Jump to content

User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

ANI report on Kosovo Verification Mission

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Warring and Violation of WP:NOR. Since you've sometimes left advice on this editor's talk page, perhaps you have some thoughts to share at ANI about the current dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not surprised with regards to the other editor involved. I'll take a look ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Having taken a look through the actual dispute, I'm wholeheartedly convinced that the fresh uproar on anything to do with Kosovo or Albanians has been triggered by our newest recruit, OppositeGradient (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who submitted the complaint to the ANI, and whose behaviour so far has been that of an SPI who's definitely NOTHERE. For an editor who only began as a 'newbie' on July 6th, s/he has managed to acquaint themselves with how Wikipedia works like a DUCK to water.
The user involved themselves bouncing back and forth between cris de coeur and straight out "you're all part of an anti-Albanian cabal" involvement on another ANI section almost immediately; not to mention personal attacks and harassment of any user who s/he believes doesn't have a moral compass on the current Kosovo RfC. I believe Athenean has observed that this user has the same MO as another long-blocked user. The user has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. Dr.K., FkpCascais, Jeppiz, Anastan, and Zoupan would probably be more familiar with the usual socks on Balkans issues than I. All I'm aware of, and care to know about, is who the block evader is: I simply have no doubts that the user is a sock. Even if that could not be proven, they are certainly disruptive, pointy, and sheer battleground. Oranges Juicy, as a promising new editor, still believes that WALLOFTEXT discussions are a sign of being able to find some form of compromise on the premise of AGF, but doing so is contingent on the 'opponent' being AGF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

* Dear EdJohnston, once upon a time during the Cold War, the two sides of the world had different approaches toward solving their internal problems. The eastern communist totalitarian regimes started solving an issue by asking "WHO did it?", often resulting in the punishment of the involved actor. In contrast, the western side, started with asking "WHAT happened?". I am a fan of the second approach, and I would encourage all editors to assess the case, not individuals. The question we have is whether there was a WP:OR, and a subsequent edit warring in a concrete case? Deviating the focus towards personal allegations on me are disturbing, even though I unfortunately got used to them when working on Balkan-related articles. OppositeGradient (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, when did you accumulate so much experience of editing Balkan-related articles, OppositeGradient? You've only been involved for a few weeks, tops... In the short time you've adopted your current moniker, you've made personal attacks of the lowest order, then when it was explained by me that you need to play nicely, you warned me off using the same tactic whereby you believe that Wikipedia is only for editors who adopt a moral high ground (POV) that must match your depth of morality and perception. You've spent more time in harassing other editors, digressing from NPOV by badgering and stalking them, littering racial and ethnic slurs around the place, but I've yet to see positive input into any articles. In all seriousness, there is no logical response to counter your bizarre 'no, it's you who are being emotive' stroke of genius(?) non-argument in the July 15 section of your talk page. You're WP:NOTHERE, are preoccupied with yourself being the great spokesperson for "The Truth", and are an intentionally disruptive editor, a battlegrounder and undoubtedly a block evader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::: I have no reason to respond to your personal attacks. Neither do I need to feel guilty for knowing Balkans well, nor should I feel sorry for contributing to Wikipedia, nor do I feel remorse for questioning the moral integrity of editors that compare Kosovo to the ISIS terror organization. That is all from my side. The opinions presented here can serve to EdJohnston and other involved admins, as a guideline for the coefficient of credibility that the above editor has in commenting a case I am involved. Wish you all a good day! OppositeGradient (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston has enough on his plate without having to hear out a complaints session. The only reason he's referred this to me is because I've been involved with OJ's editing since s/he started. What is happening, however, is that you and OJ are jousting. While this is hardly a new phenomenon, I've identified you as being a sock... and my primary concern is whose sock you are. It's now a matter for the SPI (if I can identify your original account) or the ANI if I can't pinpoint you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Donbass war.

I see you have problem with the fact that russian regular forces are NOT involved in battling. All i did was removing the pro american bias and the lies about the alleged involvement of Russia in the civil war in the ex-eastern ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videinfra666 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the article's talk page archives and don't redact reliably sourced content because you don't like it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Change reverted in European diaspora wiki page, when facts are incorrect.

Hello. There are numbers that don't make any sense in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_diaspora#By_populations on Argentina's line.

Everywhere else in the page it's stated that there are 36, 38 million white poeple in Argentina (which correspond roughly to census results and studies), out of 42 million (2014 population estimate). Those numbers make up ~85 percent of the population. The CIA factbook places that number at 97% https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html

As stated in es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composición_étnica_de_Argentina, latest studies on the genetic composition of the Argentine population place those numbers at 78%. One study from the University of California places it at 78%:

Seldin, Michael F. et al (2006). «Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution», en American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(3):455-462, punlished online the 18th of December 2006.

