User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Russian Constituent Assembly

You tell me to take the issue to the talk page where the last message which had a response is from 2008 just because you don't have any arguments anymore, so you pretend that the edit would be controversial. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it's elaborated based on sources, it is not in accordance with any guideline to demand consensus for an edit for which you have no arguments and has not been proven to be controversial.

If you have a lack of knowledge or are not prepared to involve yourself in arguments, then DO NOT REVERT. It's simple. Editing is not based on emotions.

The edit has the following elements:

Bolshevik-Left SR coalition government --> Changed into "VTsIK". The first sentence was referring to the VTsIK, which was elected in the Second Congress of Soviets, and consisted of a coalition of Bolsheviks and Left SRs. There is literally no other thing which this could be referring to, and in any case there should be no unclear information in Wikipedia. I understand someone not knowing whether it is true or not, but then why involve in reverts?

"Within a few months of its dissolution, all other parties had been banned, thus marking the onset of Bolshevik rule" --> Removed. Completely unsourced sentence, simplification of historical events. There was no "ban on all parties", and non-Bolshevik parties operated for a long time after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. There is no justification for keeping a completely unsourced sentence in Wikipedia which is challenged by another editor; if it is unclear whether something actually happened or not and there is no source, then it should simply be removed.

"transferring power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets." --> Added. It's pretty obvious that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly transferred power to the Congress of Soviets. Even before my edits, the article we're speaking about already listed the All-Russian Congress of Soviets as the successor entity in the infobox. Exactly what is controversial here? Zozs (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the relevant talk page and stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The article has been worked on consistently since 2008. The fact that no one has used the talk page is more likely to be indicative of editors trying to fly under the radar, as you are, than any reflection on its being abandoned. Try to do the right thing, and let other editors follow your example. It's called WP:BRD as I've already explained in the edit summary and on your talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cumans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans you have no any sources about marrying of Cumans, Cumans were invader nomads.. they've come to Hungary with Mongol empire and it came to me as a changed by ordinary someone because there are two words there "married married", it was one of the causes why I've changed. "When the Cuman-Kipchaks swore oaths it was done with swords in the hands that touched the body of a dog cut in two. The Italian Franciscan monk, traveler and historian John of Plano Carpini says that when the Hungarian prince married married the Cuman princess, ten Cumans swore over a dog cut in half with a sword, that they would defend the Kingdom of Hungary." look at the word, can you find me from a serious source? no. I though it's an edit by ordinary person, perhaps by a nationalist, so I want my edit back.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonerbcrc (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no argument with you, but this is really an issue to be brought up on the talk page of the article in question. It has been recently developed by one contributor. I'm suspicious of this contributor's work, as is at least one other editor with their eye on the article.

My suggestion would be to challenge the content in question on the talk page by asking for the name of the reference and the page number. I'll be keeping my eye on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy - this is taken from a source, Sonerbcrc should have looked more. The source: Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia, pg. 53. I have notified him/her. Smart Nomad (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonerbcrc should also have taken it to the relevant talk page if he wished to dispute the content... as I recommended above. Instead s/he simply reverted to their own redacted version. Such behaviour is not in keeping with WP:BRD. Apologies, Smart Nomad, if I've offended you by being a little uncomfortable about how quickly you've developed the article. It's very rare for Wikipedia, but certainly not unheard of. Whatever the circumstances, anyone challenging your content must discuss it and produce sources contesting the content in place. Removing sourced content, or content that is justifiable in order to assist the reader's comprehension of the subject of an article is considered blanking/WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Any further instances of removing this content without justification will be considered tendentious editing on behalf of Sonerbcrc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not offended at all, thank you for your recognition - I put a lot of effort and time into researching all of that. The article was neglected compared to other articles like the Khazars and so I decided to improve it. Thank you for your input into all this, it's appreciated. Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

