User talk:RGloucester/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RGloucester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Apology
I apologize for (and I think I pruned my comments of) supporting the view that your filing at AE was a "get-at-Dick_lyon" action. It was a good-faith-assumption failure on my part. I'm too used to certain individuals being all about grudge-matching when it comes to style matters, and should not have projected that onto you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Mr Lyon gets this, yet, but I have no reason to "get at" him at all. I admire his drive and diligence. I simply saw disruption and reported it. If I had a desire to "get at" him, I would've been selective in my reporting of the events. I also wasn't aware of the "campaign" by Darkfrog24 on this matter. Wikipedia is a political endeavour, at this point. I have quite a bit of trouble dealing with such things, as I'm no politician, and I'm aware that I often come off the wrong way. Regardless, I appreciate your candour. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, this is just a tiny, trivial, even silly way in which WP is getting political. See the news (kind of "olds" now) bit atop my userpage. As WP has become the no. 5-or-so most used website in the world, there's intense governmental, commercial, religious, ideological, and other external-interest pressure being applied to warp our content and our internal policies, to promote particular narrow viewpoints and larger worldviews. Dealing with a lone crackpot is just beginner-level practice for much bigger issues that aren't simply looming, but are already upon WP as an active problem. Many of these real-world special interests already have admins in place; they're taking the "long game" approach much harder-core than one slow-editwar person can. WP's first 15 years have been a comparatively idyllic playground, really. The next 15 are going to be "interesting" in the sense of the old Chinese curse, since WP has become one the Internet-capable world's most important information sources. The value of subtly controlling it over the next century (or perhaps destroying it and replacing it with something better-behaved for certain interests) is basically incalculable. I hope to have a WikiConference presentation on this worked up for some time in the next year, but the sticking point is always what to do about it. No one likes the conventional answers.
The good news is, most editors can just WP:DGAF about it. As long we're plugging away, we create good content faster than crap content can be created by paid or ideologue-volunteer PoV-pushers, and the faster the craftily non-neutral material is unmasked and rooted out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, this is just a tiny, trivial, even silly way in which WP is getting political. See the news (kind of "olds" now) bit atop my userpage. As WP has become the no. 5-or-so most used website in the world, there's intense governmental, commercial, religious, ideological, and other external-interest pressure being applied to warp our content and our internal policies, to promote particular narrow viewpoints and larger worldviews. Dealing with a lone crackpot is just beginner-level practice for much bigger issues that aren't simply looming, but are already upon WP as an active problem. Many of these real-world special interests already have admins in place; they're taking the "long game" approach much harder-core than one slow-editwar person can. WP's first 15 years have been a comparatively idyllic playground, really. The next 15 are going to be "interesting" in the sense of the old Chinese curse, since WP has become one the Internet-capable world's most important information sources. The value of subtly controlling it over the next century (or perhaps destroying it and replacing it with something better-behaved for certain interests) is basically incalculable. I hope to have a WikiConference presentation on this worked up for some time in the next year, but the sticking point is always what to do about it. No one likes the conventional answers.
