User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

2014-15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Hi Iryna, I have noticed you posting in the articles re. the Ukrainian crisis. Since you seem to hold some authority I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I've been trying to clean up the lead of 2014-15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

However, I am running into some difficulty and the root of that seems to be that the article is ill defined. There is a lot of information that either has no subcategory or more correctly goes into a different page. The main point of difference seems to be the status and repatriation of Russian soldiers, so I was wondering if that is the direction the article should head towards since all the other parts have their own respective main page (Crimea, War in Donbass, International reactions to x,y,z etc.)

I can still attempt to clean up the lead, but I feel it would be easier if I had a firm grasp on what actually belongs in the article, as opposed to a some other article. Thanks Hollth (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hollth. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this issue. I've been involved in issues surrounding other areas of Wikipedia and IRL, so haven't had the opportunity to respond in depth in a manner befitting the relevant, but complex, question you've posed. I'd suggest that you read the talk page sections (including the archives in particular) in order to get a sense of how the article has developed, as well as the issues and edit warring that have surrounded this particular article (if this is the article you wish to concentrate on), as well as the other articles surrounding events in Ukraine since the latter part of 2013.

I'd also suggest that, after this 'research' into the history of this specific article, it would be more valuable to pose this question on the article's talk page in order to start a dialogue with other editors who've been developing this and the other articles. While, for myself and other contributors who have been involved in the development since its inception, the objective of the article has become self-explanatory, there's also a high awareness of the fact that there are a lot of WP:POV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SOAPBOX issues in need of being resolved in order to clean up the existing articles and weed out related articles that ought to be merged or better clarified. A fresh set of eyes is often the best method of accomplishing this objective. Wishing you the best in familiarising yourself with the Wikipedia learning curve. A word to the wise: you've chosen to plunge yourself into the deep end of editing, so be aware of policy and behavioural guidelines, and be aware that it is one of the many articles subject to WP:ARBEE. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Reading through the archives it seems that the article is mainly to deal with Russian involvement in Crimea and Donbass. I'm very aware of the issues with the article, that's half the reason I'm editing it. If you would like me to help remove those issues on another article I can do that? I don't have any preference and I am, if nothing else, quite neutral. I only ask that I am not required to be an expert on the topic (I don't believe it is necessary for correcting those particular issues at least).

One last question. What is the significance of the articles being subject to Arbitration? Is it just that the rules are more strict? Hollth (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time on catching up to where the article stands now as I'm working on other articles and trying to clear up extraneous articles created not meeting general notability guidelines, duplicate POV articles posturing under other titles, and edit warring over terminology, what is DUE and WP:UNDUE, etc. As would be obvious to you, the TITLE was only just recently expanded to add the current year in light of the war in the region being ongoing.

Please be certain that anything you intend to remove covered in other articles isn't an appropriate summary of content relevant to the article in question (i.e., genuinely assists the reader to understand the content within the context of the article). Most importantly, be sure to follow bold → revert → discuss. If someone reverts your change and you don't recall it being addressed anywhere in prior talk page discussions, take the issue straight to the talk page and explain the logic behind your change.

As regards WP:ARBCOM sanctions, yes it does mean that administrators are watching pages under threat of POV attacks, edit warring. Articles on various aspects of Eastern Europe (and other areas such as Israeli-Palestinian issues, Syria, the Baltic states) have had a long history of disruptive editors and battleground behaviour. This is why it is essential to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines + assume good faith + remain civil in all discussions. I've noted that you've started a discussion on the article's talk page. While I haven't had the chance to check on how it's progressing, I'll do so ASAP. I'm busy IRL for the next few days, so won't be in a position to get much done. If you feel that you're being bashed around (there are some good editors who've been working on this and other articles about current events in Ukraine consistently), please don't be put off. Even the best of editors have frayed nerves when they work in contentious areas constantly. Remind them that you're a newbie and that, while they know the history of information shuffles and consensus reached on other articles, it doesn't mean that you do. Ask them to be patient with you and not to bite the newcomer (and you can tell 'em that I'm watching and told you to say so). Happy editing... and best of luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the help. Hollth (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there somewhere to ask if sources are RS? I'm aware of BBC news being RS, not certain about BBC Radio/BBC as a whole. I hope I'm not being annoying asking for clarification on things. Thank you for your time Hollth (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, Hollth. I've of the understanding that BBC Radio (and BBC as a whole) are considered RS. Naturally, that would be dependent on the context (current affairs shows for current affairs; documentaries by experts in the field, dependent on what field the subject of the article covers from geology, physics, to the arts).