Another study of the same year, carried on in Buenos Aires, shows almost identical results (78.9%):

Avena, Sergio A.; Goicoechea A. S.; Rey J.; Dugoujon J. M.; DeJean C. B. y Carnese F. R. (2006): «Mezcla génica en una muestra poblacional de la ciudad de Buenos Aires», artículo publicado en Medicina, 66 (2): págs. 113-118. Buenos Aires. ISSN 1669-9106. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/medba/v66n2/v66n2a04.pdf

Moreover, the Source that has been cited for Argentina's line is wrong, it is a book search in Google Books which types "chile 60% white Esteva-Fabregat" in the search box. How's that for believable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarren34 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tarren34. Am I safe in assuming that you previously edited the article as IP 201.212.132.160 prior creating an account? Thanks for updating the statistics and references using reliable sources. Your IP edit only pointed to Spanish language Wikipedia, whereas we need the actual sources to be referenced and cited. Unfortunately, as I have many articles on my watchlist, a lot of articles can be refactored without my being notified.
Thank you for picking up on the errors, and happy editing! If you need assistance, please feel free to ask me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

OppositeGradient

Hello once again Iryna. Can I ask you the kindest of favours and follow my example, please WP:Don't feed the troll by posting any more on Talk:Kosovo in response to OppositeGradient. This editor will simply tell you that you are attacking him, accusing him of being a sock, and that we had a vote, and that the vote explicitly favoured Kosovan sovereignty with all other descriptors to begin from the next sentence. The trouble we have is that we cannot get Request for Closure completed because eveything is too long. I get the impression someone is trying to keep it that way because he doesn't have a hope of achieving his goal. --OJ (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: It's okay. Now that he's been identified as being a sock, all of his comments on the RfC, etc., can be struck through. Further to that, I don't usually feed the trolls unless I have absolutely no doubt that they are socks who won't just shut up and go away, therefore I need to pinpoint enough diffs to be able to determine who the sock-master is. All of the IP comments there are down to him (Hanover, Germany)... therefore they should also be struck. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you said it, you insisted, and you were right! Yet I was the one who endured more of his nonsense than any other editor and on all occasions where he entered editing zones in which I was active. I have the suspicion that very soon, he will be back to continue his chores - of course I can only know him as OppositeGradient and not by any other usernames. That said, you know well I never took a keen interest in whether he was a banned editor and all for the simple reason that I am not the type of editor to resort to technicalities to eliminate an opponent, I'll do so using arguments. But I have to admit, in Opposite's case, even I in the end found (per my last post) it is best to ignore after a while. When an editor continues to use the same ridiculous arguments that have been long refuted and to which he does not even question the responses, I have now learnt that walls of text are a waste of time because they never work on our side as editors, admins just look at the fact that two editors disagree and will hand out blocks and TBs. No thank you! I've learn my lesson - keep it brief, at least on admin noticeboards if not the talk pages. --OJ (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Poland

Hi - I'm prepared to be helpful on this article but not sure that my amendments have made discussion more difficult. The talk page seemed to be focused on how to handle the poll (where I support your arguments). I think the changes I made tried to move this away from being an article dominated by a triumphalist focus on Catholicism - I'm keen not to lost them. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've self-reverted in order that your content changes aren't lost. If anyone has issues with your content changes, they're welcome to follow BRD. You're quite correct in pulling me up for conflating two separate issues. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not all Iryna - you are right to be vigilant! I share your aspirations to make sure this particular article is broad and balanced. The religious experience of Poland is complex and I'm not sure it's yet properly captured. Perhaps we can work together to look at some of the aspects? After the issue of the poll has been resolved of course!! Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Iryna Harpy, I'm sorry, but I haven't changed any information in the page European diaspora, and this is not a shared IP address, maybe you made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.105.29 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, IP 190.234.105.29. The message I left addressed a change made in June (per you edit history to be found here, specifically this edit). If it was not you, perhaps someone else has accessed your computer. I'd suggest that you might want to make certain that you keep your eyes open for anyone in your household who might like taking the opportunity to access sites while you're not looking. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector

Right Sector is involved in the current conflict occurring in the Donbass region. I am now aware you have a biasness for your lack of justification in removing material which is well known. Because you seem to think it's fine to remove the Right Sector from the info-box, I will remove the RNU , as I can see no fairer way then to remove a Russian-centric group while you unjustifiably removed a Ukrainian-centric group, and labeled the addition of them as not 'constructive'. There is a better case to be made for Right Sector involvement in the conflict rather than RNU involvement. --Ritsaiph (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please take your arguments to the correct venue, being the War in Donbass article's talk page... and comment on content, not the contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko Bloc Edit

Hi this is Gorrrillla5, I added the changes to Petro Poroshenko Bloc and the source was just above the edit I made. I added that the party is Pro-European based on the source given for the Liberal conservative ideology, in the article it clearly states that the party is aiming at joining the EU by 2020; the party is also stated on the EU website as a centre-right party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorrrillla5 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gorrrillla5. As I noted on your talk page (and in the revert edit summary), you're welcome to restore the content using the references (most specifically the EU website reference). If you're not confident about citing a reference, please read REFB. If you're still not comfortable with doing it yourself, just add the URLs next to your content additions and I'll be happy to convert them into footnotes on your behalf. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Did you see this?