- I'm not sure Mr Lyon gets this, yet, but I have no reason to "get at" him at all. I admire his drive and diligence. I simply saw disruption and reported it. If I had a desire to "get at" him, I would've been selective in my reporting of the events. I also wasn't aware of the "campaign" by Darkfrog24 on this matter. Wikipedia is a political endeavour, at this point. I have quite a bit of trouble dealing with such things, as I'm no politician, and I'm aware that I often come off the wrong way. Regardless, I appreciate your candour. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
- News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out
- In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Greetings! I see you've started the article and wrote the most of it. Any reason why you named it the way you did? See, Ukrainian Government and its Ministry of Interior Affairs is convinced that the term Mіліція need to be translated as Police wherever English language is used. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- One needs to distinguish between the old militsiya and the new National Police. If I were in charge, I'd prefer to title that article "militia", as that was the common name in the English sources I've seen. Keep in mind that Wikipedia article titles are not determined by official translations, but by common usage in English RS. However, I did not write that article and didn't feel like pushing boundaries for change. In that case, what I did was that I split off content relating to the old militia from the internal affairs ministry page, so as to allow for information about the new police. This was discussed at Talk:Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ukraine), I believe. RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see there is a problem in understanding of what is going on in Ukraine in regards to the law enforcement. Of course, major populist action of the Ukrainian MIA is playing here greatly misleading role. Office of Avakov is pretending here that they are creating something fundamentally new, but the only new thing they created is the Patrol Police. National Police always existed in independent Ukraine, because Міліція is nothing but Police. True that socialists and communists did changed the name of the police force of the Former Russian Empire, but it is not affecting the English translation, which is remaining the same. Also true that both socialists and communists were underlining paramilitary essence of their police force, therefore the term Militia was brought up and given the populistic new meaning. In Russian, but not in English. Now the Ukraine in 1991 inherited huge communist reaction forces. The name Міліція was dear to them and Пoліція strange and foreign. But, as I already showed you, English translation was never affected. Even the hardcore commie knew that you don't say Militia when talking in English about the Police. It simply has different meaning. And it wasn't transliterated either. But not in English Wikipedia :) And I am failing to understand why? --Kwasura (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I understand all that, but English language reliable sources did refer to both the Russian and Ukrainian "militia" as "militia", regardless of the fact they truly were police forces. It was always acknowledged that these were police forces, and that the "militia" name was something of a curiosity. You can see this in this article from The New York Times, for example. As for why it is transliterated, I didn't want to rock the boat. The main article for these types of forces is militsiya, and there are many people opposed to such translations that I did not want to disturb. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. Well, let us see what will happen next. Probably nothing :) Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I understand all that, but English language reliable sources did refer to both the Russian and Ukrainian "militia" as "militia", regardless of the fact they truly were police forces. It was always acknowledged that these were police forces, and that the "militia" name was something of a curiosity. You can see this in this article from The New York Times, for example. As for why it is transliterated, I didn't want to rock the boat. The main article for these types of forces is militsiya, and there are many people opposed to such translations that I did not want to disturb. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see there is a problem in understanding of what is going on in Ukraine in regards to the law enforcement. Of course, major populist action of the Ukrainian MIA is playing here greatly misleading role. Office of Avakov is pretending here that they are creating something fundamentally new, but the only new thing they created is the Patrol Police. National Police always existed in independent Ukraine, because Міліція is nothing but Police. True that socialists and communists did changed the name of the police force of the Former Russian Empire, but it is not affecting the English translation, which is remaining the same. Also true that both socialists and communists were underlining paramilitary essence of their police force, therefore the term Militia was brought up and given the populistic new meaning. In Russian, but not in English. Now the Ukraine in 1991 inherited huge communist reaction forces. The name Міліція was dear to them and Пoліція strange and foreign. But, as I already showed you, English translation was never affected. Even the hardcore commie knew that you don't say Militia when talking in English about the Police. It simply has different meaning. And it wasn't transliterated either. But not in English Wikipedia :) And I am failing to understand why? --Kwasura (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donbass status referendums, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stakhanov. 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) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
- News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board
- In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote
- Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling
- Traffic report: Death and taxes
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Thanks
