Jump to content

User talk:RGloucester/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Your GA nomination of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire

The article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Obviously, I'm not going to rerevert the closure, and I do see the advantage of that dramabomb being closed, but would you mind replacing the closing statement with one that doesn't explicitly overturn an AE block without consensus? Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to remove this administrator's closing statement, which is his justification for an unblock. If you wish to challenge the closing, please do so in a new AN thread. Do not overturn an administrator's close unilaterally. Attain consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
AN threads are unclosed pretty regularly, without consensus. He can post his unblock statement as part of a new thread defending his own actions. There's no real reason to let a policy violating closing statement stand as a closing statement - it would be fine as a comment. (And as a bit of context, Courcelles pretty much told Adjwiley that he'd be in trouble if he even reduced the block to a week, so I don't like to imagine what happens when arbcom wakes up.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are not the arbiter of what is a "policy-violating closing statement" is. Attain consensus for your interpretation, then overturn the close. Not the other way around. RGloucester — ☎ 05:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Reaper's close is in clear violation of the basic intro to WP:AE. Moreover, this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that one needed consensus to revert a closure at ANI. Can you point me to some precedent? Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for precedent. You made a bold move, and I reverted it, per WP:BRD. An administrator in good standing made a close, and that's that. If you want a closure review, open one. RGloucester — ☎ 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
An administrator reverting a close is not a particularly bold move. It happens all the time. You took the rather bold action of restoring a clear policy vio to stand in a closure (because WP:AE makes it clear that strong consensus is needed to overturn even shitty AE blocks.) I would suggest that as the person who took the definitively bolder move of reverting an admin's reversion of a close and allowing a policy vio to stand in a closure, more of the burden of explanation on you than has been met. Actually, I would go so far as to say that were admin tools more clearly involved or your interpretation of requiring consensus to revert a closure at ANI is correct, your behavior is dangerously close to wheelwarring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • RG: I probably would've behaved rather differently in this thread if I had known you were not an administrator. I'm going to give you some suggestions, and if you agree with them generally consider the matter done. If you don't, I'll add you to the current arbcom case request because I feel that your behavior was intended to intimidate in way similar to that of an actual wheel war. AN closes are reverted are the damn time, and they do not need consensus, capiche? I had intended to clear Reaper's close - because it's inappropriate for an AN close to contain actual policy violations in it - and then reclose the thread myself with a comment that further comments in that thread would not be productive, while moving Reaper's close to the section discussing his behavior (which currently lacks comments from him completely, probably because he's asleep, which would've been a productive thing to do.) The outcome would've been all around better. Do you agree that reverting AN closes absolutely does not require consensus? If not, please point out precedent to it requiring consensus. If you do neither, I'll be adding you as a party to the case, because I really do feel like your actions were intended to be the equivalent of wheelwarring and deserve examination. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're saying. I have no involvement in the matter. I simply disagree with your bold move to remove an administrator's detailed close and unblocking rationale, per WP:BRD. You cannot determine what a policy violation is on your own. As a case at ArbCom is opening, I would suggest that the matter be dealt with there. If there really was a policy violation, I'm sure the Committee will make that determination. They have the standing to do so, whereas you do not. Until then, leave well alone. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, but it's common for any admin to acceptably reverse a AN closure. I'm going to name you as a party in the case, with a description as to why I view your actions as problematic, as a heads up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Do whatever you like. It won't make any difference. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It's typically much less acceptable for an admin to revert the close of a thread they themselves have participated in. If it's a bad close somebody uninvolved will usually take care of it. In this case Arbcom is going to sort it out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That was exactly my logic, which I have now written about at ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Speccy4Eyes and measurement

Hi, Just wanted to inform that Speccy4Eyes (talk · contribs) that you gave a notice regarding editing measurements has returned with the same "agenda". Is this something that should be taken to ANI or is it okay since he has gone to the articles talkpages (a lot of them)? Qed237 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to AN/I and ask for WP:GS/UKU general sanctions enforcement. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian

Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

FOP discussion

I was looking at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015. (Honestly, I find it embarrassing that an allegedly "neutral" encyclopedia is now engaging in overt political advocacy for a second time.) I noticed, though, that you characterized FOP as "liberal" and wanted to ask what is the basis for that? When the Soviet Union came to power, for example, one of the things they did was to impose a more restrictive copyright law (previously their law had been similar to the pre-1978 US law where if you did not actively assert your copyright, it was public domain). The US only finally agreed to implement restrictive copyright laws when we were forced to by the rest of the world in order for us to have reciprocal respect for the IP of US authors. --B (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Liberal" refers to the idea and accompanying political position that individual liberty is preferable and beneficial to society. The concept of "freedom of panorama", which is called "liberté de panorama" in French, is inherently liberal. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Marinka

I'm coming to you because I know, despite your over-obsession with the way sentences are written, you always fight to include both sides POV for sake of neutrality. I have a problem with Volunteer Marek, and I have also asked Iryna Harpy to join in on the discussion. What's the issue - Volunteer Marek constantly removed a sentence, referenced with a New York Times article, that the separatists at one point captured Marinka or at least 70 percent of it. This is based on three things the NYT article cited. First, separatists claiming the military withdrew from the town, second a Ukrainian MP (who is also a former battalion commander) saying the military no longer controlled 70 percent of the village, third the military itself saying the ceasefire helped them restore control of the village (which means they lost control of it at one point). Volunteer Marek has constantly ignored the claim by the separatists (which I grant may be unreliable), but has also ignored what the military said. He has solely focused his arguments on the 70 percent reported by the MP, saying its a violation of WP: UNDUEWEIGHT (not seeing how if its just one sentence) and that its just some random Facebook post by some random dude. As compromise, I removed from the sentence that the rebels potentially captured the whole village and only left the part about the 70 percent, used the wording such as reportedly so not to make it factual and attributed it to the Ukrainian MP. He still does not like it and is constantly removing the sentence because he still considers the claim and the person claiming it some random Facebook post by some random dude. I acknowledged to him that we do not use FB as a source, but in this case we have a highly reliable media outlet citing a notable person (MP/commander). So its verifiable enough. And per policy on neutrality we need to present all viewpoints and not exclude some just because we don't like them. EkoGraf (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PS I also cited for him the Ukrainian president himself who said his forces ousted the rebels from the village, which means they were in there and had some extent of control. This he also ignored and claimed the rebels never entered it. EkoGraf (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Violating WP:NPA

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

WP:ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 15:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Borders Railway

Hello! Your submission of Borders Railway 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

A barnstar for you!

Ukrainian Barnstar
For your efforts. UA Victory (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Precious again

simplistic style of Wikipedia
Thank you, user who finds "that editing Wikipedia is a stress reliever". for quality articles such as Edinburgh Trams, Deutscher Nationalverband and A Collection of Vibrations for Your Skull, for precision and a map, for "The simplistic style of Wikipedia is part of what makes it great", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 942nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Project move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Event dates

