User talk:Iryna Harpy

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support in the past 24 hours. This barnstar comes, conveniently, with a coffee to wake you up this morning. Breakfast is on the way... Greenmaven (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack! It's the first thing I found on booting up for the day. I was wearing my scrunchy face in anticipation of unhappy doings being done, but now I'm wearing a smile (and ready to chomp down my baklava). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I already know you like this. With a coffee, it's the breakfast of champions. Greenmaven (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Having regained my appetite, it's gone down a treat. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Name of Ukraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]'', ''[[the Bronx]]'', ''[[Republic of the Congo|the Congo]]'', ''[[the Sudan]]'', ''the West''). [{{According to whom|This usage implies the borderland etymology (see above), or more precisely, a
• an often-seen Latin-alphabet transliteration of ''Україна'' that is an alternative to ''Ukrayina''). This version most closely resembles the vowel quality of the Ukrainian version of the word.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work, especially over the last year! Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Nickola Shreli?

Why are you going to delete it ? I wrote it,i didnt copy the text this time ! He is a real person,he is not fictive actor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AlbertBikaj. The issue isn't that of whether he exists or not. He would have to qualify as being notable by means of verifiable independent secondary sources (not IMDB or the blog zine you've referenced). As it stands, it appears that he has had a couple of small roles and has worked as an extra in a few roles. A Wikipedia biography is not warranted, particularly when it seems evident that it is being used as promotional material/publicity. Please see the following policies and guidelines: Basic criteria for notability, general notability guideline, self published sources,sources that are usually not reliable. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Intervening here, in order to keep all the talk in one place. Although I contested the PROD, I think that Shreli may very well fail the AfD. However, if you, Albert, think you can properly source the article you started with sources that are not in the article (or in its talk page, where I brought some), please feel free to do so. Best! --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I also prefer to use the relevant talk pages as this is not a personal matter or being debased to an edit war. I'll make some more suggestions on the Nickola Shreli talk page as to how to build up a case for notability. Please bear in mind, AlbertBikaj, that no one is disputing anything other than Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the matter. It can get a little heated and contributors can get a little robust in their arguments (as demonstrated in some toe-tweaking between myself and Perkohesisht ai i vjetri today), but it doesn't actually amount to genuine personal animosity or conflicts. Thanks for your time! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything that i wrote about him i is based on his biography,which i found on his Official Website,and "IMDB" also he got's main role in Landlord (Post production) and in Low Winter Sun (Post Production). I don't see a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's evident that you don't understand why it was nominated for deletion (and not by me in the first instance). Fortunately for you, a couple of Wikipedians intervened on your behalf and it is now probably okay, although it may still go up for an AfD. IMDB is simply not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Once other sources are introduced which do demonstrate verifiable notability, both his personal site and IMDB can be referenced for selective information.

Please note that I have had to nominate the image you're using for deletion. It is not okay to cut the watermark off a copyrighted image and claim it to be your own work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I just forgot to add other reference's,and i know its not OK,anyway thanks for not deleting it. I take that picture with my mobile phone.AlbertBikaj

Talkback

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A toast to our common wikiaddiction.

Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sweeet! May we never back down when we know we're doing the right thing. Good to meet a fellow addict... er, Wikipedian who actually thinks things out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bošnjak (surname)

Hi! It doesn't matter that the text is "long-standing" if it is factually wrong. Uncited material may be challenged at any time. And actually, this is a "common knowledge" issue for anyone even remotely familiar with the region. The term cannot be considered archaic if it is used by a plurality of Bosnians (Bosniaks) belonging to that constituent nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For that reason, Bosniak ("Bosnjak") is most part of the colloquial discourse in the region. This is really WP:BLUE and I should urge you to refrain from shouting "POV" when you apparently know little of the issue at hand. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I can't accept your account without sources. Being Ukrainian, and dealing with East Slavic, Polish, as well as Balkan articles, there is no such thing as taking someone's word at common knowledge. The entry was obviously made on behalf of a contributor with a particular POV which would indicate that their common knowledge is other than yours. The only way to deal with this is to add a tag for citation needed. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, but do you care to elaborate by what scenario this could possibly be an anachronism? Do you mean the Bosniaks are possibly guilty of anachronism? I'm confused. The term is obviously used very much so today. By definition, it cannot be considered archaic if in use? Right? Simply put, term is maybe archaic as a non-ethnic demonym but certainly active as an ethnonym. Also, nice to see ladies editing. Keep up the good work. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My greater concern is that it is possibly considered a pejorative term by sectors of the regional community (which would explain why someone had gone to such lengths to drive home the notion that it is an historical rather than contemporary term). An example of this would be the use of White Russian (for Belarusian) as a contemporary term (which is how it was being portrayed in Wikipedia) until a few of us cleared this up as being Russified misrepresentation. It simply needed a few WP:V and WP:RS citations.

Naturally, I know it isn't an easy call as the Western world is still highly uninformed when it comes to Slavic ethnic groups and culture. It becomes even more of a challenge when nuances are built into the languages. Nevertheless, as trivial as some of these issues appear to be, I prefer to err on the side of caution: citation, citation, citation when it comes to location, location, location! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, in one sense it is a historic term when corresponding to non-ethnic "Bosnian". The term Bosnjak is not used in that way anymore as it has been replaced with "Bosanac" (Bosnian). However, Bosnjak is also the national appellation of the Bosniaks (Muslims Bosnians) - while Catholic Bosnians declare "Croats" and Orthodox Bosnians as "Serbs". This ethnic division along religious lines has its roots in the 19th century (whereas until then the population as a whole identified as Bosnjak). So, yes I guess, calling a Christian Bosnian "Bosnjak" today would be considered offensive because it means a member of the Bosniak people. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope to have resolved the need for a citation tag by recognizing the (previous) fact that the term is archaic when used as a (non-ethnic) local demonym. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounded unnecessarily convoluted for the qualification of a surname. Cheers for the elaboration on the 'politics' behind the term. I think your latest edit to the item is a good compromise and doesn't merit a request for citations. Nice work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The ethnic structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina is pretty much a twist of faith shaped by the nationalisms of its neighbors. For example, the surname Bosnjak is common in Croatia among those descended from Bosnian Catholics who left Bosnia in the 19th century and earlier. There is even a village in Croatia named after these Catholic "Bosnjak" immigrants. Apparently, they received the surname Bosnjak to reflect their origin. Later, with the rise of Croatian nationalism in the second part of the 19th century, it followed that all Yugoslav-speaking Catholics in the region were roped in as "Croats" (in the same way Yugoslav-speaking Orthodox Christians were claimed as "Serbs"). This clustered the Bosnians three-ways leaving the Muslim Bosnians as sole carriers of Bosnian nationhood under the Bosnjak name (which now ironically also was a Croat surname). 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't so tragic it would be ridiculous. Patriotism is fine; nationalism is a state of xenophobia. Small wonder non-Slavic editors don't want to come near our articles. I hope you decide to create an official account. We need all of the balanced editors we can get. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna. I know I'm probably breaking the Wikipedia etiquette now by using it casually, but I hope you are having a great day (: 90.230.57.190 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

By no means do I consider it breaking wiki etiquette popping by to say hello! Hope you're having a great day, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry

Holy shit that was my friend I just looked at that message and I would never edit that me and my friend made the account together so he knows the password to it and I'm about to change that

I'll take it on good faith that you were editing with a nincompoop in the room. Please keep him/her locked in a closet (where he he/she belongs) in future. I think it would be polite to extend an apology the the editor concerned. It it also preferable NOT to preface an apology with, "Holy shit" (sic). Wikipedia is not a casual forum or blog, therefore making assumptions about the casual use of expletives is inappropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

imnumberw0n

Ok I will I promise it won't ever happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnumberw0n (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

imnumberw0n

Ok I will I promise it won't ever happen again

Re: Which version of the English language do you speak

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to source that assertion. Croat, wikt:Croat, http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Query=Croat http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/croat etc - none of them even allow for the possibility that there's a pejorative meaning to the term. This is not "Paki", it's merely an unambiguous version of "Croatian". Likewise, "Bosnian Croat" is a derived term with a fairly ordinary meaning. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is used as a pejorative, I fail to see why using the formal terminology (Bosnian-Croatian) on a surnames page is so offensive to you that you're prepared to edit war over it. The convention is already in place with Croatian-Australian, just as with surnames of Ukrainians, Russians, etc. None of them abbreviate to Ukrainian Pole, for example: Ukrainian-Polish would be used. You seem to have latched onto this with unwarranted aggression. It seems that what you're trying to present is that this is a Croatian from Bosnia rather than a neutral entry. Fine, that may be the case but the link is there for the details on this person. In fact, the point is made in the first line of the entry! Formal disambiguation page: formal presentation. WP:COMMON includes the use of common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Croatian" isn't as common as "Bosnian Croat". I realize "Croatian Australian" and "Bosnian American" etc is common, but in this case, the hyphen wouldn't really help understanding - would this person be a Bosnian person from Croatia, or a Croatian person from Bosnia?