Your support is appreciated! I do have an account, but rarely use it because I'm not usually here in order to copyedit, but rather to look something up. When I spot a mistake, I fix it. Commas and caps just happen to be things that jump out at me. Indeed, I'm a professional copyeditor and translator in real life. I've tried responding to these kinds of folks before, but it doesn't go anywhere - basically a waste of time. Mostly I think I'm taken aback at their arrogance and lack of modesty. 68.228.230.203 (talk)
Almost 10 years of editing
You can see that I don't use my account much because it can be so contentious. Sometimes it's just easiest to stay anon. I've made 10s or 100s of thousands of edits (overwhelmingly anonymously--change of IP whenever my ISP does that), and rarely run into BMK-type bullies. I definitely appreciate your support - much welcomed! Beyond using my account, let me know if you have any suggestions. Maybe I could do more. Best wishes! Pwt898 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Working with WP:GOCE is a good idea. Having connections with other editors is always useful. Furthermore, you ought label IP addresses you use with the Template:IP address, so as to comply with the relevant policy. RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
- From the editors: Help wanted
- Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost
- Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
- Traffic report: Bowled
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Your recent edit on AT
Much better, except I'll have to look up "appositive" some time. If I don't get it, I worry that other editors may not. Tony (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I linked the relevant article, "apposition", for that purpose. I figure it is better than "parenthetical item", which is a term I don't believe had much sense in it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- But the "when appropriate" is not an appositive there. Maybe use a "Jr." as a better illustration. The general rule of a comma to take you aside, and another to bring you back, is applicable to more than appositives. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that my example is rubbish. I became a bit knackered while thinking about what to put in there. I was hoping for someone to come along and fix it. Would you care to? RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried a better example. Do correct any errors. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's good. Would it be pushing our luck to point out how wrong things like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day are? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's already made clear at WP:JR. If people don't want to follow the guidance, there isn't much that can be done. RGloucester — ☎ 02:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's good. Would it be pushing our luck to point out how wrong things like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day are? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried a better example. Do correct any errors. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that my example is rubbish. I became a bit knackered while thinking about what to put in there. I was hoping for someone to come along and fix it. Would you care to? RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- But the "when appropriate" is not an appositive there. Maybe use a "Jr." as a better illustration. The general rule of a comma to take you aside, and another to bring you back, is applicable to more than appositives. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I linked the relevant article, "apposition", for that purpose. I figure it is better than "parenthetical item", which is a term I don't believe had much sense in it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
template:Closed down
Hi RGloucester.
I created the template {{Closed down}} for the specific purpose of tagging a page, like the one being discussed, that is essentially rejected by the community as a bad idea, as an option instead of userfication or deletion. Deletion is sometimes opposed on the basis of wanting to keep a record of the bad idea, and I often argue that myself. Some would argue to archive, however there were no suitable tags, templates {{historical}} and {{Failed}} not being applicable for these random weird things.
When I originally wrote "project, activity or process" I intended to that to cover anything. I think that the page under discussion could be considered a project. Perhaps you could improve the wording of the template so that it is more broadly applicable.
One or two previous MfD discussions have been closed as consensus to "close down" a page, however, no page has yet been tagged with this template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, I think I will take your template to TfD. It is a nonsense, and is not needed. RGloucester — ☎ 14:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where would this be used, other than WP:Esperanza?
{{Historical}}seems adequate for that sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where would this be used, other than WP:Esperanza?
- In fact, I think I will take your template to TfD. It is a nonsense, and is not needed. RGloucester — ☎ 14:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
- News and notes: Another WMF departure
- In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A river of revilement
You've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Super Bowling
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Rationale
Your "That's WP:OR, as I've told you more than once now. Just because something appears in print does not mean that it is the correct usage, as opposed to being an error of happenstance. All relevant style guides proclaim such usage as an error"
rationale applies equally well to the "we gotta capitalize 'Do It Like A Dude' that way because I see newspapers and music magazines doing it" quasi-reasoning being used at WT:MOSCAPS#The word "like". (Well, other than that the capitalize-four-letter-prepositions thing is in some journalism style guides; it's a case of wrong genre/register vs. a case of not-proper-English-at-all.) Despite devoting a lot of verbiage and style guide research to it, I personally seem to have difficulty getting this message across. Maybe you'd have better luck. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Opinion?