You can check the Reliable source noticeboard where you are in doubt. Searching the archived discussions using precise search terms may provide you with the answer. If not, or the source you are uncertain about doesn't appear to have been discussed, you can leave a new section query regarding the source you have in mind. Make certain that you provide the name of the source giving the context in which it is being used (or which you wish to use it in) in the article and general area it's being used/is to be used; explain any rationale as to why you're not sure it could be deemed to be unreliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

• From the editor: An editorial board that includes you

• In focus: Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case

• In the media: A murderous week for Wikipedia

• Forum: Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate

• Traffic report: A sea of faces

• Recent research: Bot writes about theatre plays; "Renaissance editors" create better content

• Special report: Traffic in the fog—most-viewed articles of 2014 include death, Facebook, and Ebola

• Featured content: Like Jack Kerouac's On The Road, this week's issue was written on amphetamines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian POV

It's interesting that you accused me on my profile of pushing a POV, while you've been doing it yourself all this time. And yes, unilaterally declaring all Russian-language sources to be automatically unreliable, which no official Wikipedia guideline says, is POV pushing. If this does not stop, I am going to be taking the matter to ANI because it is getting clearly out of hand. - OBrasilo (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me? Where, exactly, did I accuse you of POV-pushing? You introduced a Russian an unreferenced Russian blog from a blog site that deals with everything from self-published opinions by anyone who wants to write about their biases to My Little Pony, and have now associated me with a user who hasn't even been involved with the development of the article at any point, yet have how somehow established that I'm part of some sort of Ukrainian WP:CABAL. In fact, you have absolutely no idea of what my stance is on any subject other than self published sources and the use of WP:YOUTUBE videos that aren't considered reliable sources.

Do not caste WP:ASPERSIONS! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Please refrain from editing the 'historical origin of romani people' page on Wikipedia. What I have used is specific data utilised from genetic research which can be identified from a previous page. Please refrain from your editing or I will report you immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which 'previous page'? You haven't provided any reliable sources, just refactored sourced content contrary to what the sources actually say. That's known as tendentious editing: i.e., trying to hide your own WP:OR content in pre-existing sourced content.

Added to that, you were advised to use the article's talk page, and failed to answer the query as to which article you were intending to work on, and which content you had 'genetic proof' about. Please produce your proof. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Second Battle of Donetsk airport

Russian Wiki has BOTH Ukrainian AND rebel claims listed in https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83#.D0.97.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B0_2014.2F2015_.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B0 It specifically includes both "old terminal being controlled by rebels and new one by UA" claim and meeting between rebel and UA commanders, and Ukrainian claim of control over airport - all of them.

I don't really understand why English one should just drop separatists' claims altogether, given that they are widely reported as well.

I just wonder how it's possible to call for "neutral point of view" on an article that ONLY lists even completely unfounded claims from officials of single party to the conflict (I'm not saying all claims are unfounded - but some like >500 Russians killed are just gross) while not mentioning claims that actually have wider reporting (see amount of sources for rebel and UA commanders' meeting, from the whole media spectrum) and have 50-minute videos around (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j3J8zspMxWc)