I'm sorry if I appeared to be aggressive, but I'm advocating what appears to be the organic consensus on the English Wikipedia - I've seen the phrase "Bosnian Croat" (and likewise "Bosnian Serb") used on hundreds of articles and disambiguation pages, and I've never heard of this kind of a complaint. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You "appeared to be aggressive"? I could hear the shrieks through the monitor! Fair enough if this is consensus. Just point it out without uncivil edit comments. I don't need to be abused to catch on if it's the reality. I sincerely hope you don't conduct yourself in the same manner with other contributors you've never encountered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Our edit summaries said:

• note ethnicity, goes to pattern
• Better presentation. Croat is usually used as a pejorative.
• "Croat is used as a pejorative"?! Undid revision 590570483 by Iryna Harpy (talk)
• Reverted good faith edits by Joy (talk): In Australia IT IS USED AS A PEJORATIVE TERM FOR CROATIANS!!! (TW)
• per Talk, there's nothing pejorative about Croat and Bosnian Croat, at least as far as mainstream use, Undid revision 590582137 by Iryna Harpy (talk)

I don't really see the lack of civility, let alone abuse in my edit summaries there - you and I both first made a bold edit each, after which I challenged your assertion, admittedly without further explanation, and then you used all uppercase, which implies yelling. Based on that, I'm afraid I could give you much the same lecture as you just gave me :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're revisiting this after a week? Frankly, I haven't given it a second thought. LOL, see Wikipedia:The Last Word. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A WikiCake for you!

K6ka (talk | contrib) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Seeing how incredible civil and kind you are to other editors, I've decided to give you a fine WikiCake for your excellent work. Cheers!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

K6ka (talk | contrib) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, my friend! What a good thought. It's cheered me up after having to unravel seriously botched pages on my watchlist today. I'll pass it on to someone else who's always on the alert & probably doesn't get enough recognition for their invaluable work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

I'm new to this and in need of help. How do I report user 67.181.10.235 ? he/she vandalized dozens of pages( as you can see if you check his/her history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.181.10.235) in the last few days and it would take a long time to correct all his/her meddling. Regards Armynut15 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Just stepped away for an hour to have lunch & found this message. Thanks for letting me know. I'll just revert the vandalism and report the IP. I'll give you directions for your future reference when I'm done. No need to panic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted all of this IP user's vandalism. Fortunately, Materialscientist (who you'll grow to love for being ever vigilant and five steps ahead of everyone) had already blocked the IP by the time I'd found your message.

As you're still just learning the ropes, it's probably best and easiest for you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia by going through the Welcome info I've added to your page. I've also left an invitation for you to visit the Teahouse where you'll get assistance quickly. Alternatively, you can just type (or cut and paste) {{Help me}} on your own talk page by creating a new section and popping it into the editing box. Someone will be along pronto to help you out. I'll keep an eye on your talk page in case you run into troubles with other editors, etc.

The simple way to undo something you've identified as being vandalism is to be found here. If there are several edits vandalising the content, use the latter method (selecting the version you wish to revert to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello, fellow vandal fighter. Coffee might perk you up. :-) I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! A dose of caffeine wouldn't go astray. Keep up the good fight! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind (although I'm not quite sure of what I've done to warrant it)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

US

Raised issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Dougweller (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. OK, if I encounter changes of this nature in the future, I'll simply revert citing "Unwarranted WP:POV push". Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mongol invasions of Rus'

Hi, you reverted an edit by a user with IP adress 68.67.52.194 who gave a citation on a quote in the article. I have the same translation of the Chronicles of Novgorod and that quote is present in several chapters in one form or another.

" We know not whence they came, nor where they hid themselves again. God knows whence he fetched them against us, for our sins.";

"The same year, for our sins, unknown tribes came, whom no one exactly knows, who they are, nor whence they came out, nor what their language is, nor of what race they are, nor what their faith is; but the}' call them Tartars, and others say Taurmen, and others Pecheneg people, and others say that they are those of whom Bishop Mefodi of Patmos bore witness, that they came out from the Etrian desert which is between East and North.";

"And the Tartars turned back from the river Dnieper, and we know not whence they came, nor where they hid themselves again; God knows whence he fetched them against us for our sins."

"God alone knows who they are and whence they came out. Very wise men know them exactly, who understand books; but we do not know who they are, but have written of them here for the sake of the memory of the Russian Knyazes and of the misfortune which came to them from them."

These are all quotes from the book. I think that citation should stay.

You should, then, be able to supply me with the precise page numbers for each of the quotes. If you can, I'd be grateful and could reinstate them (even though it's contravening the use of using WP:Secondary, I can justify their usage given that, in this context, the Primary Chronicles aren't genuinely primary sources, and that no conclusions are being drawn from the direct presentation of the translations). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing.

1st quote: p.XXIV

2nd quote: p.64

3rd quote: p.66

4th quote: p.64

You can find the pdf of the book easily and check for yourself. My point is that the quote is indeed authentic since it does have a source, albeit a translation, but unless you want to site a Russian book in an English wiki article, a translation is the next best thing. 96.127.211.180 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Uff. I actually have this translation on my hard drive. I don't know what happened to my reader when I tried searching yesterday, but it failed to pick up any of the excerpts when I searched! Hmm, one of those bizarre things that could have been resolved by rebooting, no doubt.

Due to an overload of editing and something that simple going wrong with Acrobat (grrr), it could have gone unnoticed, so my sincerest thanks for pulling me up on this. I know it shouldn't happen, but the number of IP address edits which are pure vandalism or misinformation, unsourced, etc. tends to lead to knee-jerk reactions from regular editors (if in doubt, toss it out).

I'm about to sign out for the day, but I'll reinstate all of the translations and cite the references comprehensively first thing tomorrow morning. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help! I'll let you handle the editing, you seem to be in control of things. 96.127.211.180 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I speak Spanish