I just caught a glance at the letter to the right. It is somewhat amusing that this is the sort of thing that the city administration is worrying itself with. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bwahaha! Oops, did I just type that out loud? Oh, dear, Mr. Nikonov really ought to petition every other Anglophone media outlet before he starts making 'demands' of Wikipedia... not that I doubt that he has. It fairly much epitomises the puerile arguments having gone on for years at Talk:Kiev/naming. The temptation to engage Mr. Nikonov regarding his handing out of directives is a little on the wickedly delicious side. Yeah, of course changing the depiction of Kiev (er, Kyiv) is of the utmost concern in the current climate. Yay for us: we rule the waves when it comes to being the make or break for historical outcomes! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting that he signed his name as "Igor" rather than "Ihor", given his insistence on "Kyiv". That's something he failed to mention when talking about derivations from Russian... RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch. I hope he's petitioning http://kievcity.gov.ua/, all of the business sites with kiev.ua in their URL, as well as every Anglophone and English language news service. Seems that they don't agree with his take on the English language spelling of Kiev, and don't appreciate being told that a centuries-old convention must be changed on his directive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Panties

Please leave my edit alone. I was NOT adding original research. I was trying to rearrange the information that was already there. Fangusu (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are changing definitions and reworking already unsourced content. Please take it to the talk page of the article as I have requested of you. All of that content needs to be reviewed in light of the fact that it can't be attributed to any sources, therefore is in need of transparent discussions on the relevant talk page where other editors can also put in their 2¢ worth. The definitions for cuts of garments are not going to be consistent from country. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

KYIV

[1]. Congratulations! For lack of response wiki community can see that they did not want to understand that Ukraine - not Russia, not Poland. Thank you for attention.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So a country that cannot establish rule over the land within its internationally-recognised borders is seeking to determine the language spoken in England and USA! What business is it of the Kiev City administration how English and American speak in their own language?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not only England and the US, but other Anglophone countries, Toddy1. The naming convention of 'Kiev' is used in Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries in all circumstances including the press. The events in Ukraine over the last couple of years have definitively confirmed that this is the standard English language nomenclature for the name of the city. Бучач-Львів, you obviously don't understand the WP:COMMONNAME policy, and have taken it upon yourself to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you believe that the spelling of the city is going to change perceptions as to whether it is the capital of a sovereign nation-state, I can only feel sorry for your misplaced POV pushing: it's understood. Focussing on trivia is a misdirection of energy.
Has it never occurred to you that Moscow is not 'Maskva', or that Greece is not 'Ellas'/'Ellatha', etc? When the Ukrainian language adopts 'Deutschland' (Germany in English) and changes it to 'Дойчланд' in lieu of 'Німеччина', and 'England' becomes 'Інґланд' rather than 'Англія' we might have something to discuss. In all seriousness, 'Kiev' is the English language naming convention for 'Київ'. Perhaps at some time in the future (AKA WP:CRYSTAL), Kyiv will become the norm in the English language. It doesn't matter how much anyone rails against the current nomenclature, the fact remains that it is what it is. As the expression goes in English, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you need plainer English in your reply for the Ukrainian Wikipedian... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your right, Sameboat. My response is too convoluted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: I'll give you a simple answer: Wikipedia doesn't make the rules, we follow reliable secondary sources, and secondary sources in the English-speaking world use 'Kiev' as the WP:COMMONNAME. This is a fact backed up by media reports and research into events in Ukraine over the last couple of years. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you see?

Many of the difficult people on Wikipedia to do with articles on Ukraine are probably three or four people wearing different hats. Did you see about User:LeftCry?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, and felt quite disappointed. I have a strong suspicion about others as well. There have been some strange ones who start out writing comments as if their English is very poor who suddenly turn into lucid (if not near-native) English speakers. It gets very tiring indeed when we assume good faith only to discover that we're supporting troublesome block evaders... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Is Russia officially leader of the EEU?

