User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled

PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article, there is an identical post under this headline, thank you.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming an propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the Etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" [maybe seemingly] reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" [maybe seemingly] reads like a script of (history) accusations [the obligatory picture of Mr.Medvedev and Mr.Putin behind the scenes, having a watchful eye on the operations] ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin [the personified Satan cough, cough]" , (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, calm down. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is not going to do you any favours. I haven't had a chance to read the article as it stand currently, but am well aware of the fact that - according to English language Wikipedia policy - you are not in the 'right' (take that as being a double entendre if you wish) as to WP:RS, nor for the presentation of the article. Secondly, do not presume to lump editors into what you presume to be their POV.

I fully intend to look at the article carefully and examine it for recent POV pushes and whether it is written per WP:NPOV. In the meantime, you need to thoroughly familiarise yourself with the neutral POV policy and surrounding policies. WP:NPOV is not balanced out per WP:GEVAL. If you wish to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, you probably shouldn't involve yourself in the project. So far, your contributions to the content of the article have been disruptive.

In the meantime, I suggest that you involve yourself in the formal mediation being offered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Iryna that has already happened. [[WP:GEVAL] is especially important in that it is very fruitful concerning science debates. There is nothing to debate about if something is proven and indepedently verifiable (as long as the framework of given parameters and preconditions are still valid). As soon as you enter political ideology the situation changes dramatically. The reason you feel that I don't comply with these policiesWP:BATTLEGROUNDWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is my candid description of the flawed editing process and the obvious entrenched thinking of wikipedia authors. I've read the policies and agree with the contents. What I refute is the standard reaction of wp editors to throw them at me and the constant hiding behind them. Moreover those policies are very much subject to interpretation. The most important thing is the insistence that opinions are facts (especially citing political parties as reliable sources) and everyone who disagrees hasn't read the policies thorough enough.

I can tell you this by obfuscating real issues (NPOV tag removal) you are doing wp a major disservice. If you have facts backing up your claim state them. Instead the entire article has hallmarks of a hit piece on many different levels (trivia, indirect accusations etc. added to a barebone structural description of rt).Spotter 1 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no argument with you regarding the difficulty in establishing reliable sources as opposed to biased sources. To my mind, any mass media slants should be attributed (as in WP:INTEXT attribution within articles, most particularly those which verge on WP:RECENTISM). Nevertheless, this is English Wikipedia and the policies are abided by according to the current interpretation of reliable sources, et al. This is where the Reliable sources noticeboard comes into play although, at the moment, there have been long discussions regarding RT as a reliable source and it's not a good time to bring it up there.

Wikipedia is a long term project. Policies and guidelines have been developed over a long period of time, and none of them a immutable. The policies are actually excellent, and I think it would be prudent for you to recognise assuming good faith and consensus as being of primary value. Accusing editors of hiding behind policies as a method of 'obfuscating' their lies is not a useful attitude for you to adopt because you're disenchanted with the system. It seems that it hasn't occurred to you that they believe that they are representing the truth just as much as you're convinced that you are representing the same. If your objective is to become disillusioned in the short term, by all means keep up the indignation. If, however, you are interested in the evolution of Wikipedia as a genuinely encyclopaedic source in the long haul, I suggest that you learn to to curb your enthusiasm and really become acquainted with how it works. You are a new user and have barely tipped the iceberg in terms of the intricacies. This requires hard work and a genuine commitment, including keeping your POV to yourself. Rome wasn't built in a day: neither are changes and challenges to how RS should be perceived and presented. Whether you're prepared to believe it or not, the Wikipedia community is represented by a disparate association of contributors who discuss, debate (and even argue passionately) behind the scenes in order to benefit representation of world views. This isn't accomplished within the articles but in other venues. Once you have become an experienced Wikipedian, you will find these venues for being candid. If you continue in your current, high octane, 'in your face' manner you won't last long enough to appreciate or contribute to the longer term goals.

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm an 'obfuscater' come 'knee-jerk reactionary'. There are no policies or guidelines to substantiate your 'POV' tag. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of "...'obfuscating' their lies...". Every action that seems to question the veracity of your "position" be it so small to just pointing out there is a regular occuring substantiated NPOV dispute (by tagging the article accordingly) is upsetting you. Obfuscating means: it's unpleasent to have a discussion that someone actually could see because of the tag, that's why pulling the tag means it remains hidden in a "backroom" because the casual reader isn't seeing the referrer to the talk page on top of the article. The tag is very important with the result that it is taken down almost instantaneously which kind of proves my point.