1-)Can you define me the source. 2-)You're an admin here and you're accept to editing which one you like.(%75 with your feelings-bigot informations, %25 with your informations) 3-)You said: They escaped the Mongol invasion - that is why they came to Hungary. The source: Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia, pg. 53. Regards, Smart Nomad" <- it still doesn't prove anything. You're talking about century 10-11 which you don't know. Cumans were nomads, and they've come to Eurasia after Khazars(Turkic tribe) left the Eurasia, there are no tribes that they fought.. Cumans have even joined the armies of Khazar Khaganate(The warriors of the Khazar Khaganate who used masks) 4-) Kemenche Khan(Cuman leader) and Mongols have united and invaded Kindom of Hungary&Romania together, then the Mongols(empire) were kicked by the Cumans from eastern Europe. Cuman culture = Mongol culture(Nomad, steppe warriors).. Cumans left the war during Mongol invasion of Rus empires(Result from: The Cuman commander was Kemenche Khan, he has invaded Hungary during Mongol invasions, he also fought during Rus vs Mongol). Kemenche Khan has reached to Hungary together with Mongols. There were Cuman/Kipchak/Turks in Eastern Europe(Romania, Southwest Russia) anyway and you said "they escaped the Mongol invasion" it's a comic thesis, I declare you a historian. After the Mongol invasion, there Cumans in Golden Horde Khanate, the Cumans have migrated to Kindom of Georgia(Kubasar Khan) and Northeastern Anatolia, my paternal ancestors were from the Cumans. Look at the borders of Golden Horde Khanate and Kindom of Georgia.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchaks_in_Georgia Century 12-13(1100-1200 years) 5-) The same Cumans that you said "They escaped the Mongol invasion" fought a few times against Mongols(empire) in Egypt and they crushed the Mongol armies. (Mameluke-Mongol war, Dawla-Al-Turkiyya, Baibars), can you tell me how many armies were in the world that crushed the armies of Mongol empire?? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonerbcrc (talk • contribs) 09:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Two quick and easy answers, Sonerbcrc:

1) I'm not an admin. Where do I say I'm an admin? I'm an experienced editor on Wikipedia with no prejudices one way or the other regarding the Cumans. It's known as neutrality. Try to pay attention to information: you're being emotional and jumping to conclusions about editors, as well as the content of an article.

2) The referenced source is here in Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia, just as Smart Nomad stated it was. I do cite check sources. Even if I couldn't find it, I would assume good faith until such a time as I could access a copy for confirmation. In fact, I was being forgetful as I remembered having cite checked this a while ago. If you have reliable sources suggesting the contrary to what it in the article, feel free to discuss it on the talk page of the article in question. Discuss means discuss, not being uncivil towards other contributors. Do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification

Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) "Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Paul Robert Magosci, there is an ethnic group known in English as Ruthenians, but which self identifies as Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns. They do not self-identify as Ukrainians. In fact, they find the Ukrainian label offensive. You are hereby warned that continuing to refer to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged against you in appropriate Wiki forums.85.154.245.171 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. You're definitely not here to work on the Wikipedia project, are you, 85.154.245.171? Resorting to issuing very personalised warnings based on a guideline (not a policy)? Please note that, per that guideline, the issue is determined first and foremost by page consensus. How many more personal attacks are you planning on in order to be WP:POINTy? If anyone has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt they're motivated by WP:BIGOTRY, that would be you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

East-Central Europe

I saw your message and I believe I left out the map on East-Central Europe. The reason why I deleted the map is because it's inaccurate and does not translate into text. Croatia as a whole is in The Alpine-Carpathian zone, and even the text has a few mistakes such as naming Croatia and then mentioning inland parts as exceptions, which is very wrong. Abruptly deleting the map may be a mistake, but it was in good intention. I propose making a new (similar map) where the mistake is corrected and replacing it with the old one.