I speak Spanish and was just translating the word. My edits were not disruptive. I was just trying to improve the articles by giving the translation. AbelM7 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of whether you speak Spanish or not. Please familiarise yourself with WP:MOS as you are misunderstanding the fundamental structures in place. Per MOS:FORLANG (explicit directives for the lead of an article), the brackets are not for a thousand and one convolutions of translations of the text into Spanish, but the Spanish variant alone. As an example, see the corresponding article for Cuban American in the ES Wikipedia: "El término cubano-estadounidense (en inglés Cuban-American) se utiliza para referirse a las personas de origen cubano que viven en Estados Unidos." Do you get the gist of the issue at hand now? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Americano is the translation of American. It's just two translation, not a thousand and one. There is no other word in English to call Cuban Americans so the Spanish article cannot use another one. AbelM7 (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the guidelines having become the common rationale for use of non-English varieties of a name when dealing with non-English subject matter. You would have noted that, not only I, but other editors have reverted on articles you've added the 'americano' translation to, also citing 'no sources' as the rationale. In conducting a google search, I couldn't find any references to the use of the term 'Cubano americano', nor using google ngram. Unless you can demonstrate that it is used (that it, provide citations to WP:V and WP:RS) it's just redundant information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I also used google ngram for 'Cubano estadounidense' and got no results so I guess we should just delete that too. Cuban American isn't really much of an official name, just a term. If we were talking about, say, countries then we can say that Estados Unidos Mexicanos is the official name of Mexico because it is officially. This translation doesn't need a source, it's just common sense for a person who speaks Spanish and English. Cuban in Spanish is cubano and American in Spanish is americano. Put those words together and you get cubano americano just like putting Cuban and American together gets you Cuban American. If I want translate Cuban American National Foundation to Spanish then it will be Fundación Nacional Cubano Americano. If you just want one translation then use cubano americano since it is the translation. AbelM7 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that you've finally worked out how to source for yourself. If a term is in common use, there should be ample sources for it. Arguing with editors (such as myself) over a piece of what is, ultimately, WP:INDISCRIMINATE information is not a method by which to win community confidence when you're a newbie. I actually have hundreds of articles on my watchlist, am involved in developing complex articles (as well as resolving disputes and acting as a neutral moderator in highly sensitive areas of Wikipedia).

Note that, in the case of 'Cubano americano', you've cited an article which explicitly uses the term 'Cubanoamericano'. Does that mean that a third convolution needs to be added to your 'translations'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum - please restore the language template as per my edit here. The language templates are important for search engines and for Wikipedia data maintenance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you

No such user has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your accurate and gentle analysis [1][2]. I plead guilty to your WP:OWN charge. In my defense, I lost my temper after having to clean up after Androoox on Friday afternoon, after an otherwise frenzy work week, and he would have continued ad infinitum if I didn't step in. No such user (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

The grammatical errors I fixed have nothing wrong with them? They do make it easier to read because there was incorrect English grammar in the article. There was nothing wrong with that I added; I made the article have correct English grammar. Without my edits, the article has many grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the grammar of the sentence you 'improved' as it stood (and will continue to stand until the article is copyedited by someone who is a copyeditor for Wikipedia, such as myself, or someone with the proficiency of a copyeditor). Having taken a look at your talk page, it is evident that your English skills aren't up to par. Please, take my word on the matter.

While it is appreciated that you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, perhaps there are other areas you'd be interested in tackling. You may wish to look at some of the project groups in need of assistance for fighting vandalism and other specific areas in urgent need of as many volunteers as they can muster. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There actually was. Many of the sentences had misplaced clauses or commas. How could you not tell there were misplaced commas? Take, for instance, this sentence from the unrevised version of the page: "Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Armenia supports the de-facto independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which arose after a long and bitter war in the early 1990s."

There is a grammatical error in that sentence. There should be a comma after the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic."

This is just one of many cases throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies, Penguins53. I was charging through quite a few pages simultaneously and failed to scroll down. Only having noticed one edit, which was neither here nor there, I went into auto-revert mode.

I assume that you checked that the article is predominantly GB English (if memory serves me correctly, it is) in order to maintain consistency. If not, I'd be grateful if you could give it a glance to ensure that there are no residual Americanisms remaining. Personally, my preference it to err on the side of GB as I can't abide by using 'that' where 'which' is required. In the meantime, I've reverted myself back to your version. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Central europe

Wow, Iryna, you are tracking on the issue way too good :). I do nonetheless believe that West Ukraine (including Halychyna) is part of the Central Europe. I also oppose to the Germanized name of Galicia for Halychyna. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Maladzyechna

You wrote that "Polish name is irrelevant. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages of the country". I do agree. Actually my correction was that I deleted Polish and Lithuanian names. I also added spelling "Maladziečna", noting that this is the officially recommended transliteration. But now I see that my corrections were cancelled and Polish and Lithuanian names of Maladzyechna are present.

As I understand from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BELARUSIANNAMES#Belarusian the discription of a city may/should include the following:

• Name by BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) - Maladzyechna
• Name by Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script - Maladziečna
• Belarusian name - Маладзечна
• Russian name - Молодечно

All other variants including Polish of Lithuanian should be deleted.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumash (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite right regarding the Polish and Latvian names, Tumash. Thank you for reminding me that they should be removed. I'd noticed them myself, but was distracted by a vandal on several of the Hispanic pages and forgot to return to them and remove them (which I have now done).

Unless the region has strong, demonstrable and relevant historical ties to previous occupying Kingdoms, Empires, etc., there is no argument for lengthy lists of its name in other languages unless compelling evidence is presented on the talk page of the relevant article and consensus is reached on whether they should be added, or whether such an entry is gratuitous and adds no value to the article for an English reader).

Please note that, according to Wikipedia recommendations, "The renderings of the Belarusian geographical names in the national Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script... may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version." In this instance, it would be considered that Maladzyechna and Maladziečna are easily identifiable as being one and the same without confusing the reader with too much information in the lead.

Again, thank you for pulling me up on my error. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm happy to have made your acquaintance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Respond

Thanks for understanding. Regarding usage of the "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script" I see that we need a concensus within the Wikipedia. But now among Belarusian scientists it is considered the best way to translate names into Latin script. As well it is approved by the State Committee on land resources, geodetics and cartography (2000-11-23) and recommended by UN GEGN.

These days all the signboards in Minsk are being prepared using this particular method and the Official maps are prepared according to these rules as well. Obviously using of the "Instruction..." is the only way to avoid multiversion. --Tumash —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Belarusian nomenclature for geographic translation and/or transliteration headache club. If you check the talk pages for the relevant policy and recommendation articles, you will find that there are a lot of us beating our heads against a brick wall for a long, long time in trying to find a solution that will be accepted by an RfC which will involve editors and administrators from across all of Wikipedia. The fundamental policy surrounding this issue is WP:COMMONNAME. The English language media and other bodies used as a guideline for 'standards' don't adhere to the Belarusian recommendations. The Belarusian government sites (from top level to Voblasts and Raions) are inconsistent with each other (and don't use the Belarusian recommendations). Any attempts to try to push it through are greeted with WP:OR as it is not in line with other English practices. In the meantime, all of the Belarusian articles have become a mess with articles being created using whatever system a contributor wants to use. And the fact remains that, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there is no method of establishing consensus without it being perceived as being a WP:POV-push and told that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frustrating, to say the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Tarnopol Voivodeship‎

The Tarnopol Voivodeship was an administrative region (administrative subdivision) of Poland and not a historical area. Its like to add Polish names to all Oblasts of the Ukraine.--Sobiepan (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am confused..., could you please explain why you removed Polish name of a city which was part of Poland in the past: [3]--Sobiepan (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Was this your argument: "Polish name is irrelevant. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages of the country".?--Sobiepan (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from spamming my talk page with one message after another.

In answer to first of your 'confused' questions, if you look at the demographics, this was arguably occupied territory and your arguments are a denial of facts about the existence of the Voivodeship.

Second question: this was in consultation with another editor. If you wish to discuss whether the Polish nomenclature is relevant, I am more than happy to discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article. Alternatively, you could simply restore the Polish variant with a quick edit summary and your rationale on the talk page of the article. My only interest in the matter regarding the article in question was the unnecessary addition of the rendering of the Belarusian geographical names. I'm not sure that a short-lived, inter-war governorate qualifies. Do you think that Russian and German names for many Polish areas should be used? Well, after all, much of Poland was occupied by various interlopers over the centuries... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from spamming my talk page with one message after another.

Im very sorry. If you consider my messages as spam, I will never again leave a message on your talk page. Sorry.

