? I have the ability to revert changes I do not think are appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw that you have that ability. That is the reason why I asked you to obey to Wikipedia process, e.g. change content guidelines if you want to forbid red links. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

The discussion at Donetsk People's Republic has gone litterally out of hand. It has become the receptable of any kind of comments, really a forum. Where is the line where the freedom to contribute should have an end. I am concerned because giving the right to exist to such an article would equate to give right to exist to everything. Is this right? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't based on precedent, so you have nothing to worry about. Haven't you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? While I agree that the creation of the article was premature, it has now be realised that the events in Donetsk deserve an article, considering their detail. I don't think the article should be titled Donetsk People's Republic', but an article on the events should. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I give a look to it. Never heard before. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I finally responded... (you can read now why so)

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Yulia Romero's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

*drum roll*

The Ukraine Barnstar of National Merit
Thanks for doing what you do. – Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Aw, shucks. Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated content removal

STOP THIS. You did it with link, you were told about it above. Now again [2]. Are you an Anti-European deleter? ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? I had had a previous discussion whereby we decided that consensus was against inclusion in the main article, and should instead be included in the timeline. However, as there was a disagreement, I added right back in. I don't know what it is you are talking about, but I hope you can remain civil. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Your reasoning included "hoax", but also a hoax is content. Read WP:NPOV. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the closing administrator did not agree, as he deleted the article. I was not the only one to propose that idea. Please stop targeting me for things I have not done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Oh, and be prepared for a boomerang when you post to ANI. Somehow or other, they'll twist your words or take diffs out of context to make you look bad.

And both sides are equally wrong. That's ANI's version of evenhanded. After all, they can't be bothered to look into the history or context of a dispute.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally

I merely think you've gotten too close to the argument. Your contributions are valued.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Please refer to the talking page

and don't delete user contributes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk referendum article

There is a deletion discussion going on at the Donetsk referendum page --Львівське (говорити) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

RGloucester, what do you mean the Party of Regions does not condone? The majority of the Supreme Council of Crimea had 80 council members out of 100 total who voted for secession from Ukraine. The Party of Regions never condemned the issue. Majority in regional councils the party has in the East Ukraine regions. It seems like a similar instance (as in Crimea) may happen in the eastern regions. Here is another claim that members of Party of Regions talked about some time before the "independence of Crimea" and preservation from "fascism": Party of Regions MP: Crimea not going to secede from Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The party has never supported separatism, even if some MPs have done so. For example, see this statement asking the occupiers of the various RSAs to leave at once. There is no possible way that it makes sense to put the PoR in the infobox as supporting the protesters. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Your opinion

Your opinion about this will be greatly appreciated. Hope you will give a useful advice. --UA Victory (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luhansk People's Republic

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Luhansk People's Republic solely on the basis that I do not believe deletion of this article is uncontroversial. Feel free to take it to AfD if you still wish to pursue deletion. I will most likely not !vote in such an AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: I've taken the liberty of redirecting the page to a section in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Escalation. The information there had been copied from that page. Until more happens to justify an independent article, I think it should remain like this. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Please Help Update File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.svg in Wikimedia

Sorry for the disrupt but I've posted the request in Wikimedia Commons. In case you can't see it timely, I post it here again. I myself don't know how to do that. Thanks a lot!霎起林野间 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
In belated recognition of your fine work on Edinburgh Trams. Thanks. John (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@John: I didn't expect that! I'm not sure I deserve it, but thanks. I apologise if I appeared abrasive. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, it is I who was abrasive. I think the article looks a lot better now, and I am sure it will continue to grow, thanks in no small part to your work. —John (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@John: I appreciate it very much. Thanks again. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


Sobornaya Square clashes

Hey, check the stuff Herzen is putting in. I've seen nothing from the Guardian saying the fire was started by "pro-Kiev" people, and the spanish source he used makes zero mention of who started the fire. Seems like inserting false disinfo (user has a record of being highly pro-Russian) --Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the 'pro-Kiev', but only from Russia Today. The Spanish paper has nothing about that in it, nor the Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks. when he said "claim was not reported as fact but as reports made by two newspapers; the deleted text accurately represents those reports" I started to think I was losing my mind or something. --Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Separatist insurgency vs Separatist / Federalist (or autonomist) insurgency

Yes, the references say the insurgents are pro-Russian, but does it mean necessarily that all of them want to belong to Russia? To be "pro-American" means that a person wants that its country belongs to USA? Or just a country with close ties with USA? The sources clearly say that several or many insurgents are demanding autonomy or federalism, not necessarily union with Russia. So, the word "separatism" seems to me to be only partly correct, not entirely correct. Shouldn't it be considered a separatist / federalist (or autonomist) insurgency, rather than simply a separatist insurgency? (is it NPOV? by the way? jusk asking... I've undone both biased pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian edits here, as you can confirm). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The insurgency itself is separatist, as the insurgency is only perpetrated by the Donetsk People's Republic. There are other pro-Russian groups which are not insurgents, and those might not be separatist. However, the insurgency is only a small part of the actual unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries: Definition of insurgent in English: noun: A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary; Definition of fight in English: 1.Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons; 2.Struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent. I don't find obvious that the definition of insurgent is restricted to the armed people of the Donetsk People's Republic. According to the Ofxford Dictionary, the protesters could be considered insurgents? It's not obvious for me that they have to be armed.