Tanper (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. As noted on your talk page by another editor, edit summaries are a good way of informing other editors of policy or guideline motivated changes, as well as brief explanations as to the accuracy of information, etc. In this instance, this is something that should be brought up in a new section on the corresponding talk page so that other editors can participate in a discussion of what is accurate and what is inaccurate. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at LittleWink's talk page.
Message added 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LittleWink (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Russia edit

IMF's projections have been erratic concerning Russia recently. They've been also proven wrong on it. World Bank data is more consistent and possibly less politically motivated. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you got what i meant. IMF's data is mostly estimation based on OUT OF DATE economic data. That's one of the reasons it messed up Russia's economic forecast. And Russia isn't the only one. World Bank is a more reliable up to date source. That's why i changed the economic data for Russia page.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I 'got' what you meant entirely. As per my second revert on the Russia article, I have left a message for you asking you to look at the "Russia" talk page here, here, here and, finally, the outcome of a dispute resolution that shouldn't have occurred here. Check across all of the articles for nation-states. It is IMF data which is used exclusively. If you don't believe that the IMF is a reliable source, please take it to the Reliable source noticeboard with your arguments. I'm simply abiding by that which has been established as the reliable source to be used across the board so if I don't revert you, another editor will. This isn't a matter for page consensus, but should be discussed at the appropriate venue. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What's your issue then? WB data is also used extensively, alongside IMF, and it's a reliable source. I don't get why it HAS TO BE ONLY IMF data, even when there are more reliable up to date sources?

PS: i don't care for ranking. My issue is with economic output. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Then take it to the WP:RSN. I'm not interested in edit warring with you or anyone else. Personally, I'm not concerned as to which system is used, so long as there is community consensus to use one or the other across the board for all articles about current nation-states. It's your hobby-horse, not mine: therefore it is up to you to present solid arguments to the community. Neither you nor I are the community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP is branching out

He failed to get his way on various forums so is now going into other articles with his POV-pushing and original research: [1].Faustian (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Noted. The same goes for Polish census of 1931 on a grand scale, and using both of his IP addresses. The initial changes on that article began with this major edit using table 10 of this 1938 publication where he draws on the French translation of Ruthene (rather than the actual Polish Ruski) as WP:SYNTH. I'm sorely tempted to change the new 'list' to reflect the French: Polish becomes Polonais; Rosyjski becomes Russe; etc. This is pure tendentious editing by a POV single purpose account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you two should simply learn to read Polish so you can understand the original census? Please be advised that this correspondence is evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:CTDAPE and your continued course of conduct will result in referring this matter to the appropriate administrators.85.154.245.171 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Marauding IP

Sorry I haven't been around to help counter the marauding "pan-Rus' people" IP. I have a feeling it is worth taking it to AE, though I don't know how that'd work with an IP. Either way, his behaviour is nothing more than WP:TE at this point. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Try actually giving academic references for your personal opinions, and don't just use bad language like you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia

Use the contemporary language for the people in history pages, not post-war Soviet nomenclature designed to hide ethnic cleansing, internal Soviet colonization, and ethnic homogenization. Don't hide from the British government's acquiescence to the same. Make an effort to maintain a NPOV. By all means notify AE that you want to use a British dictionary as the basis for your edits which are contrary to academic publications. 37.200.224.204 (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't make inflammatory and outrageous statements like "[he/she is] simply the product of a British culture which has attempted to distance itself from the results of its nation's approval of what we now call ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity", then. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We are all products of our environment. Some of us can transcend it, but that first requires that we are cognizant of what our formative environment is or was. It is without question that His Majesty's government appeased first Hitler before, and then Stalin, during after the war. In the later, His Majesty's government condoned Stalin's actions in the region. Why was that? A failed attempt to keep a racist empire? Perhaps you might consider why your concept of the term Ruthenian was so completely different from the Latin origin of the word, and its continued usage in academics? In any event the rules here at WP don't change because the truth hurts. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, you Brits might consider not perhapsing so much perhaps?85.154.245.171 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes! I'm glad to be held responsible for the actions of a British government seventy or so years ago. I don't have any "concept" of the term Ruthenian. Words change over time, their meanings shift. I apologise if you can't handle that, but it is what it is. Ruthenian has not meant "all the people of the Rus'" in English since the 18th century, and reliable sources verify that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, but this is getting too funny for words. Claims of being able to 'transcend' their 'formative environment' by someone whose entire ontological security is based on the perfection and righteousness of the Poles throughout history? Just a quick look at the special contribs of 85.154.245.171 / 37.200.224.204 provides a definitive background to this IP's neutrality and conscientious attempts to bring THE TRUTH to the project.