The purpose of my post is to argue on the merit of facts!(concerning among other things the propaganda accusation/singling out rt) everything else is a side scene of the real issue.Spotter 1 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to prefer these highly contentious issues be hashed out on article talk pages rather than user pages but alas, here we are. IMHO RT is a controlled organ of an authoritarian state with totalitarian tendencies HOWEVER there are occasions when they occasionally may uncover a set of facts which are either (a) truthful as pertain to non-controversial matters such as Putin's pet animals, or (b) matters highly embarassing to enemies of the Kremlin. The problem though is that they have been caught red handed falsifying matters which would be highly embarassing tothe opponents of Russian expansionism if they were in fact true. The reality is that Kremlin has been fabricating outright lies and using hacks like Stephen Cohen to legitimize these lies. For instance, that the shootdown of Flight MH17 was the work of the West and Ukrainian military attempting to assassinate Putin or this gross exagerated story about supposedly "mass" unmarked graves when the so called OCSE correspondent was a Kremlin mole with fake credentials who had nothing whatever to do with the official OCSE team except as a pest who had inserted himself into the process. If there were perhaps a half dozen people buried in gardens or wherever that is a sad matter indeed and no one minimizes the tragedy, but this is not some kind of Auschwitz-level holocause/coverup as the Kremlin spinmeisters want us to believe. Doesn't all this belong on RSN?Wikidgood (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been hashed out on RSN plenty of times (just type in Russia Today into the RSN search box). RT is deemed by the majority of Wikipedians as being only reliable for WP:INTEXT attribution for statements from the government or direct statements of officials pertaining to issues. I'm not going to dwell on my own personal take, but I certainly don't consider it RS for any information about subjects directly affecting the RF's sphere of influence (or any potential sphere of influence they'd like to have under their belt). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood and Wikidgood: These are your claims, nevertheless it would be highly interesting to me if you have facts supporting your claims.@Iryna Harpy and Iryna Harpy: As to your RSN point, RSN is not a reliable source to deem something else a reliable source. It's an opnion board which does cite sources which have no way near the reliability of for example a scientific research institution; it cites in the case of rt politically involved sources which have a political stake/interest in this. Give facts not opinions.

WP def:"An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". If wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia strip it off the opnions and stick to knowledge - if it's not tested and proved it's not knowledge more like opinipedia.Spotter 11 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edifying definition of 'encyclopaedia'. I had no idea of what an encyclopaedic resource is. Where's the 'knowledge' you're trying to inject into the content? It looks decidedly like a subjective opinion from where I sit. Arguments, such as yours, are contingent on your personal point of view, and that is definitely not encyclopaedic. Summary of what you've written above: RSN is not a reliable source because it's an opinion board; I don't like Wikipedia because the articles I feel emotionally involved in aren't written according to my personal opinion; I want scientific/empirical sources for political subjects. Where are the empirical facts for RT as being terrific and objective? Empirical facts outside of economics, econometrics, statistics, et al do not exist in the political sciences... or, perhaps, you're not aware of this. They are subject to opinions and interpretations, and Wikipedia adheres to mainstream secondary source opinion. You are engaged in WP:POINTy behaviour. If you read nothing else, read WP:POINT at least. Between you and Kenfree, you are creating an illusion of there being a POV issue through tendentious editing practices. The fact that someone ties to pick a fight in a bar does not mean that they have a valid point to make, it just means that they're picking a fight. I suggest that you now drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Arguments, such as yours, are contingent on your personal point of view, and that is definitely not encyclopaedic", - I do like Wikipedia because the articles I feel emotionally involved in are written according to my personal opinion which luckily is the "majority" opinion of the RSN board which shares my view in this particular case. "Where are the empirical facts for RT as being terrific and objective?" - I've nerver made this assertion, quite the opposite, I invited everyone to come up with facts that prove its misconduct and as I put it on the RT talk page:

"Again media organizations are by default (according to my points above) "propaganda tools" of their owners. The only thing that is justifiable is to point out/state factually false reporting, that what is not reported, how it's reported, history, actual structure etc. in short what can be proven by evidence - not opinion; something that provides for insight."

"I want scientific/empirical sources for political subjects. Where are the empirical facts for RT as being terrific and objective? Empirical facts outside of economics, econometrics, statistics, et al do not exist in the political sciences... or, perhaps, you're not aware of this. They are subject to opinions and interpretations, and Wikipedia adheres to mainstream secondary source opinion". Exactly that's why if you (wp editors/policy makers) want to defend your opinipedia (german wp, real example how some minimal neutrality is possible) till death I suggest we drop the double standard of singling out RT for the "propaganda tool" treatment or enforce it to the other pet stations like "Aljazeera, BBC, BBG, ABC, CCTV ..." of their respective owner.

"Between you and Kenfree, you are creating an illusion of there being a POV issue through tendentious editing practices. The fact that someone ties to pick a fight in a bar does not mean that they have a valid point to make, it just means that they're picking a fight. I suggest that you now drop the stick". This is where you are crashing into a wall. For example the German version could fulfill the minimal requirement for neutrality. Now did anyone got the wp:page tag treatment on the talk page? maybe somewhere else but the RT article certainly could survive in its neutral form after all the recent events. Summary most of wp:page tags can be argueably ascribed to you. Now if you have/find actual facts that would discredit RT (which most certainly should be part of the article) please let us know I would appreciate and thank you for that otherwise I suggest that you now "drop the stick". Spotter 11 (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | (The reason for this on user page)Spotter 1 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider Der Spiegel an RS? How about this, this, Reporters Without Borders per this. Perhaps you consider The Independent to be corrupt, Western ideologues in their criticism here. Perhaps PRWatch is more to your taste here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Iryna Harpy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Received. I'll chime in the moment I find some time today (a few things on my plate IRL). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