If you consider some of the sources unreliable, feel free to remove those, but then please remove unfounded Ukraininan claims as well and keep the reliable ones instead of just reverting edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.60.148 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not Russian Wikipedia, it's English Wikipedia... and we adhere to policies, guidelines which probably don't tally with your POV with what WP:NPOV means. Read the NPOV information carefully: all articles rely on reliable sources and not personal interpretations of primary sources (also known as original research). Thank you for your understanding, and do familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And this is not Ukrainian wikipedia as well. Please, read the policies yourself and actually look at how many reliable sources the edit you reverted had. If you want to improve it, just remove the unreliable ones, reverting the whole edit that has many reliable sources is just plain wrong. 185.6.245.138 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur, this isn't the Ukrainian Wikipedia either. Plus, English being the worldwide language, it should, as policies clearly say as well, represent a worldwide view on matters, not a Western or Ukrainian view. This whole crusade against any sources written in the Russian language is heavily discriminatory and needs to stop. - OBrasilo (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@OBrasilo: Don't use my talk page as your WP:SOAPBOX. Try familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you continue your crusade for The Truth and righting the great wrongs of the world. It would also be useful if you actually paid attention to the dates of a thread instead of jumping on the nearest bandwagon and waving your pitchfork at me. If you have something of consequence to discuss with me, start a section following the directions of WP:TALK (by which I mean that you post to the bottom of the page, not the top as you did before) and actually say something constructive rather than whine at me about assumptions you've made about me (and 'the problem with people like me' as you've so eloquently described it in your blurb on your own talk page). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know the guidelines very well, thank you. And they also say you should assume good faith, something you are clearly unable to do, given your accusations of sockuppetry leveled against every pro-Russian editor, just to name one example. I mean seriously, from what I've notice, you tend to assume that every single pro-Russian is out there to push agendas and propaganda and must be countered, as well as immediately telling every pro-Russian that you think they're all sockpuppets of one person. Please explain, how is that assuming faith? And how is it neutrality? - OBrasilo (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Central Europe States

Hello, some time ago I proposed the "reformation" of the States in Central Europe article. I also pointed out the sources I have troubles with. Most of them have been dealt with, and there were some changes to the structure (such as removal of Ukraine and Russia, moving Liechtenstein and Switzerland to broader terms). Now this is a bit chaotic since we have two columns in the "Other countries and regions" section.

Also, I pointed out that there are no valid sources putting Serbia in Central Europe (like some institutions) and most of it is POV pushing based on original research (a map of Austria is used as a source and travel guide, etc.) I warned and requested sources for other countries in question, but other than Seader noone responded and provided some. Two months later (I presumed that was enough time), I removed the questionable sources for Serbia and once again requested trustworthy sources. However, NeronBG just brought the exact same sources back, with no explaination or discussion in the talk page. Serbia is not regarded as Central Europe and there simply is no case supporting to have it in the article, other than these NeronBG's constructs.

I'd remove Serbia and other non-belonging such as Luxembourg and Bulgaria countries from the text (other when they are specifically mentioned due to historic references).Tanper (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Ukraine page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

• News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

• Traffic report: The American Heartland

• Featured content: It's raining men!

• Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

• WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

• Gallery: Langston Hughes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New translation aid

Are you willing to help with a bit of translation? I'm in the process of commissioning a map on the second Donetsk airport battle, but neither me nor the mapmaker can read the source map. I'd appreciate it if you could help by translating the text. If you are willing, please deliver the translated text to User talk:Goran tek-en. Much obliged, in advance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Leaving message on Goran tek-en's talk page with appended download urls. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's extremely helpful, Iryna. I can't thank you enough. It was giving me a headache trying to work it out with Google Translate. RGloucester — ☎ 04:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You've earned 150 out of 100 for sheer determination, perseverance and a bucketful of OCD! The only way you could have accomplished that is by typing the whole lot out - a feat in itself considering how pixilated much of the text is - and hoping to get it right by trial and error. It's definitely a task for a Russian speaker: Google translate is a bastard for tense, and even more cruddy regarding the numerous potential nuances (most particularly in this context). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I simply want to see a nice map, as the prose doesn't really make the situation easy to visualise. Goran tek-en is an excellent drafter of such things, in the event that you ever need such services. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll bear him/her in mind for future assistance. Looks as s/he's due for a barnstar on commons from me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Russification of Ukraine