Yes, an AE may be problematic for someone who uses two IP addresses, RGloucester. I think it might be appropriate to bring in one of the AE admins as a third party at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He most likely has started using an identity :[2] in addition to the IPs.Faustian (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Identical issues being dredged up... and, obviously, trying to enlist editors for support. I'm convinced this double IP + new user is not a newbie. Any time I've encountered 'new' users who hit the ground running and appear to be confident of their knowledge of policies and guidelines, they've inevitably been found out for WP:BLOCK EVASION. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Any leads on a potential master, then? Best thing to do is go through the same pages and take a look. RGloucester — ☎ 01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It could be one of many (we're not exactly in short supply). I've only checked through the history quickly, and noticed a resemblance to this user from last year who displays a very similar pattern of disruptive editing under a number of IP addresses, but then disappears when things get heated up. I haven't tracked back any further to other articles worked on, but Faustian may recall him/her. The IP addresses have long since been abandoned, but were apparently from the same location. The user we're currently dealing with is located in Oman, which would lead me to believe that the person works on contract wherever their job takes them. I've not done very much in the way of investigating due to being caught out by some dreaded lurgy (it is springtime in Melbourne), so I'm finding it difficult to focus over a headful of snot and a migraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, good catch! It is almost certainly the same person as the IP this user.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go back further. There are a couple of users blocked way back, but who have regularly returned as short term IP users and under various user names identified as multiple socks. I'll run through them when my brain is functioning properly. Personally, I'd like to just make major reverts to the POV rubbish rewrites of a couple of articles, but want to ensure that my backside is well and truly covered when I citekill the cherry picked sources and OR interpretations of primary documents. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Good catch, indeed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Close 2092 data Russia is 9th

Close 2092 data somebody posted 8th.Russia is according to the official IMF data only 9th behind Italy .Many times this number has been vandalized in the past times i noticed because the citation aside 2092 is wrong.Here is the correct source that testifies it and that should be citated aside 2092. List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal) . Could you restore this please?Thanks.151.40.29.113 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Hopefully, it's back to the correct data. There appear to have been a large number of unsourced changes to figures over the last couple of months. Please check and let me know. Cheers for the notification! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia with 2092 is 9th as nominanl GDP estimate by IMF in 2014 behind Italy that with 2171 is the true 8th.Thanks a lot!I hope you'll change that false 8th aside 2092.Not for me but for a right information).151.40.29.113 (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I only just received the notification of the change to the infobox for the Russia article and have reverted it. The issue has been discussed at length and clarified on the talk page there throughout the year. There are several editors aware of these changes, so one of us will pick up on it whenever the data is changed. Thank you for your vigilance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki should thank you.You'd merit a star.151.40.29.113 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Hispanic neighborhoods / Dominican American edits reverted

My contributions to these pages weren't test edits. I'm also confused as to why my edit was tagged as "not constructive". I'm using the sources from the 2010 Census already given there. The list originally had some cities that did not match up with the Census at all. I was fixing those. I also noticed that it was reverted because it was unsourced? That whole page lacks sources, why was my edit the main focus in that? If that were a legitimate reason to revert my edit then that whole page should've been deleted. 209.6.194.232 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you felt that I was targeting you specifically. In both instances, I asked for sources for the changes in my edit summary. What I placed on your page are standard templates, an are not intended as indictments.

Both articles have been developed without sources and, as such, I think it is time to par them back to stubs, or tag them for deletion. If you have sources, it would be greatly appreciated if you could add them. If you're truly interested in developing them as genuinely informative, encyclopaedic articles, it would be worth opening an account. I'll leave a template message for you on your talk page in order for you to evaluate whether you'd prefer to have an account. There are also additional resources available through Wikipedia if you wish to develop these articles with sources (such as Resource Request and the various google tests. Cheers, and good luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spetsnaz 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:

• Troops of Russia|Russian Internal Troops]] (VV), successor to the Soviet [[Internal Troops]]) paramilitary units to combat internal threats to the government, such as insurgencies and mutinies.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Additional bracket removed. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Dear Iryna Harpy, thank you for your recent teamwork effort. I really appreciate it and hope this barnstar brightens your day! With regards, AnupamTalk 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Anupam! Working on articles which are POV battlefields as I do, it was a rare pleasure to be able to work constructively with an editor whose aim is to improve the Wikipedia project. Warm regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with editing

Hi Iryna, you may remember me from my (unfortunately wasted) efforts at combating bias and POV-pushing in articles related to Poland. It looks like someone else has taken up my cause, but he is facing the same resistance of edit warring and refusal to accept change as I did. Would it be possible for you to review the content of this discussion and see whether anything can be done to moderate the behaviour of users Xx236, Boston9 and Poeticbent as well as letting the first sentence of the Poland article see some much-needed (and long overdue) change? If you do not have the time and/or authority on Wikipedia to assist us in this, I would be very grateful if you could pass this on to someone else who could see it through (feel free to quote anything I wrote in this message). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember you. I've taken a cursory look at the 'discussion'. No surprises there. Rather than weighing in, I suspect that the best I could do for the integrity of the article is to take the issue of 'Eastern or Central Europe' before a WP:DRN while I'm still uninvolved. In fact, because this has been an ongoing and contentious issue, it may be better to take it before the WP:ARBEE. Let me think on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Query

Have you ever considered becoming a sysop? I imagine it is a bit of a drag in some respects, however, you seem like the perfect candidate. You have a good knowledge of policies, a level-head, an ability to compromise, to deal with problem editors, to help resolve disputes, and so forth. Your ability to mediate disputes as a sysop would be a great help to the project. I've noticed the dearth of proactive sysops around, as I'm sure you have, and we really need more who are willing to step into the fray. As such, when I was reading the administrators' noticeboard for the sake of some other matters, I noticed this thread, where TParis said that he'd like to nominate someone for adminship. Of course, it is up to you as to whether you'd be interested in this "no big deal" affair, but I do think that you'd be a great help to the project. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do a review of your contribs for candidacy. I won't hold the Russell's teapot userbox against you - too much ;) --v/r - TP 02:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A funny thing happened to me on the way to work one day. I received a call asking me to see the Vice Chancellor of my uni before i took my first seminar for the day. I was told that I'd been nominated by a few Deputy Vice Chancellors for an Honorary Doctorate in Logistics and that, after consulting with the staff of several faculties, he had endorsed it. I found it embarrassing but, under duress, ended up at the next postgrad ceremony in the robes I'd technically earned only to be greeted by a standing ovation I didn't fully believe was merited. In the minds of my colleagues, I was the one who didn't fall apart; understood the big picture as well as the details; did not shirk my responsibility; did not play at favourites (even if it was at their expense because I could always justify my position despite its not being my preference).

Now to the not-so-funny part. Had someone other than RGloucester suggested this to me, I would have taken it as an insult to my intelligence, knowing that the person suggesting it was thinking about guarantees that they'd always have someone on 'the inside' taking their side. As it was RGloucester, I know there can be no such expectations from an editor who develops content following policies and guidelines despite their own political/moral/personal compass.