Your recent editing history at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mike V • Talk 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: Apologies, but I'm at a loss as to where it is I've been edit warring per the article history. I've noted that user Galant Khan has left a message for you regarding my behaviour, but wonder whether you've seen the exhaustive interaction on the actual talk page here, here and here. Have you looked at Galant Khan's talk page history? The user has been warned about WP:POV content and WP:TE editing practices by other editors regarding the same material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Re-pinged --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V:, I'm sorry to bother you, but I still haven't had a response as to where I was edit warring. I would like some form of explanation as I don't delete anything on my talk page other than blatant vandalism. I'd simply like the record set straight as to whether you'd actually examined the article and talk page in question before this warning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries for the second ping. :) It was mostly for these sets of edit: 1, 2, 3, 4 It seemed like there was a slow edit war occurring due to the reverts and it was only a precautionary warning. Given there has been much discussion on the article talk page since then, I wouldn't be concerned anymore. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Discussions were a mess due to Galant Khan's having gone WP:FORUMSHOPPING after he'd started the same RfC (which he knew he wasn't going in his favour) on an article that was about to be merged for being a pro-Western POV replica here. I was trying to prevent the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity article from being used as more of a WP:COATRACK than it already is. Sigh. All's well that ends well... other than the fact that there are several 'incidents' like this surrounding Eastern European articles alone every day. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Iryna, concerns about the English Wikipedia of War in Donbass and related issues

I've alrealy talked to Herzen, and I talk to you now, since I don't see anyone among the WP editors, apart from you (you're actually from the Center of Ukraine, I guess, with a quite open mind concerning to the positions both in Eastern and Western Ukraine) and Herzen (pro-Donbass, but how can I blame him since everyone else is against Donbass?)... I quit.. I'd compare this as a kind of war between Portugal and Spain, in a situation where Spain would have a territorial claim concerning to Portugal, though 30+ % Portuguese support a union between Portugal and Spain, and I'm not either for nor against it... Or a union between Galicia and Portugal (neither I have any position about it). Será que quis dizer: a minha posiçao sobre este assunto é essa My position on this issue is this: It's not about people in Frankfurt, Brussels, Moscow, Kiev, Washington or New York. And I refuse to be a puppet of such scheme, partly (I hate to say, but it is), promoted by RGloucester, in what concerns to the financial interests of NY and Frankfurt... And promoted bt Herzen in what concerns to the political interests of Moscow... I refuse to be a part of this circus! I know you're not that kind, that's why I wrote to you. I'd wish we'd be actual friends! Good morning! Blessings from Portugal, and to our dear antipodes, in New Zealand too ;) (antipodes of Guarda in the North of South Island, actually)! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2014 (GMT)

I really don't think it has anything to do with "financial interests in Frankfurt, Brussels, Washington or New York". If you think I'm the type to be supporting neoliberal corporate interests, you're quite wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Mondolkiri1, I think it's a mistake to make the comparisons your making. I understand how you're predisposed to perceiving what is going on as being about the West's financial interests and maintaining its own power-base but, ultimately, Ukraine is just a pawn in the power game between squeezing Russia and Russian imperialist interests. One group of imperialists are not better than another. From what I've seen of your evaluations of the situation, I suspect that you've been baited by small "l" liberal media, forums and blogs into believing that the RF, as the opposite in the spectrum, must be the 'good' alternative to the other powerhouses. No, the RF is run by the right wing. Putin just happens to be chummy with one lot of oligarchs and has ousted the others under his buddies patronage. If you look at the RF's political and moral stance on absolutely anything, it is bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, nurtures extremist Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) ideology and is corrupt to the core.

I suspect that you're observing events in the current climate, not taking the historical and future picture into account. Had you approached what was already being fomented in these regions of Ukraine 20 years ago, you would have looked at the pro-Russian strong-arming with disgust. None of the current events have happened in a vacuum, and all of this didn't just happen at the end of last year. Whose interests do you think are being represented? Have you actually spent time familiarising yourself with who the new Novorossians are, or what they actually stand for? Do you really believe that what is going on has anything to do with the needs and genuine interests of the masses? Which 'people' are being represented by a relative handful of those separatists who actually live in the regions about to be torn apart? The only 'winners' will be all the economic powerhouses happy to keep stoking the and financially supplementing the fires of Ukrainian right-wing nationalist reaction against being pushed around by Russia (for the umpteenth time in its history). The only 'winners' will be the RF puppet irredentists and the RF in keeping its boundaries conveniently tied up under threat of further war. The RF isn't nervous about military intervention from powers wanting to squeeze them because no one is going to step up to the plate and take them on. It's all about much blustering about 'threats' with no immanent threats. Do any of the transnational monopolies and corporations actually give a damn? No, they don't care who they do their deals with because the deals for raw materials and cheap labour will go on. Will miners get better, safer working conditions under a different oligarch running the show. Nope: in fact, working conditions and pay will continue to slump.