If you have a moment to spare, could you please take a look at this and the RfC that's been opened regarding the issue. I've become so bogged down in it that I'm not sure as to whether I'm being bludgeoned into submission, or whether there's a justifiable point to it. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've taken a look. I took that page off my watchlist a while ago. The last time we had this discussion, I came down in favour of the "country" (or whatever alias people want to pick out for it) infobox. Frankly, I find the "war faction" infobox to be a bit strange, and I'm not really sure why it exists at all. It claims to be about factions, but not about "military formations". I'm not sure how the distinction is made. It has very specific parameters that don't seem like they'd be of much use to the reader in this particular case. As I said last time, using the "country" infobox does not imply legitimacy on the part of the DPR or LPR. It is merely the name of the template. The information displayed by the "country" infobox seems more relevant, and moreover, that infobox has much more usage across Wikipedia than the war faction box. In a way, I think WP:ASTONISH applies. When most readers who are familiar with Wikipedia click on an article like DPR or LPR, they are going to expect the same usual infobox that is used for other similar entities, like South Ossetia or Transnistria. I can understand the reluctance to use the country infobox for what are non-states, and certainly not "nations" as certain editors have said. However, when thinking in practical terms, instead of in terms of principle, I believe that the country infobox is the one that ought be used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers for that. It was actually Julia Romero who changed it, however I couldn't really see any RS for changing it back... particularly as it's being pushed by an editor who wants to introduce content into the infobox regarding the population, etc. where there are no reliable sources other than 'according to the DPR'. That's why I've really dug my feet in: the intent behind it is to use the article as a COATRACK. The editor (XavierGreen (talk · contribs)) has been using Wikipedia as a battleground using crush tactics to promote his PPOV relentlessly and is really getting up my nose (and the noses of other editors). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand completely, which is one of the reasons why I haven't had any involvement with the page. I don't want to inadvertently aid PoV pushers in their quest for a legitimising a non-state entity. There is a fine line to be walked, and I tend to find it is better not to walk it at all. I agree that no RS posit the DPR or LPR as states, but my personal opinion is that that has nothing to do with which infobox should be displayed. Because these entities claim to be states, and claim to have a state structure, it seems to make sense to use the "country" infobox, just as is done with other similar entities. I certainly would not support introducing non-RS bunk about population, and whatever. That's been the problem since the start with these articles, which was why I resisted their creation in the first place. Remember the business with the OR LPR flag? Sometimes I wonder if infoboxes are worth the trouble they cause by virtue of oversimplifying complex subjects. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've been staying away from all of these articles as much as possible because of the POV rewriting of history. I somehow allowed myself to get caught up in it despite myself. Let it run its course for a closer to wade through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like we've got a big mess on our hands, now. What's worse, it is all because of a stupid infobox that no one should give a damn about. Have you see the current arbitration request? As you said, it just isn't worth trying to maintain these articles. It is more of a headache than anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've been staying away from all of these articles as much as possible because of the POV rewriting of history. I somehow allowed myself to get caught up in it despite myself. Let it run its course for a closer to wade through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand completely, which is one of the reasons why I haven't had any involvement with the page. I don't want to inadvertently aid PoV pushers in their quest for a legitimising a non-state entity. There is a fine line to be walked, and I tend to find it is better not to walk it at all. I agree that no RS posit the DPR or LPR as states, but my personal opinion is that that has nothing to do with which infobox should be displayed. Because these entities claim to be states, and claim to have a state structure, it seems to make sense to use the "country" infobox, just as is done with other similar entities. I certainly would not support introducing non-RS bunk about population, and whatever. That's been the problem since the start with these articles, which was why I resisted their creation in the first place. Remember the business with the OR LPR flag? Sometimes I wonder if infoboxes are worth the trouble they cause by virtue of oversimplifying complex subjects. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers for that. It was actually Julia Romero who changed it, however I couldn't really see any RS for changing it back... particularly as it's being pushed by an editor who wants to introduce content into the infobox regarding the population, etc. where there are no reliable sources other than 'according to the DPR'. That's why I've really dug my feet in: the intent behind it is to use the article as a COATRACK. The editor (XavierGreen (talk · contribs)) has been using Wikipedia as a battleground using crush tactics to promote his PPOV relentlessly and is really getting up my nose (and the noses of other editors). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've taken a look. I took that page off my watchlist a while ago. The last time we had this discussion, I came down in favour of the "country" (or whatever alias people want to pick out for it) infobox. Frankly, I find the "war faction" infobox to be a bit strange, and I'm not really sure why it exists at all. It claims to be about factions, but not about "military formations". I'm not sure how the distinction is made. It has very specific parameters that don't seem like they'd be of much use to the reader in this particular case. As I said last time, using the "country" infobox does not imply legitimacy on the part of the DPR or LPR. It is merely the name of the template. The information displayed by the "country" infobox seems more relevant, and moreover, that infobox has much more usage across Wikipedia than the war faction box. In a way, I think WP:ASTONISH applies. When most readers who are familiar with Wikipedia click on an article like DPR or LPR, they are going to expect the same usual infobox that is used for other similar entities, like South Ossetia or Transnistria. I can understand the reluctance to use the country infobox for what are non-states, and certainly not "nations" as certain editors have said. However, when thinking in practical terms, instead of in terms of principle, I believe that the country infobox is the one that ought be used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the Donetsk People's Republic has made its position known on the recent ArbCom case request: Comment by Donetsk People's Republic. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- This couldn't get any more cockeyed, could it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're not kidding. Now some of the usual suspects, like the opportunists that they are, have started gathering and are engaging in a HUNT. I've yet to respond to that bad faith roping in of anyone who disagrees with XG as I need to clear my head before commenting. Great to see that RS and collaborative editing = collusion when it suits. Another fiasco surfaces. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- This couldn't get any more cockeyed, could it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Late welcome
Hello, I just came across your name on an edit. Can't even be bothered to find out why you should have been ousted in the first place. Always appreciated your views, so good to see you again. --Midas02 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a troublemaker by nature, and I always deserve what I get in return. Sometimes it is too easy to be a mischief-maker, and I give into that urge. I do not intend to do so here again, to the degree that I'm able. However, I am in complete accordance with my prior "ousting", so-to-speak. Regardless, I appreciate that you appreciate my views. RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"European migrant crisis" discussed at WP:ITNC
I invite you to discuss the removal proposal on European migrant crisis at WP:ITNC. --George Ho (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you're inviting me, Mr Ho? Regardless, I must decline your invitation. I do not venture into ITN anymore, and haven't done for quite some time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to frequently involve in ITN. We have a near-split decision about keeping and removing it. I just want people to be involved in just one discussion. That's all. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even if I had wanted to comment, I could not do so now without being a party to WP:CANVASSing. I'm trying to keep my hands clean, to the degree that I'm able. If you must know my opinion, however, I generally support Tlhslobus' comments. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was the notification "inappropriate"? If so, I apologize and find someone else very determined then. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that the criteria for determining whether an editor should be notified in this manner is listed at that page, and I cannot believe that I qualify as a "concerned editor" in a matter in which I have had no involvement. RGloucester — ☎ 03:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- You were involved in ITN before you decided to quit the venue. Maybe you qualify, even when you stayed away from it. For me, I had enough of DYK's bureaucracy as you had enough of ITN's issues. George Ho (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even if I had wanted to comment, I could not do so now without being a party to WP:CANVASSing. I'm trying to keep my hands clean, to the degree that I'm able. If you must know my opinion, however, I generally support Tlhslobus' comments. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to frequently involve in ITN. We have a near-split decision about keeping and removing it. I just want people to be involved in just one discussion. That's all. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you're inviting me, Mr Ho? Regardless, I must decline your invitation. I do not venture into ITN anymore, and haven't done for quite some time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Station naming convention
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for expanded details. Thanks for starting the page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Crimea annexation RFC
I've opened an RFC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question
"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"
As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)