When I attempt to post a reply and encounter an e/c not once, but twice because you are adding yet another sentence, I would call that spamming. Sit down, think about what it is that you want to say to me, then add a comment in its entirety. Please don't write the first thing that comes to mind, then add the next and the next in quick succession. It is extremely frustrating wondering whether I have to start from scratch or append an additional response because you're treating it as if it were a chat room. Naturally, you are welcome to leave comments, objections, etc. The fact that we are disputing the addition of the Ukrainian name is not what I am objecting to, but the manner in which you've posted one comment after the other (i.e., at 00:22, then 00:28, then 00:31). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again: the Tarnopol Voivodeship was an administrative region of Poland and never part of an Ukrainian state, so the Ukrainian name is irrelevant. Thank you.--Sobiepan (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It was on Ukrainian land: or are you suggesting that the number of Ruthenians/Ukrainians virtually matching the number of Poles is an indicator of a mass migration of Ukrainian farming villages into Poland? If so, could you please provide WP:V and WP:RS regarding records of this mass migration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's forget it. It's not so important to me. --Sobiepan (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Novelas ejemplares is a set of novellas, not short stories

Dear Iryna Harpy,

i'm sorry, but Novelas ejemplares is a set of novellas, not short stories.

Best regards,
--Hgfernan (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to why you are directing this at me. I was following the trail of a well intentioned IP user who had made several awkward, but terrible, changes to the text on a number of articles. The 'short stories' description pre-existed from the inception of the article.

Personally, I think that, as the lead, the paragraph is ludicrously long and doesn't merit explaining the current Spanish use of the word. 'Novella' is self-explanatory in the English language. If convoluted explanations are necessary, they should be in a relevant section in the body of the article.

That said, I have had nothing to do with the article before or since, therefore did not wish to tread on anyone's toes had there been editor disputes over this in the past. You are welcome to edit the page yourself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you very much for your help in dealing our dispute with giorgi. And for your warning. Thank you, in advance for your work on observation me, but i dont know about any my transgressions, if you referring in this warning on some specific case, please tell me which is it.

Please sorry me that i didnt answered on your wish. I didnt note it because i dint work on English wiki then. And now is maybe little late :D.--Dag13 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I've been involved with so many edit wars, POV pushes and administrative investigations into warring party's conflicts in order to calm them down that I kept losing track of getting back to you.

I've seen that you have been blocked for 3 days on Wiki Commons for further warring with the same 'party' as the one you've had run-ins with here. Whether you like it or not, for example, NATO does not officially recognise South Ossetia, therefore trying to upload NATO maps of its European alliances depicting South Ossetia is merely going to create trouble for you as it is WP:OR. Whether you and I agree that this is just or fair (or that it somehow makes us 'Russophiles') is of no consequence to Wikipedia.

I truly believe that you have your heart in the right, humanitarian place, and that you are approaching matters in good faith but, quite honestly, the fact that your English language skills are too weak to be able to set out a logical, articulate argument/debate in order to state your case is only going to keep frustrating you. There are political battlegrounds that cannot be 'won' on the basis of 'justice', and I think you should take a little break before it breaks you. Work on some articles that you have no emotional investment in; improve your English enough to be confident in making yourself and your intentions clear; develop some more skills which you can use... then you might be prepared enough to work on politically sensitive areas.

In my opinion, you have the makings of an excellent and valuable contributor for English Wikipedia and it would be a shame to lose you because you have been disheartened over not being able to make any progress without antagonising other contributors. I truly hope you are willing to work on your English in order to empower yourself and the balance you could bring to overtly nationalistic articles. Best! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Silesian

There is a chance to end the conflict: Talk:Silesian_language#If the name with the words of dialect, language, Polish are POV, what the name of the target. Please vote, which option is better according to You. Regards, Franek K. (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:CANVASS. I've noted that you have left the same message on other talk pages. Persisting in this behaviour will lead to your being blocked again.

That said, I am following the talk page and the article itself and am aware of the POV push taking place right now. Should this escalate to unilateral changes to the article, I will most certainly step in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Khokhol edit revert

You recently reverted my commit to the khokhol page. I'm Polish and I never heard people use the word chochol in a deragatory or racial slur way towards Ukrainians. It is more of an endearment or humourous way to refer to them. I wanted the page to reflect that. However I don't feel strong enough about this to discuss it further, have it your way :)

It isn't a matter of 'having it my way'. This may be correct from the contemporary Polish side of things, but the article is examining the historical usage, not simply current usage. The Russians distinctly used it as a pejorative... and continue to use it as a pejorative (feel free to go to YouTube and check on videos dealing with Ukrainians and Ukrainian issues per Russophile comments). It is used by Russians as katsap (kacap) is used by Ukrainians and Poles as a pejorative regarding Russians.

I'm quite happy to clarify distinctions when I get the chance to clean up the page after having collected historical references to expand on this usage.

In the meantime, if you wish to make a comment on your WP:POV observations, it would be useful if you were to leave a message on the article's talk page to the effect that, as a Polish person, you have only encountered it as being a jocular/endearing term. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry.

I have no idea how that edit occurred. I am truly sorry and a bit confused. I have been surfing page histories but did not intend to make that, or any, edit. Please revert it, or I will. Again, my sincere apologies. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you were to revert it yourself and leave an edit summary to the effect of it being an accident. If I were to do it, it wouldn't allow you to make it clear that it was unintentional. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done so. Once again, I am very sorry! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry! I think we've all made weird mistakes when editing. My best effort was pasting a section for another article I was working on into another and overwriting half of the existing content. 'Stuff happens' when we have too many windows open. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for welcoming me. May I ask, what's it like having an account? I've considered making one but I get kind of scared every time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.91.112 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can have a quick read regarding all the benefits of having an account. One of the unmentioned benefits is that regular editors tend to be more predisposed to reverting an IP edit where you might forget to add an edit summary (having an account also means you can go into your preferences and check the prompt box for a reminder to leave a summary for other contributors!).

Incidentally, as I seldom work on biographies, you were quite correct about the use of U.S. without a wikilink per the Manual of Style... oh, and nice catch on 'De jure official and national language' in List of countries where Spanish is an official language! Please try to watch for spelling errors, as you wrote 'langage' instead of 'language'. That isn't really a great problem as it is easy enough for an editor to do a little copyediting if English isn't your first language.

On that note, I hope you sign up. There are useful features available to you when you have an account, and we love having quality recruits, such as yourself, join us! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll create one tomorrow, I'm done for the night lol. The letters on my keyboard don't go all the way down sometimes so I think that's why I put "langage" instead of "language", thanks for fixing it :) 50.48.36.213 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC) (Same person, IP address changed for some reason)

Have a good rest, and hope to see you with your own, exclusive username soon. Your IP address being revealed is something else you won't have to worry about. Drop me a line when you've set yourself up & I'll put you on my watchlist in case you run into problems while you're still a 'newbie'. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan article

Hello Iryna, My edits on Kyrgyzstan article are based on the following source http://www.stat.kg/stat.files/din.files/census/5010003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.168.80 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. You need to update the references to reflect the changes as they are all still pointing to the old census statistics. If you don't know how to do this yourself, let me know. I've downloaded the PDF and can translate the statistics there and add them tomorrow (as I'm finishing up on Wikipedia for today). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your helping, I'm still learning how to edit wiki pages properly, an it would be nice to see your translated PDF version of census. --158.181.168.80 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll let you know as soon as I do it. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Iryna Harpy--158.181.186.210 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

I'm still waiting for you to address my point for Yambaram's section. All you did was call me a POV-pusher and that just shows ill judgement by giving a poor excuse. Since only you've talked to me, I think we need to settle this dispute. Khazar (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response on the relevant talk page. Also note that I may not be able to respond in full for a couple of days as I was made aware of a family emergency just after having engaged with you on that talk page yesterday afternoon. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion in India

Time for ANI? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly... although there hasn't been any activity from the account or IP since all of the warnings were issued, and I'd consider the activity to constitute vandalism (POV vandalism: but vandalism). Unfortunately, I have a family emergency on my hands and probably won't be able to any work for at least a day or two. If the spate of nonsense breaks out again, perhaps you could start an AN/I and ping me (or just leave a message here with the link to the AN/I). Let's just cross our fingers that it's over! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's typical for this area of articles: groups of people trying to push their POV. Fortunately, they are usually not very good at it :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know, I know! I work on ex-Soviet republics, the Balkans and the Middle East. There's a POV fanatic hiding in every corner. The most irritating aspect is that, rather than working on your own 'to do' list, you end up expending inordinate amounts of time following their trails and reverting. Such is the life of the NPOV Wikipedian. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, working their agenda indeed. Thanks for the encouragement! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Thank you for disagreeing without being disagreeable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC Lemkos

Just wondering if I can get an outside opinion on this argument. Essentially, a user wants to combine people in Poland who self-identify as 'Lemko' as 'Rusyn', despite what the census actually says. I've provided sources with quotes describing the ethnonym situation but to no avail. If you have time to check it out, thanks in advance. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

.