Hello Iryna, how are you? I noticed you changed a sentence in the Eurasian Economic Union, therefore suggesting that Russia is, somehow, officially leader of the EEU. I edited most of the article about the EEU in Spanish, with the help of an Armenian-Argentine fellow editor, and I tried, personally, to give the same precise weight to each of the 5 countries (so far, a bit less to Kyrgyzstan since it only joined in May). Well, as it's by far the largest and most populous country, it's natural that Russia has a larger practical role on it, but following that logic Brazil would, e.g., be considered as official leader of the Mercosur, which doesn't make sense for me. What are your considerations about this topic? Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Viet-hoian1: Aha, now I see what's going on. I haven't actually worked on the "Eurasian Economic Union" at all. The change you made was to the Russia article where someone else has bundled it together with Russia's being the 'leader' of a few economic pacts.
Please note that I've reverted you again per WP:BRD for the moment, but certainly not out of malice. I think it should be taken to the Talk:Russia page where it's more likely to draw attention to the EEU article, and that article's failure to provide RS for which country initiated and/or leads the EEU. Working on the assumption that it's possibly/probably WP:SYNTH, we may be able to draw out more sources via other editors who have a better grounding in the subject at hand. Again, I'd be reticent to make WP:OR assumptions based on who stands to gain the most from such a union. Let's see if we can't establish some sort of RS understanding on the matter. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Forgive me, in regards to the War in Donbass article, I don't understand what the POV-fork talk discussion has to do with removing an unnecessary break in the infobox between 'Russia' and 'note 1'. Please explain. Thanks. DylanLacey (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, DylanLacey! I was following the long series of refactored trash which actually had been reverted, and mistook your edit at having been a revert reinstating some of that content. I've self-reverted with a trout slap and an apology. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Vera Brezhneva Wiki page last undo

Hello, my name is Tatiana. Thank you for your message. I think, as Vera Brezhneva has a Ukrainian citizenship and live and work in Kyiv (the capital of Ukraine), she should be defined as Ukrainian singer. Even if you look in Russian Wiki page of Vera Brezhneva [1], you can find there statement that she is Ukrainian singer as well as her nationality (country, citizenship) - Ukrainian. You can use Google Translate or similar services to translate the page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.120.3 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tatiana. There is a fundamental problem with this in that there don't appear to be any reliable sources being used as to her citizenship. What Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia say isn't relevant as neither cite any references. Toddy1, any thoughts on this? I think I should start a section on the article's talk page. We can't attribute an ethnicity where there are no references to back the assertion up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0

my deleted post

hi iryna ....i recently added "however rebels strongly deny involvement" i believe the mh17 comment is not relevant to information about the make up of rebel forces such comments frame the narrative that only rebels could have shot down the plane and i wonder how this comment was allowed when it is clear bias and for which my comment was also blocked And also this was not my personal opinion but widely discussed by many news outlets i was not able to quote the sources as wikipedia says the uk daily mail is on the blacklist as well as a youtube video in which the bbc interviewed locals who reported seeing fighter planes in the area ..google search BBC "deleted mh17 report" ...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzabobo (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's essentially the problem, Bazzabobo. Unless there are reliable sources that can be used, we can't simply add information. Please read the link I've provided in order to understand why verifiable third party sources are so important. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Russia and the EEU