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious, because 'fighting' implies being armed. Only armed insurrection is considered insurgency. Please see the Wikipedia article on the subject for further information. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just consulted the Oxford Dictionary and it isn't obvious according to it that it has to be armed. But I'm not a native English speaker, so, who am I to question you? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going against the Oxford Dictionary. 'Fighting' means 'fighting' with arms. Protesters 'protest against' a government, they do not 'fight' it. Fighting implies violence to a native English speaker. I can imagine a non-native speaker coming to the conclusion you did, but insurgency always means 'armed'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The image of the Odessa clashes

I found the image on Google Images, from RT. What do I need to do more for it to be fine? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I discovered that the image actually belongs to Stringer/Reuters. Now, if it's possible, I wouldn't like that any political motive would restrict the image to be displayed. The name of the file that I displayed previously was the description provided by RT. I can rename it. Is there a way to display it? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. We can't use any image owned by anyone. Only images released into the public domain. Basically, unless you took a picture yourself and released the copyright, the likelihood is that we can't use. Please read WP:UPI. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have cited the wrong policy by mistake

I read your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Russian insurgency in Donetsk region. In your comment you cited WP:FORK. I think you meant Wikipedia:Content forking. If you read the two documents you will see what I mean.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thanks very much! I wasn't paying attention. RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Odessa

Please, you can not remove the neutrality message until the dispute is resolved. Hhmb (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute was resolved on the talk page. If there is a new dispute, place a new template. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

White Book

The Russian Federation has just issued a "White Book" document. I thought you might find it interesting and could use some of the information from there. http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/%24FILE/ATTLUY3T.pdf/White_book.pdf AzraeL9128 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this publication of the Russian Government about Ukraine is covered by WP:SELFSOURCE. It is not appropriate to use this kind of source because it involves "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". It is at best a source about what the Russian Government claims.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

luhansk republic

deserves its own article now. Regional council is behind the separatist referendum and have granted the 'people's governor' actual authority. This is the most legit republic yet since it has actual authorities behind it. —Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? I haven't seen any of that in the papers. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
news for today [3] --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess that's that, then. Haven't seen it in any western sources. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
as usual, gotta give it time to filter in --Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[4] the regional council is also telling Kiev to pull out of its territory and leave the separatists alone, I guess this seals it --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as a question, should it be called the 'Lughansk' republic instead, considering that I imagine their only 'official' language is Russian? Or do we stick with the usual Wikipedia Ukrainian standard? RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The question is (or should be) what is it called in English media? I suspect that using both spelling is best. btw no "h" in Lugansk.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected the page, all there is currently is a small mention on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I feel WP:TOOSOON applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

merge of list

Thought this was the best solution. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

osce

the OSCE released a report today, did you see it?--Львівське (говорити) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I linked it in the Odessa article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

you're being talked about

Here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Map of the pro-Ukrainian protests

I was trying to fix the map of pro-Ukrainian protests, but I'm having some problems with it. Do you suggest any action? Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: What's broken? RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't see with the correction using my username. I've log out and it's ok, but not with my username.

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia gadgets enabled? Try shutting them off. Also, try deleting your cache/temp internet files. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

odessa

the battle has shifted to the list of massacres article [5] --Львівське (говорити) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

we're socks [6] --Львівське (говорити) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert anymore, but I warned him about personal attacks on his talk page. Presumably an administrator will take note and do something about it. I'm getting tired of this proliferation of bad faith and stupidity. It seems to have increased since the Odessa incident. As horrific as the whole situation was, this constant campaign of socks is absolutely ridiculous. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