	Happy Valentine's Day
	............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! After one of those days of staving off POV-ers and wondering why I put myself through the Wikipedia experience, you've reminded me why it is worth it! The pleasure of working as part of a team of intelligent, thoughtful and pleasant people, like yourself, is one such reward. Happy Valentine's Day and hugs to you, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Of Jewish descent

Thanks for the thanks but my two edits removing "Southwest Asian descent" were reverted. I think some people have have all Jewish categories on their watchlist. The edits didn't last very long before they were reverted. :/ Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well. I've been keeping my eyes peeled as much as possible but, you know how it is with watchlist notifications... less than half get through. I guess we just have to keep playing 'Snap'. I'm still trying to massage a bit cooperation on the Ashkenazi Jews article, but DNA is the flavour of the day. Keep up your hard work. Seems there's more anti-vandalism than development on the horizon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello , i think you should take a look at article Prek Cali,you should take a look at my work there,every time i add any (real) information (with reference of course) about his biography,they just delete it and say that i have wrote it bad,etc,etc. The unreal information's are hugely supported by administrators,which support Serbian-communist propaganda. They are disinformation with unreal facts,and unreal story's based in Albanian and Yugoslavian communist literature. In every Albanian article they try to dis-inform,everyone,claiming that Kelmendi tribe is serbian,and bla-bla-bla. Its really shameful,i just want to see and read the truth in Wikipedia,not propaganda of Albanians or Serbians! I do not support any propagandist side. All information's that i write are based on real facts and from official history books. AlbertBikaj (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AlbertBikaj. Yes, I've been following this article since you created it and Antidiskriminator began changing it en masse, which is why I added a series of queries regarding translations of the sources being used (follow the edits to see what I was asking for) until Antidiskriminator pulled me up for tag-bombing.

I understand that there are subjects that simply don't have any English language coverage and am always concerned when it becomes evident that the entire area is highly controversial and prone to POV pushes. I think that, before the article is developed any further, it needs to be seriously examined by asking for genuinely neutral third opinions from editors not engaged with the development. It would be useful if you could ask an Albanian speaker whose English is better than yours to assist in translating your concerns about the sources being used. Obviously, it is in Wikipedia's interest to have a balanced article.

I'll start the ball rolling. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Here you got the best written article of Cali's biography,i know that my English is not perfect,i will try to translate from Albanian to English,i dont want to write false facts,im neutral,i never write false facts,i would be grateful if you restore the previous article which i showed to you,im ready to sent to you other informations from books. Here you got the proof,that communists wanted to airbrush Cali from History. Here you got another fact about Cali,the Antidiskriminator wrote that Cali wanted Autonomy republic,which is not true,Cali just wanted to protect Kelmendi from Montenegro,to keep the Kelmendi safe. I apologies,because i have made to much trouble about this topic. AlbertBikaj (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a read through these. It would certainly indicate that there are two sides to the story and reliable English language sources are preferable to unconfirmed non-English sources. The fact that Isa Blumi has good scholarly credentials certainly won't hurt your case.

As I'll be conferring with other administrators who will be looking at your attitude as well as content, could I suggest that you try to stay calm and avoid uncivil remarks about anyone you are arguing against. I know this is difficult for anyone when English is not their first language and they get overheated in a debate, but trying to keep to the facts and avoiding accusations will influence other parties reviewing the information in a positive way. I'll be in touch again soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Civility, maturity, et al require that simply leaving a less-than-elucidating edit summary in order to change a hatnote to feature, "For contemporary usage, see Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation." may seem obvious and appropriate to you, but not to others. If you take a look at the talk page, you may get a sense of this being a contentious article. In contemporary usage, active groups of cossacks take on many more forms than the one you have picked out. The IP who left an uncivil edit summary in reverting your edit left an uncivil revert summary. I have reverted your reinstatement of the addition to the hatnote with a comprehensive rationale for the reversion.

Should you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to respond here or, alternatively, start a section on the subject on the relevant talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is always the right approach. I did take a look at your user page, so I understand that you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than most people, certainly me! The reason I made the edits that I did were because I was stunned to learn that Cossacks were part of the security detail at the Sochi Olympics. In the past week or so, I have been engaged in various discussions about the current Olympics games in Russia and I must say, that everyone (and I mean everyone) I have met has been quite surprised to learn that there are Cossacks at the games. It is "common knowledge" (if incorrect or incomplete) that the Cossacks were routed by the Bolsheviks. The reputation of the Cossacks is legendary, as are The Gurkhas.

As is, this article has an excessively long lede, which dwells predominately on the historical record. It requires excessive patience to wade through and, even then, it is not clear what the legacy of the pre-Bolshevik Cossacks is today, and/or what legitimate lineage contemporary Cossacks have to their precursors. The subject IP who reverted my edits, went-on to purge the additional entries to the related disambiguation page. I can only speculate what his/her PoV is, but it certainly seems to include censoring / eliminating points of view that differ from their own. While I feel strongly that the article as is, is awkward, with an excessively long lede, and little or no description of the current title of Cossack and how that class or position was restored since the Bolshevik revolution; I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable or qualified to make such edits. I therefore recuse myself and hope that others more qualified can help to make the article more informative from a NPoV.

Enquire (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd guessed that the recent events in Sochi involving 'Pussy Riot' (ad infinitum) motivated your addition to the hatnote, having noted that your usual areas for contributions are not geared towards Eastern Europe. As I see it, by the same token the current events in Ukraine have also raised the interest in the Ukrainian Cossack identity (i.e., Kuban Cossacks, Zaporozhian Cossacks, and the Cossack identity in general). In this instance, I'd suggest that it is better not to make assumptions on behalf of readers as, aside from referring to the db page, they can find their specific area of interest through searching using the relevant key words.

Agreed that the article is ridiculously bloated... but it's difficult enough keeping up with the plethora of 'contributions' and making decisions as to what is relevant, neutral, etc. If you check through all of the main articles surrounding cossacks, you'll find that they're all war zones. Sadly, these are articles those of us working on Eastern European, Balkan & ex-Soviet satellite republics have put on the backburner as there are always new articles ripe for cite checks and cite kill to wallow through. I swear that I spend more time having to read comprehensive secondary sources in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus and Polish than English nowadays. So little time, so many articles that need a serious overhaul without triggering fresh outbreaks of edit warring! Cheers for the chat... and back to the grind. Happy editing, and a pleasure to meet one of the good guys! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna, I am wise enough to pick my battles elsewhere. I can imagine I could invest enormous amounts of time getting up to speed on this topic and still make little or no headway on such a topic fraught with so many contentious opinions. I would be better to invest my limited time productively in areas where I have depth of knowledge and understanding accumulated over several decades. Suffice it to say, that the subject page maybe fertile grounds for edit warring, it is confusing and lacks lucidity in its lede ... which is why I waded in to make what I thought was an innocuous and helpful morsel of information to assist other mortals like me who were stunned by the apparent resurrection of Cossacks at the Sochi Olympics.