I started working on Wikipedia as a challenge to my many years of having a free hand to interpret research and throw myself into a new learning curve demanding the opposite of me. I had pretty visions of developing articles on visual artists. Instead, I've spent more and more of my time dedicated to that which takes precedence for me: POV pushing and blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. As I've evolved into taking on the role of watching articles (ex-Soviet areas in particular) under attack from the escapees from current affairs articles, it's become the mainstay of my work on Wikipedia. The question, then, is whether I like this role. I loathe and love it because I must follow policy above and beyond my 'self'. Whether I am made of the right stuff to be a good sysop is a question I can't know the answer to without trying the hat on. I would assume there would be reliable supervision and plenty of constructive criticism from the outset if I were regarded a reasonable potential candidate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: You're welcome hold BR's T against me as much as you wish to. In fact, I have quite a large number of articles on religions on my watchlist in order to halt POV refactoring of content. The duties of a Harpy are clear, so just consider me a benign lower deity, despite religion being the opiate of the masses. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my presumption, Iryna. RfA doesn't appear to be the most friendly process, but imagine that TParis is more knowledgeable on these matters than I am. I do think that your comments above reinforce my personal opinion that you are suited to the task, and I hope others can potentially agree. I suppose his evaluation is more useful than mine, and hence, I shall leave it up to him. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've only ever observed RfA procedures, but am aware of how tough the process is. If I can't withstand that atmosphere, I don't believe I'd be a good candidate. I have no illusions as to being Ms Popularity. That's no how I perceive the function of being a good contributor, much less a good sysop (not to imply that being overly hard-nosed is desirable). I'll see what TParis has to say on the matter. It could quite simply be that I still need broader experience, and that suggestions as to how to broaden my experience of applicable prerequisites could be improved in order to apply at a future date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no illusions as to being Ms Popularity. That's no how I perceive the function of being a good contributor, much less a good sysop (not to imply that being overly hard-nosed is desirable). - that right there gets you my vote. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to establish that I didn't accidentally click on the 'thanks' feature, VM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that was a good edit.

Good call reverting the attempt to sweep under the rug that, despite Vlad's on-again off-again denials, he actually laid legal groundwork for the Anschluss in Ukraine ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine&action=history

Rather a bit of a red herring to suggest it was "never acted on". <trying hard not to laugh given the tragic nature of the situation> but a red herring of a new sort...red piranha maybe. Wikidgood (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, herrings don't have the teeth to growl and intimidate with. Red wolf-fish, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done

Wikidgood (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikidgood! ... and thank you, too, Mondolkiri1. Your sentiments are greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My own prize for peace

From what I've seen you do about the crisis and the war in Ukraine, and not only ... This white dove, which I don't have, I would donate to you immediately if I had one. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Peace

The Barnstar of Peace

Spam Twinkle notifications by blocked used

October 2014 Hello, I'm Derianus. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Grodno Region because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Derianus (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [3] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [4] Hello, I'm Derianus. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [5]. Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence: [6]. One more of these and I'm taking you straight to an WP:ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User_talk:Derianus can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [7].

More WP:NPA violations by blocked user

Harassment, nonsense insertion Please stop your harassment as you did on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Also don't insert nonsense in articles like you did on Grodno Region. Derianus (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Would you care to point out where the nonsense is that I've inserted into the Grodno Region article?... Please demonstrate this via use of diffs, and desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I just come from writing what could be an answer for your question: Talk:Grodno Region#Controversial changes to the article. Cheers and good editing. Derianus (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Interesting to see how you quickly obfuscated the red links you'd created in the Brest article I'd noted here. As for removing my comment twice from from Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine, you'd better familiarise yourself with what is and is not acceptable according to WP:TPO. Further advice: posting complaints (particularly when you are deliberately misrepresenting the context) is known as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. An example, this is a prime example. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I did not obfuscate anything. Instead you did obfuscate content/context, by not distinguishing between province and region. And I did not post a complaint. You misrepresent the case. If anyone did forum shopping it was you, because you went to an unrelated article talk (Oblasts of Ukraine) to spread word about edits on Brest Region. Brest is not Ukraine, that's it. Maybe you better edit articles in an area where you have more knowledge. Derianus (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

You seem pretty up on these things I wonder if you can offer advice on how to fix this very subtle POV in the presentation of Stephen Cohen as a belaguered underdog. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I'll weigh in when I get a moment. I've noted some goings on surrounding that article on a couple of noticeboards. I'm currently a little bogged down in other issues (whiffs of POV pushing are floating around all over the place at the moment). Cheers for the heads up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh THAT'S what that smell was...Wikidgood (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. All articles surrounding Eastern Europe have been tricky territory, but the last year of events in Ukraine have stirred the compost heap... and attracted a new layer of disgruntled contributors. Watch where you tread: you never know when a big bit is going to pop up and thwack you in the face. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko

For me, it's reliable source. I know the rules, I'm experienced user (editing mostly on pl.wiki). Here are few another sources, maybe one will be reliable enough for you: [8], [9], [10], [11]. It's obvious you won't find this information on BBC or New York Times, because they write only good information about Ukraine and only negative about Russia (often it isn't true). Regards, Żyrafał (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC writes ONLY goodUkarine/badRussia? Hmm...have you actually read the BBC/NYT? Sounds to me like more RT justification. I am open to reasoning that might convince me that you are correct, but it seems that your post is self defeating on the face of it. IH seems to be pretty even handed IMHO. Wikidgood (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that these sources cite their information coming from novorosinform.org and maxpark.com suggests that it's rumour-mongoring and being used blatantly as propaganda (see what Wikipedia is not, such as WP:NOTGOSSIP). "Мало кто знает, что президент Украины Петр Порошенко, помимо владения стране владельцем похоронных бюро." I'm not surprised that "few know" about this WP:BOLLOCKS, which is why you won't find it in a reliable source. If I were to assess the tone in which these 'articles' are written, they're all WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL without a jot of integrity (ergo, not even worthy to be considered as a reasonable biased source: I might as well cite graffiti written on toilet walls as a source).

I have no doubt that you consider it to be an RS, particularly when I look at the calibre of your other RS. Find some reliable sources, or stick to writing in to blogs and forums. The article is a WP:BLP, not a collection of any subversive scandal you wish to introduce.

Being an 'experienced editor' in Polish Wikipedia is not the equivalent of being an experienced, neutral and cautious editor for English Wikipedia. If these sources would pass Polish Wikipedia's criteria, then Polish Wikipedia must be way under par for a Wikipedia project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On pl.wiki it wouldn't pass if it didn't pass here. If it isn't reliable source, than OK, it don't have to be in article. Żyrafał (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case, if you've added it to Polish Wikipedia, I'd suggest you remove it there. The two sources for the articles (maxpark.com and novorosinform.org) are definitely not reliable sources. I don't have any vested interest as to whether Poroshenko is depicted as being a saint or a sinner, so long as any BLP information is based on RS. If you do manage to find reliable sources for this information, please feel free to add it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add it to Polish Wikipedia, so I don't have anything to remove. Żyrafał (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Żyrafał! In which case, it's sorted for the moment. As already noted, if this information is backed up by reliable sources at some point, I have no problems with its being reinstated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your accusation of "mangling"

Responding to: Why are you mangling my re-pings? Please read WP:TPO. If you wanted to amend the text in the barnstar you awarded, make the change to your own text and mark it as being a minor edit, and provide a relevant edit summary such as "ce - amending wording in barnstar". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If I interfered with your re-ping in any way, I do apologize. I was not simply editing the wording in the barnstar, but also attempting to move it out of the "talkback" section of the page where I thought I had inadvertently intruded. Something must have gotten lost in the translation... Kenfree (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken a look at the earlier edit and can see what you were trying to accomplish. As it was my re-ping, I'll move the mucked up bit down to the latest talkback so that the sections are obviously separated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kenfree, please read WP:TALKNEW. I'm referring to the header for the section: "Never use headings to attack other users." Not only is "accusation" unwarranted, it is a blatant personal attack on me misrepresenting my comment and tone on on your talk page. Also, please read user talk page notes. If you take a look, you will see that I specify — If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it; if you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Iryna Harpy}} on your talk. There is no need to cut and paste my entire missive and retitle it on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Block of user name

I blocked IrynaHappy solely because of their user name being too close to yours. However, if you suspect a sockpuppet, please address that ASAP. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearian. There's no real information to go on (other than the account being used for a comment in poor English). Considering that the last year's events in Ukraine have brought in a tidal wave of trolls and POV IP hoppers, it would be impossible for me to identify anything other than the fact that the user's English is very poor (or they're putting it on, as I've encountered before), and that they have definitive POV opinions. If it is a good faith choice of name, I'd be extremely surprised: choosing a name that would crop up in a lot of Eastern European articles (particularly as I've been prominent in a lot of talk pages and articles) seems more opportunistic than coincidental. At least the user has the opportunity to create another username should they be sincere about contributing to Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)