My apologies if you misunderstand this as being derisive of your views. It's not intended to be any such thing. I know you're a decent and caring humanitarian. It may not show in my contributions to Wikipedia, but I'm probably very left-left-left of centre, which is why I get annoyed by "small l liberals" seeing everything being black and white and being adamant that every opposite to what is 'bad' must be 'good'. I simply do my best to be genuinely faithful to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite it often going against the grain from my personal perspective.

My best advice is don't give up: keep researching and thinking about the world economic order; keep investigating what Representative democracy really means; whether Capitalism and Representative democracy can possibly be compatible; analyse every statement presented as being a 'given' to make decisions as to whether there is anything 'given' about it; delve into whether the alternatives to a system or methodology you dislike are not simply the flip-side of the same flawed principles and just a knee-jerk reaction repackaged as a quick fix. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Lebanese Jewish surname edit

Hi Iryna

You recently reverted an edit in which I added the first half of my double-barreled surname (Khabie) to the list of Lebanese Jewish surnames. You linked on my talk page to a general set of Wikipedia policy statements, citing that I had violated one (or some). Which principle did I break? This was intended as a genuine edit (certainly not vandalism!) - my father is both Lebanese and Jewish. I'm afraid I don't have much I can evidence this to you with, although I did just find a reference on the following blog entry talking about Lebanese Jews to a "David Khabie" (probably a distant relative, who also happens to share my first name!): https://tracingthetribe.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/minnesota-sephardic-jews-connect-in-twin-cities/

Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmskz (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the yeoman's work on RT

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires

it was a toss up between Cool-As-A-Cucumber award, Flame War Barnstar, or this one, but considering the history of anti-journalism in the RF, it is my considered opinion that your meticulous work is a critical backstop to sabotage of the whole NPOV concept of WP which is a threat against which eternal vigilance is the only antidote. Wikidgood (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of faith! I'm honoured, and fully intend to continue to live up to the expectations such an award carries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A Ukrainian barnstar that I have

I've contributed for Ukrainian issues (including the Ukrainians in Portugal, which is the one issue I think I could deserve it), and I received a Ukrainian barnstar from RGloucester. Since concerning to Donbass I've been far more interested about the issues concerning to the people in Donbass (both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian or pro-Novorussiyan (or similar), if you think it's appropriate, I'll grant that barnstar to you. Because, by what I've noticed both Ukrainian army and Russian and pro-Russian forces have commited unexcusible war crimes, targetting civilian populations, like they were both 2nd class Ukrainian citizens and 2nd class Russian citizens. Up to know I, myself, have only granted Portuguese barnstars and your Zaporozhian "barnstar". I hope you forgive me for my neutral (I guess) point of view concerning to these issuesMondolkiri1 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I guess I'm sorry for what I wrote you. I love the Ukrainian people, here in Portugal, but I've also leart to love the Donbass people., and I'd hope they wouldn't be considered 2nd class citizens. I don't care if they are full Ukrainians, federalized Ukrainians, independent, federalized Russians or Russians. My concern is that they're considered as people (either under a deficient Ukrainian regime or under a deficient Russian regine)). Noone seems to care about people there, neither the Russians nor EU and USA (the girl in USA actualy said fuck EU... and how would I care? it was being ruled by our traitor José Barroso who drove EU into a disgrace.... after he drove Portugal into a disgrace... why Ukraine wants to belong to EU? Honestly! UK is going out of EU, Turkey (as along as isn't been taken over by ISIS won't be... though I'm very disappointed about the Turkish stance towards the Kuds and I know that Turkey itself is far better than ISIS) I'm very disappointed with this world!And I'm very disappointed with RGloucester, Herze and those dudes that only think about their own egos. You, now, I know, you're the exception! I've had a lower (since it's only from February) experience on this, but sometimes I almost have a craving to quitting, so much is the anglo-saxinic bias! If the Novorossiiyans want to be independent, fine, if not fine. And, a more serious trouble is the genocide occurring under the "Islamic???" State! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:03 5 November 2014 (GMT)

War in Donbass

Ok here is the thing , i follow this war since its very start to this day and also use as much sources as i can to see situation from both sides , not just Russian but also read Ukrainian and Western news agency's. And when i see here that people put facts that are not true , or just put information from one side i am somehow obligated to react , cant contain myself because i don't want anymore of the propaganda from West to spread, they did that in my country and are doing now in Donbass , spreading lies. Also people who are how should i say , working here and who are legitimate don't do their job good. First example , on timeline of the war in Donbass we see almost every day dead/wounded Ukrainian soldier but on the page "War in Donbass" no one is changing that on daily basis, and i do that in my personal notepad, every day check many sources and try to update it. I don't say i am 100 % right because i am not , but i try to bring it as close to 100 as it gets. Other thing you guys did , and that is deleted destroyed military vehicles and airplanes and helicopters but we had almost clear number of destroyed hardware , someone who is pro Ukrainian and pro West didn't like it and deleted it to hide the truth and real situation there. I can give you link to one site where they put destroyed vehicles in this war and update it on daily basis and you can see what the numbers are , but i know you wouldn't do that and say it is illegitimate. And to not make it any longer that's about it why i change numbers and why i am not letting you guys do whatever you want and post numbers whatever you want and i also came to one more conclusion that Wikipedia is really biased towards West and will write in any situation against Russia and their allies. But don't want to make one more discussion about that since its not time nor place to discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.241.189 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a very long list of complaints about your perceived biases. I'll post a welcome to your page with a comprehensive list of links to policies and guidelines. Please read them in order to familiarise yourself with how English Wikipedia functions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Petitions