Meanwhile, I had to laugh at your comment on your user page about carrying paper towels to clean seats on the bus. Just recently, I was taking a late night bus back into town here in Vancouver. There were just two empty seats near the back, facing another pair of seats where two young men sat, with their feet up on the empty seats. I just, very politely asked if I could sit on the vacant seat opposite them. They glanced-up and pulled-down their feet. Then, as I sat down, one said "oh, there is beer on those seats!!!" Well, by then, my rear end was well and truly damp... Fortunately, it was dark and the destination bus stop was just a block from my home. Maybe I should adopt your approach, examine the seat more carefully, and wipe as appropriate while uttering some exclamations!!!

Enquire (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How gracious of them to inform you after the fact. No doubt, they thought it was incredibly funny and congratulated themselves on getting one over you. What's the vernacular? Oh, yes: "They're not taking up space." This is where the rolling pin I also carry around in my bag comes in handy. There are times I'd prefer to have a crowbar in there, but that's a tad on the illegal side.

I'd say that avoiding everything Eastern European is a wise move. Just take a look at the discretionary sanctions page! The greater picture for the areas hardest hit can be found here (and I work on Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Balkans, and others that only have the occasional outbreak due to a lack of internet presence from those communities). I like to take a breather by working on Israeli-Palestinian relations and Indian politics. Glutton for punishment? Who, I? Nah. I'm Ukrainian, and that means rolling up your sleeves and getting on with what needs to be done. It could also mean that there's a fundamental genetic flaw in our haplogroup. Either way, you can just call me Popeye. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, this has been an entertaining and unexpectedly tumultuous escapade. Well, I did (finally) get a better understanding of the contemporary status of Cossacks, but more from doing my own research and reading articles found elsewhere (see links I posed here: Contemporary vs. Historical Cossacks citations). I will not delve into further editing on this page, but I do feel that it would be helpful to the page readers (possibly people who are more at home editing quantum entanglement theory or the demise of the Dodo) to have a concise history of the Cossacks, with at least a modicum of discussion on the apparent resurgence of Cossack self-identity (of people with Cossack heritage) and of political vested interests in rehabilitation of the Cossack class (including, by people who have little or no Cossack heritage themselves). This would be both timely and informative, given the growing awareness that Cossacks have not been consigned to the history books and may, in fact, have a future role in Russia and other parts including, presumably, the Ukraine. All the best from up-over to down-under.

Enquire (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck on tidying the article up and am more than happy to support proposed changes. Hmm, perhaps a suggestion on the talk page regarding a section on cossacks in contemporary culture as a starting point? Watch out for pseudo-cossacks coming at you with big sabres! Cheers from the topsy-turvy world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

If I provide a reliable source for including those categories (and I do have a few), would you agree to restoring them?Evildoer187 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that no one can make an executive decision on such matters, I agree with Liz regarding the application of categories. I'd call it common sense. Liz, as this issue keeps rearing its head, I wonder whether it would of benefit to open a DRN discussion? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a possibility, Iryna Harpy. I brought up the matter on the talk page for Categories for Discussion because it seems like a question about article organization, not ethnic identity. But, I didn't get feedback that an RfC there would be the right forum for this discussion. Maybe DRN would be better. I'm reluctant to enter into another long debate but the situation is at a stalemate right now, with a small group of editors having polar opposite positions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I can empathise with your reticence, but it seems that the matter is not just going to go away. I really think it's a pity to have a number of quality contributors continuing to dedicate time and energy to banging heads over this matter. On balance, the amount of energy being expended on daily disputes would probably be better invested in dealing with it once and for all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If this can be resolved by providing reliable sources, I'd be glad to do so. But since this is a matter of consensus (or lack thereof), some kind of discussion needs to happen, although I'm reticent to dive head-in to yet another long and protracted debate. I'd rather it just go one way or another without any further headaches.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_Eastern.2FSouthwest_Asian_descent.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever discussion opens up, I'd appreciate being notified. Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Nishidani. I'd assume that Debresser and others who've been involved would also wish to be included (given that this is being dragged out on several user talk pages). I don't know whether Liz wants to present the issue to the DRN, but I'm willing to do so long as I'm provided with a list of those who are all prepared to participate in order that a discussion can go ahead, as well as those who might wish to be pinged so as they are aware that a discussion is taking place if they wish to put in their 2 cents worth. My own participation would be as a neutral - but interested - party. My position is that, as a reader, the category does not strike me as being intuitive or particularly useful as I don't believe these categories were created to accommodate DNA research, nor perceived of as being such. Let me know what you think the best method of opening a DRN would be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd be willing to do it (I initiated the long discussion on WikiProject Judaism) but since I've made my position clear and had editing conflicts with several editors, I am no longer seen as a neutral party. To prepare a report, you're going to want to look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32 discussion that ran from mid-November>early December. I think everyone was worn out when that wound down but, two months later, some editors (me included) have returned to the disputed topic under question. Just to highlight again, the original question was whether "X people of Jewish descent" should be further categorized as being "of Asian descent" or "of Southwest Asian descent". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about 'neutral parties'. I do have a personal interest. Several members of my families are of Ashkenazi descent, but are not accepted as Jews, either through indifference or because the descent is paternal and they have been told they are not 'Jews'. Whatever, they do not regard themselves as coming from the ME. The same point is made frequently in the serious literature. Vast numbers are of mixed descent, and if Costa and Richards et al. (Oct 2013 in Nature Communications) are on the right tack, we have mixed descent in overwhelming numbers (putting the suggested category on Ashkenazi Jews would require for balance adding also a cat of 'of European descent', creating a conceptual confusion) which is a nigh universal norm), and that is why I think privileging one line, while suppressing the others, is rather than POV (aside from the conversion factor - one third of the ex-Soviet bloc immigrants to Israel are not of Jewish descent in the rabbinical sense), more a political-instrumental use of the category. I'm no expert on wiki procedures. A cat like "X people of Jewish descent" is broad, generic and valid: to make a subcat, like "of Asian descent" or "of Southwest Asian descent". is highly misleading. 'Asian descent' is wildly out of the question since it generates misapprehensions, while 'southwest Asian descent' is question-begging since historically it is based on a mythistorical claim that all Jews hail from a highly specific territory in that region, in defiance of historiography. Cats should not be invented or introduced to lay a claim on articles which, by themselves, show how controverted scholarship is on these deeper questions of origins. As to procedures, I am dirt-ignarunt. Just open a discussion there, and things will sort themselves out. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I might add that "of Southwest Asian descent" would end up being splashed everywhere on articles re Lebanese, Palestinians, Cypriotes,Jordanians, Syrians, etc. That itself would show how pointless this exercise is.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Nishidani. I have a degree in Religion but am not a specialist in Judaic history so I stay out of editing articles related to Judaism. My introduction to this debate is because of my work with categories, specifically, I was doing work on organizing the "of descent" categories.

I think there is a divide between editors who look at categories as an organizational tool and those who see categories as making a statement or being defining in themselves. I worked on many of the ethnic "of descent" categories (like Category:Brazilian people of Japanese descent, Category:German people of Russian descent or Category:Uruguayan people of Dutch descent, etc.) but, despite all of the sensitivity on WP over ethnicity and ethnic identity, I only ran into challenges with the "of Jewish descent" categories. I understand the point people want to make by tying any person with any Jewish ancestry to the Middle East, but it is just not how the "of descent" categories are organized and designed to be used. They aren't about DNA lineage through millennia but of proximate descent and reflect recent immigration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one could hazard a guess that the fuss reflects some shading of the usual 'Jews? Aah, now, let me too argue the point!' and that kind of unusual eagerness to pipe up whenever Jews are discussed does often come out of the penumbra of anti-Semitic attitudes.