Strange article - nothing or very little about replacing Ukrainian people - Holodomor, deportations, colectivisation, Industrialisation, settling Communists in Crimea.Xx234 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xx234. I'll take a look at the article as soon as I have a moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Peaked Cap

So sections that are purely oppinions are okay to you?71.173.25.216 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As I don't know who added them, or under what circumstances, it is not assuming good faith to simply remove anything because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. We don't simply redact content because the individual editor thinks it isn't based on fact. It may have been sourced using reliable sources. Always try to check the veracity before simply removing it. The most important policy at stake here is that of WP:BRD. You are welcome to be bold in your editing of content, at which point I can revert because I'm not convinced that it's simply an 'opinion'. After this step, we can discuss it on the article's talk page in order to establish that the removal is legitimate. In examining the content, we can quickly establish whether or not it's legitimate content or not and, more importantly, any other editors following the history and development of the article will be able to establish that consensus as to the content's veracity has been achieved for historical/archiving purposes. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis

I renamed the article on the Donbass casualties to Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis so it could be expanded and incorporate the casualties from all theaters of the crisis since November 2013. EkoGraf (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. It was in need of having its scope broadened from being exclusively about Donbass. I'll get onto working on it but, aside from having been busy IRL, I'm stuck in a juggling act of trying to protect a massive number of unrelated articles on Russia and Ukraine that are under attack by POV pushers. All of the regular editors are focussed on the recent events, providing an opportunity for unattended articles to be turned into complete rubbish. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts

Note that following me to different articles to revert text is wiki hounding and will be reported if it continues. -YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, feel free to report me. You keep threatening editors of reporting them, yet you've not done so for good reason: WP:BOOMERANG. I'm looking forward to discussing your long standing tendentious editing activities in a formal venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What she said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

• From the editors: We want to know what you think!

• News and notes: One editor faces likely ban for work on Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales awarded $1 million

• In the media: Is Wikipedia eating itself?

• Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...

• Traffic report: Bowled over

• WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled

• Gallery: Feel the love

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Help

NeronBG continues to edit as he pleases, without any intentions of cooperating. I'd revert his one-sided edits, but then he reported me for vandalism and filed what is a false report. However, both of us got warned. I tried to file a report for vandalism as well, but it was declined.

This was my original text:

• NeroN BG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Constant POV pushing and no communication whatsover. On the 26th of October I pointed out some troubles with some of the sources on the talk page and most of them were resolved, however there were no valid sources left supporting the statement of Serbia being in Central Europe, because it's usually not considered as such. On the 13th of January I deleted the invalid sources (some other proposed changes were already made, not by me) and left the note both in the edit summary and the talk page that some valid sources should be added or there is no point in keeping Serbia there (along with some other countries). NeronBG however just restored the very same sources on the 31st of January without any explaination in either edit summary or talk page of the article.

On the 1st of February I left a note on Iryna Harper's talk page, explaining the situation on NeronBG's edits and my intention for a text clean-up (removal of the countries who do not fit the article's format, primarily Ukraine, Bulgaria, Luxembourgh and Serbia since no valid sources were provided, as well as some minor adjustments). On the 7th of February I conducted the clean-up and once again stressed there were no valid sources. On 8th of February NeronBG just reverted everything with his series of edits and he left no explaination whatsover either in the edit summary or talk page. Of course, I reverted those edits and once again told (him) to first provide some valid sources which should be disscussed in the talk page, since he was clearly POV pushing through a longer time period. On the 9th of February he continued with his reverts without a word, and I reverted them. First, it should be disscussed in the talk page. Then he reverts it once again, reports me and accusses me of 'bias' and targetting one specific country, while he completely ignores the other countries removed (because there was no point in keeping them as well, but the was bringing them back as well, which clearly shows clouded judgement). Tanper (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me in what direction I should seek the resolvement for this? Since he clearly doesn't wish to discuss anything (and that CE talk page discussion has been open for almost 3 months) and is pushing his own version. Tanper (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner. I've reverted his/her current changes and left a final warning on his/her talk page. As the user has been engaged in a slow edit war (for months!) without providing reliable sources for their inclusions, and has never responded on the talk page, the tactics are that of trying to sneak their changes back after a short period and hope that no one notices. If there's another revert/reintroduction of unsourced content without talk page discussion, it will be an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE which will mean opening an AN/I. We'll see what happens and take it from there. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and help, I know you must be very busy. Hopefully, he'll either be cooperative on the talk page or stop with these edits. Tanper (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that, judging on his prior history, there's not going to be any attempt at discussion on the article's talk page, Tanper. I have encountered this user elsewhere in the past, and he's definitely problematic. At least we both have the page on our watchlists so, if he starts up again, ping me and let me know. I don't want you getting yourself stuck in a position where you'll end up looking as if you're edit warring, therefore it's better to have a couple of us reverting unsourced, POV content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian conflict editing