I'd hope if you could help me about petitions concerning to Donbass people (in Ukrainian occupied territory(, Palestinian people (in Israeli occupied territories), Kurdish/Christian/Shiite/Yazidi people (in Turkish/Iraqi/Syrian/Iranian occupied territory), in Tibetab/Uyugur Chinese occupied territoruy in Chechen Russian occupied territory, in Aborigine occupied territory by Australia and Native American (North and South) occupied territory by USA and Brazil! I'd wish I'd found a site to defend these people (including those in Donbass)... But I've also found that in Wikipedia, these people are very difficult, and they (namely RGloucester, Lvisky, Yulia Romero, so on) bow their hands to the Washington establishment. I can't trust RGloucester anymore... No that I trust Putin at all. But Neither RGloucester! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:17 5 November 2014 (GMT)

You'd probably be best off going to forcechange.com or causes.com (just google for them as I don't want to add spam links here). If you check through, you'll probably already find organised groups or individuals already addressing these issues who have petitions there. In both cases, you can either create a stand-alone account, or sign in via your Twitter, Facebook, Google+ account/s. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to know I "bow to the Washington establishment". That seems very odd, but I suppose if one says it, it must be true. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Mondolkiri1 hasn't found Wikipedia conducive to the way he'd like to impact on the world. If he wishes to become an activist, all the more power to him. The fact that he's still misunderstanding how Wikipedia actually works and has drawn incorrect conclusions as to our role and POV is a sad reflection of that basic misconception. I think that, given a little more time, he'll be just as disappointed in me. By his estimation, he'll find that I kowtow to the Washington establishment as much as you do. I guess we must both neo-cons in denial. Ah, well. If it's deemed to be so, it must be so. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly not neutral, so not a mediator

I could believe in your good faith if you had posted the same 3RR warning on Sayerslle talk page, as an edit war needs at least two editors involved, so by not doing so you clearly show a bias towards his POV. What is not logic is that if someone simply wants to add a single word "alleged" (wich doesnt judge that the claim is true or false, it only shows that is a claim, and not a proved fact, as in this case). So, in order to avoid more confrontation Im gonna add NPOV & unbalanced tags to the article, although I wonder that the same lobby of users will remove them, showing one more time how a group of editors have simply hijacked all articles related to Ukraine in order to fit with their extreme POV's.--HCPUNXKID 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:ALLEGED, which I'm sure I've linked thousands of times at this point. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to a possible misunderstanding at User talk:HCPUNXKID#Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID, why don't you read this essay about assuming bad faith then take a breather, read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines properly, then get back to me and tell me what a rotten person I am, and that I'm part of an evil WP:CABAL. You probably don't know how fortunate you are that no one has opened an ANI into your editing practices. Why is this so? Because you've been dealing with patient editors who are very forgiving of bad practices by newbie editors. I'm hoping that you learn from your mistakes and possibly come out of this as a good and useful editor. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, leaving apart assuming bad or good faith (are you going to try to convince me about editors good faith? Come on, I'm not a newbie, I've been in WP for more than 5 years, and I've seen more bad faith than other thing, especially in political/historical-related articles), this is about that edit warring needs at least 2 editors to be involved to be edit warring (as we say in my country: "Two dont argue if one dont want to"), and I sincerely cant understand why you warned me but not the other editor. Please explain me, that's all I ask for! Because the only explanation I could think about is that apart from not warning him, you asked him to call you if I reverted again so that you can revert me, in order to avoid Sayerslle to break 3RR???. I would be so glad if there's another explanation to your attitude, so please teach me, I have no shame on recognizing that I have to learn a lot on WP functioning. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you are going to tell me that the bias on ukrainian-related articles is a conspiracy theory or something like that? You really think that Donetsk People's Republic, War in Donbass, Ukrainian revolution, etc... are edited in a NPOV? Sincerely? And the dozens of editors who denounced bias on that articles are "putinists" (as I have been called), "kremlin trolls", etc...? If you think so we have nothing to argue, as Im not going to convince you of anything and viceversa. I assume that I probably will be blocked again, but its shameful that a bunch of POV-driven editors control totally ukrainian-related articles, aint that true?.--HCPUNXKID 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked your contributions and realised that you're most certainly not a newbie. It must have been the way you were flouting Wikipedia's policies that confused me. I guess I can add you to the list of editors who believe me to be a pro-US Russophobe as opposed to those who actually believe me to be a Kremlin troll. Hmm, well what do know: the scales are still balanced evenly, so it looks as if the jury is still out on what kind of a POV-er I am. All I can tell you for certain is that I'm not here to right the wrongs of the world. Perhaps, if you're feeling hard done by at the prospect of "I assume that I probably will be blocked again", you should start to consider it a litmus test as to how neutral you are. Put simply, whatever you or I might believe to be 'the truth' is of no consequence. We go with RS, not GEVAL. If you're not comfortable with that, you shouldn't be editing articles that already treading the thin line between NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, as regards the warning: you were the one insisting on inserting 'alleged' even though the sources say otherwise, plus why there are WEASEL words that are avoided for the sake of neutrality (CLAIM, ALLEGED, etc.). You've been arguing on various talk pages against RS, and your version of "it takes two to tango" simply doesn't apply. You were the only one going against consensus on the talk page where these issues have been hammered out for months at a time according to RS. You are being reverted by a number of editors, not just Sayerslle, so s/he is not the problem. Reverting your continuous addition of ALLEGED is not edit warring. Dancing to your own tune because you DONTLIKEIT is edit warring. And, yes, most other editors are contributing in good faith. I've also done more than my fair share of pulling up other editors who have been POV pushing from the other side. They would agree with you that I'm not a good mediator because they wanted their POV to dominate articles. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not here to win a popularity competition; in fact, I'm not here to win anything. My allegiance is to RS, reading sources discerningly and, hopefully, making the right decisions as to the presentation of what RS have to say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles about history of Novgorod