I suspect often that whenever I touch the subject, editors 'on the other side' think that. As I see it however the problem is usually either (a) exceptionality in this area (and) or the distinctive conceptual confusion, admitted by all sources, in defining 'Jew', a confusion within that tradition between religious, ethnic, national arguments. You can see this quite clearly comparing the complacent and utterly contradictory intro lead to Jews, which I guess can't be touched, and the definition of Palestinian people which is edit-warred over endlessly. As a veteren I/P editor, I see a huge amount of mirror anxieties on articles about Palestinians, Arabs. Basically, the subliminal or conscious anxieties about Israel keep disturbing the serenity of editorial activity. In any case, when I see taboo areas, I walk right in, regardless of suspicions, because the liminal is always fascinating in the way conceptual confusion reigns, and I have a long personal interest in the epistemology of such discursive zones. I can only explain my own position on the point you raise, and have no idea where other people are coming from.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazim are multi-ethnic, but are no less Jewish than other Jewish sub-groups of Levantine descent. A majority self-identify as being ethically Jewish and as being members of a group whose origin is Levantine. After the Shoah, Jews were fearful of defining themselves as an ethnicity or racial group lest this definition poke the bear that is anti-Semitism. As we leave this fear behind, you will see more Jews, Ashkenazim especially, coming forward and fully claiming their heritage. Gilad55 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

yanu whereabouts

Can you check on the article concerning his known location? I'm being accused of bad faith / lying / COI for writing his known location was crimea. This is....very common knowledge and confirmed at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Help stop joined efforts

Would you help stop the joined efforts of two very aggressive editors on ? Debresser (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:Canvassing. And if by aggressive, you mean I try to adhere to the rules and expect objectivity, then I'm guilty as charged. I have admitted to being wrong when I was. What have you done?Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to whether you're referring to Debresser or yourself when you invoke WP:Canvassing. As I mentioned Debresser in the section above (amidst others mentioned whom I know to be involved and interested parties, even though they are justifiably weary of protracted debates on the matter), I understand this section to be a valid response to my noting that I would be prepared to take this before a DRN once I've drafted as succinct a report of the bone/s of contention as I can muster. Getting upset at those who disagree with your perspective is not a constructive method of developing consensus, nor will it serve you well at the DRN once the issue has been presented there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Debresser. The fact that he is here asking you to participate in the edit war taking place constitutes canvassing.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How do DRN's work?Evildoer187 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I explained, I don't consider this to be canvassing by Debresser as, to my understanding, he was responding to my call out in the section above to comment on whether I should start a DRN and who would like to participate formally.

DRN's are a method of resolving ongoing disputes in order to reach a consensus which everyone involved is ready to abide by. Unlike ANI's and other such noticeboards, the objective is not to block anyone, or air grievances against anyone. It is purely about content disputes and an administrator is assigned in order to mediate and (hopefully) guide/assist the contributors to work out the best course of action. It is understood that the content dispute is a good faith dispute. The person who submits the case (let's assume it will probably be me) provides an outline of what the dispute is over, then names those involved in the content dispute. A section is provided for each of those named to present their arguments, and all of those named need to report or the mediation cannot continue. Discussion ensues on the lines of that which you'd find on a talk page.

The best way to familiarise yourself with the procedure would be to take a quick look at the DR/N page. There isn't much activity there at the moment as cases being guided are awaiting all the participants to respond. Take a look at some of the archived pages and it'll give you a better sense of what DRN's aim to achieve. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I referred to what he did as canvassing because he went onto the pages of editors that he knew agreed with his position (i.e. you and Liz) and asked them to revert.

I am uncertain that a DRN will make things any better. Not only will this revive an old debate (which was draining enough the first time), but the admin that is sent to watch over it (whoever it may be) could be pre-disposed to a bias himself/herself. I have been made aware that there are several of these admins on Wikipedia. If it's not too much to ask, and if such a thing is possible, please ask for an admin who is not particularly active in this area to mediate it, because my experience has been that this is a contentious area and those who are active in it are likely to have an ideological slant.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a DRN is not a disciplinary forum. Its function is to provide an experienced contributorediter/administrator to assist in mediating and there is no guarantee that there will be an outcome other than bouncing the ball back into our court. In fact, I've just recently been involved in one where no one wanted to take on the role of mediating because they felt the subject matter was too specialised for them to be able to provide good, unbiased assistance. I have no control over who takes on the assignment, but I can vouch for the fact that they are people who have proven themselves to be capable of being objective and interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the spirit of the project, not based on their personal biases.

The current co-ordinator is Transporterman, although someone else may be assigned to the case, or may assign themselves. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I don't wish to see this escalating into edit wars amongst a group of contributors I consider to be valuable, intelligent, good faith editors. If the current dispute is picked up by another party, it may end up before an AN/I where the undesirable may happen (that is, blocks and sanctions could be imposed on those involved as POV pushing, etc.). I know everyone is tired but, to my mind, it's probably better to nip this in the bud before it escalates again.

The only other suggestion I could make is that the parties involved agree on a moratorium for X amount of time on the understanding the currents status quo - being sans the categories proposed as the moratorium consensus - before revisiting the subject after the determined amount of time has elapsed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand all of what you just said. My only concern is whether or not the admin sent to mediate our dispute will have a political axe of his own to grind. I have seen this happen before many times. I won't name them by name, because I'm sure they already know who they are. I know there is not much that can be done about this, and my only intent was to find a way to ensure that this is resolved in a fair and just manner.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, a mediator is not necessarily an admin. Second, they could potentially have a bias for either side or some perspective that is not even represented by the involved parties.

But mostly, they mediate, that is, keep order, they aren't a judge and jury. If you want to see who might choose to mediate this case, here is a list of current mediators: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer187, I don't know who or what you mean by 'axe to grind' as I'm only aware of your activities as related to this specific discussion. You keep alluding to 'fair', yet I find myself reading 'how can I ensure that the person in charge is on my side' as being the true subtext of your concerns. Are you actually concerned with 'fair and just', or is it the fact that you perceive other contributors understanding of the use of categories in this manner to be seriously problematic to be an obstacle to what you believe to be correct. The only case you have to present is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. If it is, you should have enough material to make this clear without feeling that you have the right to contest who mediates. (Yes, apologies, Liz. My boo-boo. I've corrected editor to read as contributor.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that I am correct, just as much as Debresser believes he is correct, and Gilad believes he is correct, and so on. If I didn't, I would not be spending so much of my time on this particular issue. However, if the arguments provided against me are fair, as I've said, then I won't contest it. I was only concerned because I have, in the past, seen some admins take actions regarding Jewish and other Middle East topics which strongly indicate that they are not neutral parties.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. My interests are of a different nature, and it seems that it has come down to an impasse, therefore a DRN. I need to disengage before I'm too exhausted to initiate an attempt at resolution. Ultimately, if it's any consolation, no contributor worth their salt has lasted without the occasional sparring session, meaning that it's equally as likely that the mediator will have a political/philosophical/what-have-you bone to pick with anyone called to the DRN (including myself). May the best argument win. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I might note that this dispute involves definitions. I see no evidence of several parties providing verifiable definitions or definitions which survive closer scrutiny. When you have a dispute of this nature, arguing abstractly is pointless: proffering personal views is irrelevant. On wikipedia, one looks at usage, evidence and definitions in RS which, as just a few examples I gave show, indicate the great complexity of defining Jews. I could offer numerous other examples: the problem is, once this RS is mentioned, it is talked past or over by editors who have a point of view. RS evidence please! and if the RS sources conflict, so what. Finally, what Evildoer and Gilad appear to be doing is trying, on the analogy of Ukrainians, Russians, French, German, to establish a topological identity of provenance (Jews hail from Palestine, now Israel). That analogy is mistaken because people of Ukrainian, Russian, French, German, descent etc. come from recent historical states, after the rise of a nationalism which defined identity in terms of belonging to a state and its territory. Take Alain F. Corcos, The The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View, ‎2005 pp.15ff., where he, a French person of Jewish origins escaped the Holocaust, and naturalized as an American, and refuses as a biologist to self-identify as a Jew, which for him means professing Judaism. His brother however sees himself as an ethnic Jew. One brother is French, the other Jewish, because their definitions of what constitutes Jewishness differ. Alex Corcos sees himself as of French origins, because that is where his forefathers lived. Examples of this are extremely numerous in the literature.