I don't understand the use of partial dates in descriptions of historical events. An example would be the use of "July 13" instead of "July 13 2014". It makes the article difficult to follow. I thought I'd try to sort out the confusing dates in Battle in Shakhtarsk Raion, but I see that you promptly reverted the complete dates back to the partial dates. Are you able to explain your preference for partial dates? Or is there a general Wikipedia preference for incomplete dates that I'm not aware of? Santamoly (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that article uses DMY dates, and so DMY dates must be maintained. "2014 July 16" is not an extant date format in the English language, which is why I reverted your changes. It doesn't exist as a format. Anyway, per the WP:MOS, if the timespan of the article is made clear in the lead, which it is, the year is not required in the article body. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what appeared to be a confusing revert. FWIW, the "YMD" date format, otherwise known as ISO-8601 is the legal standard in Canada and dozens of other civilized countries that use modern computer languages. Your preference (the DMY or East European format) is used only in Russia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and the disadvantaged parts of Europe, rarely anywhere else. If you will step back from the article for a moment, you will also see that shortening dates as you have done will make for a confusing read as time goes by. Even now in 2015 it's not at all apparent that "June 23" means "June 23 2014". It will be even more confusing next year. I'm just thankful that you're not one of those editors that thinks "7-13" is an understandable date. Regardless of what date format you prefer, always including the year makes for a better article. Cheers Santamoly (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If the context is clear, adding the year at each instance is redundant and tiresome to read over and over again. The lead section sets the timeframe. There is no need to repeat the year over and over again. On the English Wikipedia, we use English date formats. DMY is the standard in Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, &c., so I have no idea what you are talking about. The "YMD" format is non-existent in English prose. Even in Canada, the format is not as you wrote it, but "1999-05-23", with all numerals. That format is not used in Canadian prose either, only in technical forms and the like. Canada largely uses MDY, with some DMY mixed in (with influence from France and Britain). RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand" are actually the tail of the American dog, firmly ensconced in their clueless colonial stories - not to be referred to as any kind of leading authorities on anything! FYI, "1999-05-23" is also known as "YMD", or ISO-8601, and can be friendlied-up for the Americans by spelling the month in letters. This also helps the less fortunate in the American colonies who may not understand modern science. Am I correct in discerning that you feel that Wikipedia is prose in the American way (feet and inches, and all that?), and not technical writing for the English-speaking world? If so, I'm clearly in alien territory, so I'm going to leave you to carry on tinkering in your own special way. Thanks for the insight :-) Santamoly (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy have been enacted:

  1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

Please add this page to your watch list

Please could you add the page on Ani Lorak to your watch list. The editor whose disruptive edits you recently reverted on the page on the War in Donbass‎ also made a disruptive edit to the page about Ani Lorak. Maybe he/she lacks the ability to read sources cited.... Thanks for your good work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

2,000 dead Russian soldiers

I highly contentious issue has arisen at the War in Donbass talk page in the section Casualties and losses and continued into the subsection Comment. I feel you as a committed editor of the War in Donbass should take part in this discussion and maybe propose a compromise that has not been thought of so far. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried explaining for you the whole situation that has developed over the last few days at the talk page in the section you opened in one paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Not directly relevant to Minsk II"

Where would you put it then? It's an important event and it has no article of its own. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a new article on the protests. RGloucester — ☎ 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology for absence

Hello RGloucester, I'm going to be offline for the weekend and hence unable to update Borders Railway in time. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

DYK for Borders Railway

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your question at Talk:Poland

Earlier, before the RfC was closed, you asked me if I would consider Slovakia as "Eastern European". At that point I had left left the discussion for a while, so I'll answer it here as it's not entirely on-topic anymore but something that can be an interesting discussion as well: yes, I do see Slovakia as an Eastern European country... but less so than Poland. Speaking separately from the sources I've been using and the East-Central thing, basically ignoring other perspectives, this is how it is for me personally: Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine are in Eastern Europe sensu stricto; Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia are Eastern European countries that may also be considered the eastern parts of Central Europe due to the Habsburg heritage they share with Austria (a country in Western Europe that may also be categorised as one in Central Europe); Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia are a mixture of Eastern and Southern European culture, so they can be placed in Southeastern Europe. Estonia and Finland can be considered both Eastern and Northern European, so they should be categorised as states in Northeastern Europe. Russia is a huge federation that is too diverse (culturally, ethnically and geographically) to be placed in Eastern Europe, so when speaking of the country as a whole I would prefer to call it transcontinental.