Dear Iryna,

you've leaved me your "like" regarding some correction by myself in the article about Novgorod Republic. The correction is bulldozed by rollback I guess, anyway, I've got more important reason to contact you. I checked your profile, you write there that you would like to help people in translating from Russian into English. This is my case.

If that's interesting for you, you may check my 2 articles up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndmitri/TheChurchOfNativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterndmitri/Znamenie

Thank you!

--Sterndmitri (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sterndmitri. Apologies for the delay in my response. I haven't had time to do any copyediting to the two prospective articles, but it would be excellent if you could add additional citations as the "Cathedral of the Nativity of Our Lady" article has no sources, and the "Our Lady of the Sign" icon is poorly reliably sourced. Are these your own translations of articles in Russian Wikipedia where more sources might be found? It isn't a problem if the sources are in Russian.

For more assistance, I'd recommend that you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia (for these articles, I'd suggest that the relevant sub-project would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Religion in Russia task force as it encompasses historical churches and, probably, religious icons, etc.. Take a look at the help page there. You'll find links to direct you to participants who'll be more than happy to help you out. Cheers, and welcome aboard! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, thank you for your participation so much. The delay is not a problem as that's not your obligation to do this, so it's quite understandable that everyone does his/her contribution here, when there's the time and desire to do this.

Yes, these 2 articles are my translations from Russian into English. So, as I see it, the major task is about some copyediting: I am not a native speaker of English. Thank you for the remarks about sources. There's lack of citations and sources in Russian Wikipedia too. The main source for the article about the church is the information exhibited inside the church (it's the museum now, you know) I guess. --Sterndmitri (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, lack of sources isn't really that great a problem with regards to such specialised subjects unless they're controversial, Sterndmitri. Again, I'd suggest that you make contact with WikiProject Russia as there are likely to be editors who'd be willing to find more sources and assist with the articles.

I've added the two articles to my watchlist and will try to get around to a bit of a copyedit when I can. So long as they meet a minimum standard as being carried across from Russian Wikipedia, they're possibly good enough to be included already (although the WP:TITLE for both needs some tweaking). I'll ping Ezhiki, Ymblanter, and Alex Bakharev as they have more experience in these matters than do I. There may be project templates that should be used rather than the generic English Wikipedia templates, just as an example. From there, it's only a matter of your providing the Russian Wikipedia article URLs for the interwiki links, plus linking it elsewhere so they're not orphaned articles. Not a big job. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I would like to nominate you for a Harpy Eagle award for relentless intrepitude.--Slowestonian (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sweet. You can nominate me for the flying knickers award, but best done when you're editing at your best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Harpy Eagle rampant, knickers ablaze, "semper instans" inscribed upon the rostrum. --Slowestonian (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hervarar saga

Hi, I keep trying to change an inaccuracy on the page for Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and I don't understand why you keep reverting it! I work in the field and I am just trying to correct a single inaccuracy in spelling. Hervör is the character's name in Norse - 'Hervarar' in the saga's title is the Norse genitive/possessive form meaning 'of Hervör'. The 'ö' becomes an 'a' in the genitive because of its proximity to another 'a' in the case ending '-ar'. Spelling the name 'Hervar' as the page currently does is wrong. That is never the English or simplified form of the Norse name Hervör - there is a Wikipedia page for this name that exists, using the correct simplification 'Hervor'. Elsewhere on the page for Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks the name is given both as Hervör and as Hervor. If I were to change one of those for reasons of consistency would you also block me from doing that? I am simply trying to make the article accurate and more consistent. The other change I made (removing 'the' from 'the Hervarar saga') I am less concerned by - it's somewhat outdated to refer to a saga in this way using the definite article and Norse title, but it is still done regularly in other entries, so leave that as you will. Please reconsider my edit to the name Hervar > Hervör/Hervor. There is no reason to block that, all you are doing is maintaining an inaccuracy.