Hello, Iryna! I've noticed that the article was protected on the grounds of edit-warring... Well, it wasn't my intention to engage in a war of edits, honestly, but I found weird that, according to the text article, Russia was being considered, if I understood it well, as an "official" leader of the EEU... And as I said, as the most powerful countries in their areas, then Brazil should be considered as the "leader" of Mercosur, Indonesia should be considered the "leader" of ASEAN or USA should be considered as the "leader" of NAFTA. I'm honestly tired of the current German hegemony (in practice) in the EU. And I wouldn't tell in an EU article that Germany would be the "leader" of the EU. Anyway, most because of that practical occurence, I'm mildly Eurosceptic, myself. Until it's proven that Russia, Brazil, USA or Indonesia are the "leaders" of these blocs, I can't agree that Russia is superior to Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan in this bloc. If it comes true in the future, then of course I agree it shall be considered in the article. That's my position, and I'm not pleased that a non-serious issue that could have been discussed between ourselves turned the article about Russia (which is actually not the article about which I'd be more interested about, rather it would be the EEU) as a protected article. I'm more used to the Spanish Wikipedia where I guess conflicts are less frequent and probably I presumed the same about the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm glad that my edits about Euroscepticism have been generally accepted, though it can be improved a lot, as I've told in the talk page of that article. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Viet-hoian1! Apologies for taking so long to respond, but I've been caught up in disputes all around the globe. Not a problem with the wording for EEU. I've just tweaked the Russia lead to divide up the economic info into two paragraphs instead of one slab, and have removed a redundant 'is' until we can find any RS as to whether Russia is considered the lead nation or part of what is theoretically and/or practically an equal partnership alliance.
I've yet to get back to the Euroscepticism article. It's been moved dramatically from one of my top priorities to an 'as soon as I can get back to it' situation.
In the meantime, you're getting big a dose of how much discussion it takes just to get a few words in or out of an article... even the editors who constantly work on the high-profile articles carrying sanction warnings don't agree on every point. Nevertheless, I think you're resilient and are approaching articles in good faith, so you'll get used to using the talk pages and getting slapped around. It never stops. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna Harpy! Are you Ukrainian? If you are, don't be naïf thinking that Ukraine is an European sweetheart!... It may have been in a short term, but EU would crush Ukraine like they've done with Greece and in a less extent to other European countries. Concerning to Russia, I'm quite aware that Putin acts as a dictator, and he's quite famous for being responsible for several poisonings against several political rivals. Anyway... What I think is that we should consider the opinions and the culture of all Ukrainians, not only the majority. When Svoboda and the Right Sector infiltrated in the Ukrainian revolution, that revolution which could be positive, became negative, since those are either far-right or neo-nazi parties. What would be expected from the ethnic Russians in Ukraine or from the Russian-speaking Ukrainians? Passiveness? Of course not. I regret a lot of the methods that the separatists have taken, as well as I regret the attitudes that the new Ukrainian govt has taken. Ukrainians are a large minority in my country and I'd wish that they could be at peace with each other... but not at any price, I'd say, as well as I'd say the same concerning the Kurds, etc. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Haha! Don't worry, Viet-hoian1, I'm most certainly not naive about the EU or anything else concerning global politics or the global capitalist economic system. I'm here to ensure that RS are represented and not to promote my own personal political views (which would possibly/probably surprise you). I actually think your view of the separatists is somewhat naive, and that you have disregarded the calibre of those involved (i.e., Russian National Unity and other extremist, irredentist knee-jerk reactionaries - homophobes per the DPR's constitution, religious nutters, and neo-luddites advocating women go back to the 'harem' - who are hardly advocates for goodness, niceness and visions of an egalitarian world). Ukraine is a pawn in the game of chess between superpowers. There is no 'independent' state when the economic world order doesn't work that way. Small, irrelevant countries are precisely that: expedient.
Nevertheless, we're not here to push our political ideologies so, rather than entering a dialogue as to the state of the world (in which case we should be at a forum or a blog), let's stick to improving the content of the articles. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the reply, anyway, I don't really think that a lot of ppl are innocent in the Ukrainian govt nor among the separatists. They're politicians, what would you expect? I've been trying to add the minority languages in Portugal, but I still could not do it (mainly Ukrainian, Romanian, Moldovan and Cape Verdean Creole). The Ukrainians here are quite silent about those issues, but there's a Portuguese-Ukrainian association here: http://www.spilka.pt/pt/estatuto . As there are among other minorities here, particularly Brazilians, who are the largest minority. I've met ppl from Western and Eastern Ukraine and I'm aware they have different opinions about the issues. I guess it's possible to reach a consensus, as long as the interests of Eastern Ukrainians and Western Ukrainians are aknowledged by each part. Ukraine is a new country that didn't have time yet to build a national identity, unlike Portugal or Brazil (whatever our ideological differences are, we consider ourselves as belonging to this precise country). I'd be glad if that would be the case in Ukraine, but neither the Ukrainian govt nor the separatists have aknowledged that so far... well, at least I hope that the Minsk agreements are respected. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm far more cynical about where this is going. Oligarchs playing the nationalist card (in Russia as well) are no different to the multinationals other than the fact that they're a more recent advent, thereby more visible than the Big Brother world that's insidiously crept into 'Western' countries. I kept my mouth shut when everyone was celebrating the Orange Revolution as being some wonderful, new beginning because I knew it only marked the beginning of something far more ominous that has been brewing since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the plundering of the coffers by a new breed of opportunist. Ah, well. We shall see what happens (said the blind man to the deaf man)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Iryna! I have a question: in Russian, Belorussian and some other wiki's on top of pages you can see if the page is patrolled, how can I see it here? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi, Илья. If they are authorised from a draft article and moved, they're automatically controlled, so you won't see the tag. As I imagine you're wanting to patrol articles being translated from the wikis you work on, you'd want the Page Curation tool. It would be useful for you to read New pages patrol (particularly the "Foreign language pages (WP:Notenglish)" section). You'll be able to find helpful contacts for the curation tool, etc. when you download the tool. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
But how can I use it, if I am not a patroller? Or I misunderstood something? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
I believe that you only need to be an autoconfirmed user. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Aaa, I see, thank you. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
Okay, I've checked in a little further, Илья. I'm assuming that this is related to your developing articles on the history of the railway in ex-Soviet countries? I'm not certain as to how that works as I think your articles would actually require that someone else autopatrols your articles, and that you wouldn't need the page curation tool for this. Let me know so I can look into it further. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean my articles are bad? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
No, no, Илья, I don't mean that at all! I've had a quick look at a couple and it seems that they could do with some light copyediting because your English is a little weak, plus may need some more references if any are available.
What I mean is that I don't think you can curate your own page. I'm not really certain as to whether the page curation tool is what you need. I don't think you're looking to be a Pending changes reviewer. If you're worried that your new articles won't be picked up on, they will be found and go to the new pages feed where they will be picked up by an experienced reviewer. Hope this helps! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean:( I'm sorry, I didn't practice for a quite long time, while I live in Russia. As I understood, Pending changes reviewer is like a patroller? Or I am not right? I am a patroller in Russian wikipedia, and going to become one in Belorussian, so...anything is possible...;) Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
No, pending changes and rollback are separate requests (or is awarded to you if you're a longstanding and trusted editor). You'd need to familiarise yourself with WP:NPP. I'm now sure that what you want is WP:AUTOPAT. For this, you need to apply at WP:PERM/A for patrolling rights.
For pending changes rights, you need to read through WP:REVIEWER and apply at WP:PERMS/RV.
For rollback rights, you need to read through WP:ROLLBACK and apply WP:PERM/R.
All the best! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I see, but I have only 200 edits, do you think they will give me a reviewer or a rollback flag? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
You can always try, but I very much doubt it. You'll need to have a demonstrable record of experience and understanding of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you can only gain by working on a number of different articles. See Becoming a reviewer and Requesting rollback rights. Rollback rights are something you could be eligible for much sooner than reviewer rights, but you still need a reasonably substantial number of mainspace edits to satisfy admins that you have enough understanding and experience to be confident in knowing what you are doing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The roles have evolved as being separated at English Wikipedia. Please do get some more experience under your belt. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC).
Well, Ghirlandajo is a very experienced editor. I know that there are a lot of stubs that have been hanging around for years that do have infoboxes, but that doesn't mean that it's best practice. While I can help you with some technical questions, it's better to go to the Teahouse where experienced hosts can assist you with any questions you have. I'll post an invite on your talk page so you can easily access their board. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Dispute Resolution