Jewishness is defined not in terms of the soil, but in terms of matrilineal descent (religious), self-defined selection of one ancestor with Jewish ethnic roots (often patrilineal), self-identification with a culture and set of beliefs, acceptance of one part of one's ancestry's heritage as the defining characteristic of one's identity. etc.etc. This order of complexity does not apply to the compared terms, and since the definition is vexed, to introduce a cat which papers over the difference is misleading (and political).Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, Nishidani. Simply on the level of common sense (a principle at the heart of Wikipedia policy), categories were not intended to include spurious haplogroup research interpretations. It also runs contrary to the concept of what I would consider to be a fundamental human right: that of self-identification. As you've illustrated, nation-states are a recent reinterpretation of 'belonging' to an ethnic group tied to a defined territory with defined borders. At the risk of using a simplistic analogy, whereas the Jewish populations are amongst the earliest historically documented examples of ethnic/cultural/religious groups living in territories outside of that of their origins, the parallels in more recent history (where so many populations have migrated, yet retained a dualistic or multiplistic sense of identity) are found in diasporic populations around the globe. I've had to intervene on quite a number of bio's where there has been intermarriage and you'll find contributors squabbling over whether the notable is Dominican, Italian, Albanian or Irish.

Unless a person self-identifies, it is not up to bystanders to claim them as their own. When going back many generations, where is the 'use by' date on the timeline?

The alternative is to create DNA specific categories, which is opening a can of worms that makes me shudder. The prospect is unwholesomely reminiscent of eugenics as, from my reading of how various interest groups wish to introduce the subject, it is definitely not in the name of empirical scientific data. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The arguments for inclusion do not rely exclusively on genetics. That is a straw man. My position also relies on history, self-identity (more on that in a second), culture, language, and ethnic origins. In light of that, it's not hard to see why many have opted to put Jews in the Middle East descent category. Regarding self-identity, Jews have traditionally, and presently, defined themselves as a nation in direct descent from the Israelite tribes of the Middle East. This self-perception is not limited to religious Jews. For example, Albert Einstein did not see himself as a German. He saw himself as a Jew, and considered all Jews (and even the Arabs living in what was then the British Mandate) as his "brothers". In fact, the entire (overwhelmingly secular) Zionist movement is built on the millennia old premise that Jews are a nation whose historical roots are in the Levant. The only arguments I see against inclusion are A) blood purity (i.e. if someone has mixed ancestry from non-Near Eastern sources, it nullifies their Near Eastern heritage) and B) pushing some sort of political agenda, neither of which I am sympathetic to.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop speaking as though only me and Gilad are in favor of inclusion. I can point to several editors who have come out in support of our position. Why you and Debresser are focusing on us to the exclusion of everyone else, I have no idea, but it raises WP:GRUDGE concerns.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:48, 2 March

We were not discussing the many ways in which Jewishness is defined, but whether Jews, ethnic Jews specifically, consider themselves to be persons of Middle Eastern descent. The answer is yes, we do. If we are religious, we believe we are the children of Avraham - the father of many, the first Jew to settle in Canaan. If we are secular, we point to the archeological record which tells us that the Jewish presence in Israel is not less than 2,700 years old and perhaps older. If we are secular, we point also to genetic studies which affirm that all Jews are in the order of third and fifth cousins if they are not already related by blood. By the bye, genetics bears no relation to eugenics. The former is the scientific discipline that gave us the Human Genome Project and revolutionized medicine. The latter was a pseudoscience embraced by a cult. To conflate the two is to display an ignorance of science. Gilad55 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I should not even bother to dignify your comment, "To conflate the two is to display an ignorance of science." Please read what I have stated in context. A) DNA research is still in its infancy and, if you check the numbers of participants in the study groups, you'll find that they represent a tiny portion of any ethnic group being studied; B) I've already had to citekill and remove insidious use of self-identification figures being misrepresented as if they were DNA findings on a number of articles from Slavic related articles to white Dominican figures. There are many, many articles which have virtually no one monitoring them via watchlist: even less where editors/contributors have the time or inclination to carefully check purportedly cited information. Much of the time, so long as there appears to be a source or sources, they're allowed through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• We were not discussing the many ways in which Jewishness is defined, but whether Jews, ethnic Jews specifically, consider themselves to be persons of Middle Eastern descent.

Gilad55, you do not decide what we are or are not discussing, you also don't define how the "of descent" categories are to be used. Category policies, guidelines and precedent, along with consensus, determine the basis of categorization and WP:CFD is normally where disputes are resolved. You can help your case by reading WP:EGRS and WP:Categorization. Categories are a way of organizing articles, not to assert a POV about ethnic identity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain "joined effort" to me. Gilad55 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Ukrainian Wikipedia and Maidan protests

I am interested in learning more about any ties between those two. Would you be able to point me to any pages about those topics (English or Ukrainian), and to English-speaking Wikipedians who may be able to do the same? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can pull up for you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you looking for parallel articles (possibly for alternative citations and alternative slants to the English versions) specifically? At the moment, the ones I've found are also subject to serious POV jostling. If alternative takes on the subject and escalation are what you're after, I'll need to read through them carefully. If there are any obvious and striking divergences in the presentation of the issues, I can let you know quickly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, my interested in this is academic: as a sociologist of Wikipedia and social movements, I think English readers of sociology journals may be interested in reading an article about how the Ukrainian Wikipedians became involved with the Euromaidan (you can see an academic article I wrote in this field here). Unfortunately, I do not speak Ukrainian, hence I am looking for an "in" to the Ukrainian Wikipedians interested in those issues - perhaps one of them is a grad student/researcher interested in becoming a coauthor on this subject, or could direct me to someone interested. I thought I'd start my research by trying to contact some active Ukrainian Wikipedians interested in those topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, understood. I should have simply asked for clarification instead of making up scenarios in my own mind!

That certainly sounds like a potentially fascinating and edifying project. I probably won't be able to start exploring until Thursday or Friday, having a couple of urgent matters to attend to IRL. I'll take a look at Ukrainian Wikipedia and see who's been working on relevant articles, as well as whether there's any form a group there who are sociologists (or interested in sociology). There's probably a board somewhere where I can post a notice regarding the proposed project and find out whether there are English speakers who'd be willing to translate and post survey questionnaires, then translate back again.

I was sorry to find out that you didn't get the admin position. Personally, I think you're made of the right stuff to be the kind of administrator Wikipedia needs. Best of luck on you next application (and I do hope you don't give up on applying)! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, take your time - this is not a time sensitive project, and I am sure many Ukrainian Wikipedians are still busy. But I'd certainly appreciate your assistance in finding interested editors/academic collaborators. And thank you for your kind words about the adminship. One day I may try again; through I don't think it will happen this year. If you watchlist the future RfA page, you'll see if or when I change my mind (2015, perhaps?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN

Any developments regarding the DRN? Gilad55 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I have a couple of commitments IRL, but will submit ASAP (before I get dragged in any further and am unable to be neutral). I was taking time going through the copious discussions, but have come to the conclusion that it's probably best that I submit a general account of what's been going on as pertains to categories.

Any disputes as to detailed research surrounding DNA and self-identification will end up being brought up by individuals participating in the DRN as a by-product (and probably require a separate DRN in order to do justice to the issue).

The first priority is not to scare away any potential mediators by plunging them into an academic discourse they don't want to touch as it will only end up being tossed back to us to decide... which will end up in edit warring, the expending of more precious energy and intellect to no avail and, worst of all, inevitably results in ANI's being opened. To my mind, ANI's are for troublemakers to be sanctioned, not for constructive contributors to be punished for having disparate opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Rimmer

Hi, Iryna - sorry about that, should have added a valid reference. The reason for my edit was I recently met with a bunch of guys from LPS and that's how they referred to the bloke. Appropriate, in my opinion, but yes, un-attributable. Regards, Pete.