Edited to add: I see that as you say the form 'Hervar' appears on Google Books. These are all old (nineteenth century for the most part) and out of date references. The form would not be used now in a serious publication. I am sure readers are able to recognise the name just as easily with its accurate form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.112.170 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have no knowledge of this saga outside of what is on the page, and it's on my watchlist due to the relationships between Northern European sagas and Old Eastern Slavic lore. As there is very little in the way of English language references, I'll bow to your scholarship and accept that it is probably redundant for establishing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Nevertheless, as it stood, the only method of finding the article via google (or other search engine searches) was via means of the search string in the English language rendition. If a native English language reader is looking for the article, it is highly unlikely that they would know it as "Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks"; it is even more unlikely that they would even have their keyboards set up for languages other than English and have the "ð" or even an umlauted "o" character to type in. Without the initial instance instance of the search string, the article won't be picked up by search engines, so all of the work that's gone into it will be for naught.

What I've done is to create a redirect page here to the article in order that it be picked up. I've reverted myself and will allow for your variant to stand but, should it be brought up again by someone as being unintuitive (per WP:NATURALNESS), the initial instance will be reinstated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not really sure if I'm replying in the right way here, sorry if I mess up your talk page! I just wanted to say thanks for the explanation and for changing it - I just put 'the saga of hervor' (no umlauts, no capitals) into Google and the Wiki page was the top hit, so hopefully all will be well!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.112.170 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is the correct place to respond (see the instructions at the top of the page: although you'd always check to see whether the editor has left instructions as to their personal preference at the top of their page, Talk back indicates that the discussion is on the linked page in the Talk back message).

The reason you're still getting the top response to "the saga of hervor" is that it appeared physically on the article, and Google retains word strings for a while. Within a couple of months it will have been cleared from their search string without any instance of that string in the article. Creating a redirect page will, hopefully, be enough for Google to pick up on it from the redirect page and take the audience to the article. It might be a good idea for you to try this again in two or three months to ensure that it's working. If not, let me know and I can pop some sort of inconspicuous instance into the body of the article. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Another attempt to obfuscate the facts on the RT talk page

A simple list of the editors who disagreed with your Ukraine/RT cluster is forum shopping? If I remember correctly it was you who claimed it is only me and Kenfree who disagree with the POV of the article and some mythical "consensus". Delete, delete and delete - is this all you have to offer? Spotter 1 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me that I need to add WP:ASPERSIONS to the list of your tendentious and WP:Pointy behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Signing

You forgot to sign this. Stickee (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Noted and signed. Making lunch with my laptop on the bench is probably not a reasonable thing to do. I may have to forgo eating in the future! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Crisis

Hi It is important to merge 2013–14 Ukrainian Crisis (disambiguation) and 2013–14 Ukrainian Crisis because it is the same subject. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a disambiguation page for readers who may be looking for more specific articles surrounding the events and using the search string as a general search, so I've renamed the WP:DAB page to reflect the term being used for the main article. If you click on the link now - 2013–14 Ukrainian Crisis (disambiguation) - you understand why it's kept as a separate page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Free Donbass

This is astonishing. First, if I dont have bad memory, I was banned on Ukrainian & Russian topics connected to Ukraine, not on "any Eastern European related subject". Seems that some here want to increase the size of my ban, huh?. Secondly, its at least curious that knowing that supposedly I cant contest that repeated deletion notice (are you gonna add that deletion notice again, & again, & again, & again...'till infinity?), you still "inform" me about it, I suppose that its only because you had to, or perhaps a trick trying to make break my topic ban? Seems that the pro-Kiev regime WP canvassing lobby is working hard on me, huh? (the "Donbass election farce" part shows a high level of NPOV and lack of bias, yep, yep...)--HCPUNXKID 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're allowing your own paranoia to get the better of you. It's up for deletion because it's a piece of irrelevant nonsense. There isn't even an article to merge it into without being UNDUE. As for trying to bait you in any way, I have no interest in advancing that form of low behaviour. Stop making bad faith assumptions. The article is frippery: the problem is that you don't understand that. You, alone, are responsible for you ban. Best that you take your 'astonishment' elsewhere as I've had more than enough of you righteous indignation already. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He isn't allowed to discuss this matter, as his topic ban precludes it. He's going to be blocked for it. It isn't worth engaging with him. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In which case, he's just baited himself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Useful video and Mickhail Gorbatchev comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kGoueDg&list=LL6heCwDGlmzgQvzdXpteiqg Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC) and I'd like you'd listen to Mikhail Gorbatchev arguments about issue (as I will pau attention to Fettulah Golen and Mahmoud Abbas comments about the ISIS actions in Syria and Iraq).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Kielbasa