There is mention of you on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, over here [2]. Xtremedood (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Xtremedood. I am aware of it as I was pinged from there, but it's already been closed off because it violates WP:FORUMSHOPPING (whether you were aware of the policy or not). Let's see how the ANI pans out. I'm finding it impossible to assume good faith on your behalf, but you are fighting, and fighting, and fighting against consensus which is a bad idea, and suggest that you take a WP:BREATHER. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Where am I fighting? I am simply opposing dogma that exists on a page. No need to be so accusatory. Also, on the DRN it states "This case cannot be opened as there is another instance of the same case currently in WP:AN/I. DRN cannot handle cases which are pending in other forums/noticeboards. Feel free to open another case when content dispute exists even after the cases in other forums are closed. Regards". Wait for the AN/I conclusion first. Take a look at my edit [3], and compare it with the version that you reverted back to [4]. I feel that my version is more neutral. It does not speak in such definitive terms. Also, read the arguments that I have presented on the talk page. If you have any criticisms of any of my sources or statements, feel free to let me know. I am open to constructive criticism, however I do not appreciate baseless accusations. Xtremedood (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

NGR - the saga continues!

I have no idea what needs to be done to stop the personal attacks and return to a semblance of collegial order. Wikimedes' post is pretty great, and I tried to drive home that personal attacks won't help with an Arbcom case in the making. Each belligerent has become "identified" with their respective sources, and I think therein lies a major problem. In any event, cheers, and here's to the prospect of not having to deal with this anymore! GABHello! 00:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Argh! I knew it was too good to be true. The moment agreement was reached on something, it turned into an avalanche. I'll take a look at the AC in a moment. I agree that Wikimedes' version (which I understand to have been approved by consensus) was good. I also believe that his arguments are comprehensively based, whereas the tension has been an ongoing one with an editor who, while being AGF, also promotes a highly Amerocentric bias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that we have some kind of closure. GABHello! 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good. We have so many socks stuffing more into the article drawers that it often difficult to pin down who the master sock was. As you say, it's a resolution 'of sorts'. Let's see if the other user cools down and works collaboratively with other editors without the primary agent provocateur baiting him. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Hopefully, the situation will be more civil. GABHello! 23:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