pew

btw, shocked as I was about the Pew results in Crimea? --Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just put them in the article. I'm actually not that shocked. The only people who've had a problem have been Crimean Tatars, as far as I can tell (the Mejils has been accused of 'terrorist acts', and the prosecutor has threatened to dissolve it). Considering that they make up a relatively small portion of the population, and considering that those Ukrainians that are in Crimea speak Russian anyway, and more than likely have no desire for an armed conflict, I can see the results playing out that way. In Donetsk, that would never happen, as I know people from Donetsk who have vowed to fight Russian occupation by 'Spetsnaz' 'to the bitter end'. Even those Donetsk people said that Crimea was a foregone conclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
well I guess I was referring moreso to the 'free and fair' part, considering the Tatars are 15% and mostly boycotted it, and if those numbers Forbes and other sources referred to are right (estimates putting turnout incredibly low), how 90% viewed it free and fair during a sizeable boycott rattled me. Also 88% saying Kiev should recognize the results seems shockingly high to me given other pre-vote polls. To have no plurality of opinion among the Ukrainian population just seems weird...I don't know what to make of it. --Львівське (говорити) 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can presume that in the minds of those who said it was 'free and fair', the boycott was also a 'free' choice on behalf of the Tatars. As I said below, it is quite possible that those who did severely dissent fled. I'm sure there were ethnic Ukrainians who would've preferred to be annexed, as well. Let's not forget that, unlike in Donetsk, ambitions to join Russia have been prevalent in Crimea for a good period of time, and there have been periodic protests to that effect. The 88% might be reflective of a certain pragmatism of the population who don't want to see an insurgency mess like in Donetsk, too. De facto is de facto, I suppose, and it is quite clear that Ukraine isn't going to get back Crimea any time soon. Of course, there is also the possibility that people were afraid to answer correctly, but I'm sure Pew would've made note of that if it were the case. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but the figures vary from 30-50% or thereabouts, where this is near unanimous. --Львівське (говорити) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and also the OSCE reported that refugees from Crimea had settled in Galicia, so imagine that many vehement dissenters have left in the wake of the rising tide. RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Those numbers are usually in the thousands though right? Not really much of a demographic shift, most Tatars still are claiming their land. —Львівське (говорити) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Tatars don't seem to have fled, only ethnic Ukrainians. I'm going to read the report in full later, as maybe it can elucidate some of the details. RGloucester — ☎ 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I've only glanced it over, need to read the whole thing as well.--Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay but here's the twist with Crimea's results: while 88% say Kiev should recognize the referendum to secede, only 54% were in favor of allowing regions to secede from Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 02:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Day Massacre

Since tomorrow in all likelihood will be a gongshow of conflict way bigger than the Odessa incident (even without deaths), what should the title for the potential article be? Assuming there are terrorist acts, riots, or large clashes across the country. (they just arrested 2 in Mykolaiv planning a bombing at the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the Unrest article has a bunch of other arrests for planned Victory Day conflicts...). This obviously would be too big for the timeline article.--Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, taking WP:CRYSTAL into account, I'd be wary of 'planning'. However, you may be right that we should have some vague ideas in mind. I'd personally like to follow the 'date clashes/riots/protests in city' format. (I'd also like to change the Odessa one to '2 May 2014 clashes in Odessa'. That's just me being OCD, though. Pay it no mind.) If it is all across Ukraine, I'd imagine it would have to be something like something like '2014 Victory Day clashes in Ukraine', or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I mean obviously we can't create something until something happens, but just wanted to spitball a neutral, vague name until the dust settles (which may take weeks before a common descriptor is used in the media). As for your suggestion, do we do Victory Day or Memorial Day? The official name is now Memorial Day but I presume Russian press (RT, VoR, etc.) will obviously call it Victory Day --Львівське (говорити) 00:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It is quite clear that no 'memorialising' would be happening. One could argue for 'Victory Day' merely on the use of the St George ribbon by the protesters. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Well knock on wood, today's been relatively par for the week. That said, I know we can't cite facebook but looks like the DPM got another armored carrier [7] --Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


Luhansk

I can't remember where you mentioned this saying the OSCE only reported Luhansk as having conflict and no other cities in the region. The Wall st journal showed a map with all conflict cities and I overlaid a map of luhansk oblast to double check and there are a few cities that are occupied [8] --Львівське (говорити) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. It doesn't even tell us what the names of those cities are. I can't find any sources about cities outside of Luhansk proper being occupied. I suppose that map is something, except it hasn't any references or an even an indication of what the cities' names are. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to figure out what cities those dots are and do some googling. The WSJ article didn't mention anything by name, unfortunately and the map was just thrown in at the bottom. —Львівське (говорити) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There's also a Mariupol standoff article now, if you're looking for something to do. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
fml I'm burnt out—Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at the Luhansk stuff later. It does rather annoy me, though, that the editors that create these articles tend to abandon them, leaving more work for everyone else to do. The article as it stands is rather crap. Regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, forgot, but Antratsyt is also occupied by Don Cossack mercenaries [13][14][15] --Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nurse

I have watered down the sentence, so its not giving too much undue weight to the nurse, for sake of compromise. Since you want to exclusivaly focus on the military aspect of the standoff, I established there were clashes beetween the rebels and the military which left one civilian dead. Nothing more, nothing less, not giving any weight to the person who died, just noting what was the fatalities result of the military clash. EkoGraf (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: That's an appropriate solution. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant warning-warring

May 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2014 anti-Yatsenyuk government unrest in Ukraine, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Spare me the utter tosh. There is no consensus to change the title of the article. Zero. Please stop trying to work around the fact that the requested move failed, and that the article is at the title that it is at. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User_talk:ArmijaDonetsk, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This is ridiculous. I'm not going to have a war of personal attack and vandalism warnings that have absolutely no truth them. This campaign against me is tiring. I have no interest in a conflict. Please stop! RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester/Archive_4&oldid=1048348651"