RGloucester

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

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 Wikipedia. I'm jaded, one could say. In any case, I do hope that your participation here is productive! Wikipedia'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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

  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)Reply

I was just wondering in light of this most recent review, what your thoughts were on rule H7 found in DYK's guidelines: Wikipedia: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)Reply

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

  Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! ——Serial 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is frankly, a miserable and disgusting place where cliques and activists reign supreme. A waste of time! RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Renat 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 RandolfoReply

@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 Wikipedia, so we write in English. Carrying over Spanish-language conventions into English is not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@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 Wikipedia also accepts it? If what is sought in Wikipedia 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 RandolfoReply

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 Wikipedia 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)Reply

@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 RandolfoReply

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT is not tolerated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

A tag has been placed on Wuhan Nationalist Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)Reply

A tag has been placed on Wuhan Nationalist Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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, Wikipedia and we need you :) Delasse (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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)Reply

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)Reply

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Re [1], any misrepresentation on my part was due to operator error and was unintentional. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Unfortunately, I don't really agree with your proposal. On Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

I note you had participated in the discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine move and/or Wikipedia: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)Reply

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 Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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)Reply

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia:Notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia 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)Reply

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 Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia: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)Reply

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 Wikipedia 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)Reply

  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 Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

 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)Reply

  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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 2014 Ukraine crisis until a consensus is reached. Yorkporter (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

@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)Reply