SecondoMontanarelli

Hello, I've seen you have dealt with User:SecondoMontanarelli in the past. Today I stumbled across an odd edit from that account (on the Linear B article) just to notice that all contributions are essentially adding references to works by Perono Cacciafoco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SecondoMontanarelli ‒ this seems very poor practice but I'm not that experienced in dealing with such problematic editors, so it would be great if you could have a look. From my limited perspective, all edits should be undone. Thank you, --Steko (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steko: Thank you for drawing my attention to the addition of Cacciafoco's papers. Yes, the matter was thoroughly discussed at the time (back in April). I've removed them as WP:FRINGE. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! There are a few other pages with the same issue so I'll follow your example and undo those additions as well. --Steko (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be excellent, Steko. I think I was the only editor left who was still trying to explain why his content was unacceptable and, had he persisted, or if he was to return, he'd be blocked from editing the areas of history he'd been working on. I hope that you manage to ferret out anything left behind. Thanks, in advance, for your hard work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Donetsk People's Republic

Hi Iryna! I reverted one of your editions since you didn't give an explanation that would be (at least for me) satisfactory enough. I asked you a more satisfactory explanation. Are you of Ukrainian descent? I live in a country where tons of Ukrainians live, from both sides. Therefore I'm not a simple ignorant about this issue, and I want peace for all of you if you're indeed Ukerainian), both from Lviv, Ternopil, Mikholaiv or Donetsk (I've met ppl from all these places and given my profession I've helped some of them, including from persecutions by the former pres Yanukovitch). Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all fine, Viet-hoian1, but it has nothing to do with the content of articles... nor does my ethnicity or personal POV. I've reverted your revert as it is being discussed on the talk page of the article. This isn't a personal issue between the two of us, but involves other editors with regard to policy and guideline lead decisions as to what is appropriate within the constraints of the article, and what is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it's nothing personal, but where is that discussion? I haven't discovered it so far. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussions of the content in question (and any derivations of it) is all over that talk page, but you're free to start a new section dedicated to that particular change if you wish. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid, Iryna, if you haven't already caught on, that the above fellow is none other than Mondolkiri1. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I guessed that some time ago. He's working from 2 accounts here (at the least). I wouldn't usually tolerate block evasion, but... well, he's getting nowhere fast. Hopefully, he'll just go away. Just check out this section. Exactly the same person: perceptions, English language idiosyncrasies, et al. To be honest, I couldn't be bothered starting an SPI despite having more than enough diffs. Maybe I'll template both of his user pages. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already submitted an SPI. Hopefully it will be dealt with in a swift manner. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
whatever that means, I have no intention about editing again about subjects like these on english wp, since I've seen how these topics are treated here, like in the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. My consciousness is clean and I'll proceed on Spanish wp, not here. Greetings, Iryna Harpy and Rgloucester whoever he or she is.
2 accounts... yes and i've explained to you why it happened. I lost my password on the wikipedia español, I created another and later I remembered the earliest one. I even give to you what the 1st one was and is: Marrakech. I'm tired of your dirty games, honestly. Do whatever you wish with that password. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Section Deleting

@Iryna Harpy:You recently entered a discussion I had with Santilak about an article and, among other things, you told me that "nor do you get to shut down a thread you've started because you want to play at 'I can't hear you'" for having just said "Clearly this conversation is leading nowhere and I feel it would be better to discontinue it.", you then moved the discussion to the article's talk page, to which I have no objection. Now, after a few exchanges of posts between you and me, you got tired yourself and let me know that "this is the end of communications from me." That in itself would be fine, but you didn't stop there. You went on to delete the whole section without even warning me. Is this fair or polite behaviour? Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy didn't delete the section, they just just collapsed it, those two things are completely different. - SantiLak (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Againstdisinformation: The section is still there. There's no need for a protracted WP:BAIT and WP:BATTLE to feature there, so I've collapsed it. If anyone is interested, they can open it and take a look, and it remains on record without having to search through the history. Yes, I did ask you to take your content discussion to the relevant talk page, but it turned into a bloated WP:tl;dr about personal complaints. It's the wrong venue for blustering by any editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Finally we both agree. The exchanges were too long and, I daresay, clogged with jargon. Let's hope our future encounters will be both brief and civil and, above all, constructive. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: That's precisely the point. It doesn't serve anyone's interests in getting arguing for the sake of argument (and I accept that I was equally culpable in allowing it to escalate to that point). Wikipedia would just be Propagandapedia if editors always conveniently agreed with each other (or Zombiepedia?). The only way forward in making it a quality resource is by examining the minutia. I've found that the best editors are the ones who will disagree on certain points, but agree on others (which is not to claim that I'm a good editor). It's an ongoing project where spats are inevitably going to take place, and are healthy for the evolution of the project, although I'd be interested in finding some stats on how many of us have suffered strokes, nervous breakdowns and other health issues as a result of their participation!
I've never consistently agreed with any editors, nor do my interpretations of policy actually necessarily bring me any form of satisfaction. I'd even go so far as to say that a large portion of my time and energy goes into giving myself heartburn simply because those decisions run contrary to my own POV. I certainly don't take you for being anyone's fool, so any disagreements aren't personal, hence I'm also looking forward to constructive, fruitful interactions on content matters. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

equatorial guinea

I did not vandalize it, EG IS authoritarian and has one party-that rules all, just check out North Korea or China, one big party and a handfull of minor legal oposition parties, I am sorry but I did not know I did wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.218.26 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:August 2015