Hi,
Please explain something to me. You're not letting me add verbatim information about etymology that might come from a non-RS, but just below, there is information without any supported source whatsoever (like, the word coming from Polish etc. etc.), it is unsourced, and it stays there. All I wanted to do is to add that originally, it comes from Turkic. Let alone the fact that the whole article is supported only by a couple of sources which might be RS, but clearly don't provide enough information.
Also, I'm willing to introduce the same source they're using for it in the Russian WP, if you could show me how to do it.
Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
UPD: I've re-added verbatim from my source, not sure whether it's RS, but if not, and you can't translate from Russian, then there's nothing to support because no website exists in the RS category from the policy in the internet to support it. I'm going to check again but I don't think so. However, I personally know the etymology stated by etymonline to be correct. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire article needs to be challenged. I have to make lunch, so I'll get back to you on the issue ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made another edit rewriting the whole chunk. I will be online for the following couple of hours, so please don't frenetically revert it until we discuss either here or on its talk page, after consensus we'll come to have it the way both of us like. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk)

P.S. Have some kielbasa =) Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm a vegetarian. Anyone for non-GE soy sausage? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I'm an animal first, then a human being. Sorry, just two different views on nutrition, I guess. Thanks for the consensus, just letting you know that I won't be working on that article for now (I don't stand long rewritings, which is the reason why I mostly concentrate on editing headers and intros). Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've tagged the page as being WP:BOLLOCKS and left a corresponding talk page entry for those who wish to argue the point. It's just one of those articles on my watchlist that I've meant to get to for ages, but am not enough of a food-related article person to really bother. I may be a vegetarian, but I like to compensate by sinking my teeth into the really meaty articles where fur flies over politics, history and all matters contentious. It's going to stay on the backburner along with dozens of other articles until I could be bothered looking for some serious references in English, Russian and Ukrainian as well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Curious about neutrality issue

Hi Iryna, I am curious about the neutrality issues with my revisions of the 2 posts under Ukraine. In the first one I just corrected the fact that on October 26 Ukraine did not vote for Poroshenko, they simply voted for his group and therefore the ideas they were campaigning under. The second article I simply stated what was reported in the media/article, and what has been accepted by both sides of this argument. I did not make any comments on to the reasons behind Yanukovych's departure, just that he left Ukraine and parliament replaced him, the previous version seemed more biased since it makes no mention of his leaving the country. Instead it simply states that parliament voted to replace him, that is showing only a small portion of what happened. If I am wrong and it was biased then I will gladly accept, I just don't see where the bias was. Thank you for your response.

Sgorgyan (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sgorgyan Well the people that voted, voted for Poroshenko. Well, there was a much lower turnout in Eastern Ukraine than in Western Ukraine, bur in Eastern/Southern Ukraine, people were divided between Poroshenko and the Opposition Block (in Kharkov/Kharkiv there was an overwelming suppor for the Opposition Block and for independents that formerly represented the Party of Regions, while in Mikholaiv and Kherson was a very large abstention, but the ones who voted were mostly for the Poroshenko bloc). This has nothing to do with what happened in Portugal after the Carnation Revolution! Then, our president Ramalho Eanes said that all Portuguese people had the same rights concerning to our society and that the Portuguese Communist Party had exactly the same rights as any other Portuguese party (as I guess Ukraine should at leasdt say it now about the Party of Regions and the Communist Party of Ukraine And Portugal lost a lot of territory in that time, not only like Crimea and Donbass... Portugal (and I'm pleased for that) lost all the Portuguese territories in Africa and, until 2000 it lost East Timor for Indonesia, but now it's an independent country applying to belong to ASEAN (a far more rational organization than the EU). Guess what! Portugal didn't become a communist country! In the political system here, the forces were divided, and the Communist Party (which still exists and gets around 10-12% of the votes) and General António Ramalho Eanes (a centrist that during his 2nd election had the support of the Communist Party) and Mário Soares (a very staunched DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, former president of Portugal) along with the mainstream Portuguese democratic establishment by that time. Portugal must be facing problems, a lot of them caused by the EU (that Western Ukrainians, not the ones living here in Portugal, I guess, since they've also faced the consequences), as Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and (that's already speculation) Hungary are facing. EU is now the 4th Reich, Hitler having been replaced by Angela Merkel and by his pupil José Barroso (who, as Portuguese PM didn't make a shit for our country). This is what you, the Ukrainians are fantasizing? Oh, I'm sorry, but Jacques Delors is retires, Helmut Kohl is retired, Mikhail Gorbatchev is retired, Lech Walesa is retired, Miterrand is dead (unfortunatelly), and now, you Ûkrainians what you have as the ONLY European leader that may call themselves leaders are Erdogan and Putin! I wished there was anyone else. But there isn't. BUT! I have a great faith in Alexis Tsipras (SYRIZA, Greece) and in Pablo Iglesias Turrión (Podemos, Spain).

I am still curious how my articles were not neutral, still no answer. You can't deny my edits and then not answer my question about how they were biased. Still waiting for some guidance. Sgorgyan (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)