This is how I personally would classify the countries most often described by various sources as being in Eastern Europe, but only as an individual. I have countless arguments as to why Poland should be considered Eastern European, and at times I let those get the better of me, but on Wikipedia I generally try my best to use sources already available. If I was writing my own essay or something, then I'd create a neat argument with all the reasons behind my views, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not reflect my views as an editor but that of sources out there - hence why I've been arguing for "East-Central" or "Central and Eastern Europe". Eastern Europe used to be by far the most common way of categorising Poland, even before the Cold War, but over time I realised that - since around the year 2000 - Central Europe and East-Central Europe have also become very popular (they are both much older concepts, but once that only recently entered the mainstream in their current understanding). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As you know, parts of Poland also have a "heritage of Hapsburg rule", and other parts have a heritage of German rule. Croatia and Slovenia also have a mostly Hapsburg (and Italian) heritage. The rest of the former Yugoslavia is a bit more of a muddle, because of Ottoman and Russian influence. I'm certain that this is the reason why the "Central Europe" classification is used in such countries. Regardless, this is all WP:OR. Let's go back to the talk page. I might have a source of some use. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the key difference is that only small parts of Poland were integrated into the Austrian Empire and for not as long or as centrally as Czechia and Slovakia were (historically, whenever Poland was taken off the map most of its territory was engulfed by Russia). As for Slovenia, I agree that it is the black sheep of Southeastern Europe, you can also see it in their cuisine (maybe a strange place to notice it, but still). Nevertheless, historically they were also affected by the Ottomans and linguistically they are quite close to their eastern neighbours (as opposed to the completely different linguistic zones to the north and west). However, Poland's cultural proximity to Austria has often been exaggerated and I gotta admit that if we're speaking of a concept of an even larger Central Europe, then Slovenia has much more criteria to be part of that than Poland. Of course, this is partially original research and all POV, which is why I said I'm speaking of it separately from the discussion at Talk:Poland. I just thought it might be something you wanted to discuss. :) --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we can go even further than the matter of connections to the Austrian Empire, to the matter of religion. One thing that unites Croatia, Slovenia, and Poland in their so-called "Central European" nature is their heritage of Catholicism, as opposed to the largely Orthodox countries of Serbia, Russia, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

PoV push

Re: [1]. Please, do not describe my edits as "PoV push". It may be seen as a personal attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what the heck you're up to, but I have blocked you indefinitely. You know the way to appeal a block. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing?

I hate to say it, but your page moves do not look right. What are you doing? Dustin (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope you are OK.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts indeed. I have never seen an established editor explode in so much anger, or at least act it out as much. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 Checkuser note: Technically speaking, the account does not appear to be compromised. Mike V • Talk 18:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. Dustin (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Nyttend:... doesn't appear to be compromised account... autoblock probably a good idea. Looks more like another meltdown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, nobody, including the blocking admin, still thinks it was anything but another all-too-predictable freak out. This action basically encourages them to evade the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What kind of person do you take me for? First of all, I am no "them". I am one person. Second of all, I am a law-abiding citizen, to the letter. No "freaking out" occurred, and I can assure you that I (the creator and proprietor of this account) personally had no involvement in this mess. However, I'd prefer if you left this page be. Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I take for a person who has repeatedly over-reacted in the past and appears to have done so again. Are you now saying the edits and page moves that led to the block were not performed by you? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, and not worthy of discussion. I have no interest in a dialogue, certainly not with those who speak in such a tone, without respect for my person. The matter is settled. Leave this page in peace, and do what you like with the technical details. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I've gone ahead and revoked your talk page access. You may appeal via WP:UTRS or via email to WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Talk page access restored

Per our discussion of your UTRS request, I've restored your right to post to this page. Please remember though that it's only supposed to be used for requests/discussion related to your current block. Max Semenik (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An apology

I would like to apologise to those who were slighted, taxed, burdened, or otherwise annoyed during the spats that led to my blocking last month. My behaviour was unacceptable, and I accept that fact. This is meant to be an encylopaedia, not a forum for nonsensical nonsense. One might be surprised about that, given the amount of nonsense that does occur on Wikipedia's pages. Regardless, one should hold oneself to a higher standard than the lowest common denominator, and for not doing so, I apologise. RGloucester — ☎

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester/Archive_9&oldid=1143249977"