It was a copy and paste error, hence why I changed it back right away. I see your good faith skills are as non-existent as ever. FYI I was the one who originally added and removed Alexios, and there were no objections either time. So feel free to undo your edit or raise an objection, otherwise I will put it back. --Steverci (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Steverci: if you want to be treated with more assumption of good faith, then at least learn to use proper edit summaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Steverci has been asked to do so by other editors, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Added to that, Steverci, self-reverting is the best and most efficient way to restore articles to their prior state. I chose to roll back all of your edits as you'd glaringly left "Greek genocide" as "Greek Genocide" against MoS standards here. I wasn't about to spend unnecessary time in going through every change to ensure your hadn't left other errors. I'm not concerned as to whether you were the one to exchange Alexios: don't change galleries without edit summaries as to what you're doing and why, and certainly not without consulting with others who are involved in the development of the article. We've already gone through this on Talk:Romanians and Talk:Russians. It's become very annoying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Ending It

Thank you so much for ending that edit war! I can't believe it is finally over! Finally, no more arguements! No more endless debates! Words cannot even begin to describe my gratitude! I cannot thank you enough! Should you ever need my assistance, all you have to do is ask. It is the least I can do to repay you. I may not be the most experienced user on this site, but I will assist you in any way I can. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Anasaitis (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me too soon, Anasaitis. I'm hoping that my self-revert will discourage other editors from prolonging the edit war until an uninvolved administrator comes in to evaluate the RfC. That said, I will respect whatever conclusion the admin draws about the type of infobox deemed to be appropriate. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is to not retain infobox country. You are free to undo your self-revert as per the RfC. Cheers, Khestwol (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to USFK article

Sorry about not having reference source. As a senior official in the USFK, the information I added is both current and correct. However, since I am unable to cite a refence to matters currently being held close to the vest for political reasons, I shall not add good and informative information from an insider source ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.77.32.226 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources, verifiability, and NPOV policies. Wikipedia in an online encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. We don't break stories or accept any information that is not confirmed through secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Saint Cyril and Methodius

Hello, I will provide source, but this source is in Slovak language. My claim is supported by some web sources, but all of them are in Czech or Slovak language. Surely there exist some English articles on internet confirming my change, but I did not find any so far. Seven saints are worshipped in some Catholic and Eastern churches together: Cyril, Method and five their disciples - Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Angelar and Sava. Three of them, Gorazd, Clement and Naum, were ordained as priest, and two of them - Angelar and Sava - were ordained as deacon in Rome in 868.Lucullus19 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lucullus19: That seems fine as a source. I've just cited the reference fully, and tidied you translation a little. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Why did you revert my edit?

Hello Iryna!

Just curious, why did you do this edit? Aren't external links helpful?

Also I'd really like to know where does the simplification rule comes from. --Amakuha (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amakuha. I apologise for not leaving a proper ES or starting a talk page discussion as I tweaked my back and had no energy (in fact, I have to take some more pain killers and lie down for a while... akh, it's boring).
Could you please start a discussion on the article's talk page and ping me from there? Essentially, WP:UKROM is a mess. For the purposes of Wikipedia WP:P-NUK is in place for geographic nomenclature, but is not noted there. Essentially, we don't have a parallel guide for Wikipedia's transliteration of Ukrainian as an equivalent to the Russian WP:RUROM guide. It was originally envisaged that the Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN transliteration table article would serve as such a parallel, and would take in Help:IPA for Ukrainian. I really do think that all of the articles on the Romanization of Ukrainian need to be cleaned up, but most specifically that a simplified version for a transliteration system as part of Wikipedia's MOS: should be easily found and accessible for both editors and readers. Чух-чух твою макушку! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your health... I hope it's nothing serious and you are feeling better.
Regarding the «Чух-чух твою макушку!» I hope it wasn't a personal attack against my surname :) --Amakuha (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Haha! I couldn't help myself. My mother was addicted to having the crown of her head scratched... If you have a "chub", that would make for easy access. My back problem is the result of forgetting how old I am and deciding I could climb a tree just as easily as I did when I was young. Now that's embarrassing to admit. There's no fool like an old fool! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this, Amakuha. I'm temporarily caught up in areas of Wikipedia and will respond to the section you've opened on the article's talk page as soon as possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy/Archive_20&oldid=1245212072"