This is in reference to your last comment on the Talk:Donetsk People's Republic page. Iryna, I have no interest in arguing with you all over Wikipedia; I have exactly the same interest as you, that is, eliminating POV-pushing and OR. My concern has been, repeatedly, that people have been either (badly) misinterpreting these policies, or alleging violations of them without actually demonstrating specific issues in the content of the respective articles. There is no ulterior motive behind this on my part: it's neither intended as a personal attack on you, nor as an wikilawyerish attempt to defend something I sympathise with (as you've appeared to suggest on a few occasions). Hence I'm more than a little hurt by your apparent conclusion that I'm invested in pushing a POV one way or another, since that couldn't be further from the truth. Let me be very clear, I am not a sympathiser of the Donbass separatists and I don't think any of my editing on the topic suggests that I am interested in pushing that or any other POV. I am only interested, in an inclusionist sense, in providing expansive and neutral documentation of the conflict for the many thousands of people who turn to Wikipedia for information on it. I take it this is your concern as well, so I think it would be beneficial for both of us to be less confrontational. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

I did not add my personal opinion in the text of the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army, I only removed the opinions of other people, not supported by any sources. I have indeed added some opinions, but only in the descriptions of my changes. My general opinion is that the article about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army is false in its whole intention of changing history, but I did not contribute to its text, so your request Iryna is simply misplaced. I do not have time to change dramatically false text of this article, but I have an impression that you must be one of the people who wrote it. Patriotism is a virtue and I support Ukrainian patriotism, but Ukrainians were never given a chance to talk freely about their WWII history. Calling Ukrainian Insurgent Army an anti-Nazi insurgent organisation is obstructing its true meaning and objective, which was establishment of the Ukrainian State with the tacit approval and an important material support from the German III Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbigan (talk • contribs) 07:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know how to look at the edit history of an article? Try looking at the edit history: I am certainly not one of those who wrote the article. Do not make any form of assumption about my allegiances. If you have qualms about the content of the article, take it to the talk page of the article. What is this business about the "dramatically false text of this article" and sweeping statements regarding "Calling Ukrainian Insurgent Army an anti-Nazi insurgent organisation is obstructing its true meaning and objective, which was establishment of the Ukrainian State with the tacit approval and an important material support from the German III Reich.? What blogs and forums have you been crawling around? This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or any other site where you get to write your own WP:OR based on revisionist WP:BOLLOCKS. "Ukrainians" and "their WWII history"? Tell me, how many Ukrainians existed during WWII, and how many members of UPA were there? It sounds very much as if you are preaching at me without any knowledge of the subject outside of WP:BIASED sources. Thank you for your attention, and for not making assumptions as to how experienced Wikipedians work judging own your own character in the future. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume your allegiances from your biased activity. Please be so kind to observe that you did not address my main objection: I did not express my opinions in the text of the article as you wrongly suggested, I only removed the false information, which you put back without giving any sources. I do know what you mean by your You Tube divagations. According to Karta historians in Poland only 2.5% of the population on the South-Eastern borderland of Poland belonged to UPA. Therefore the "Wisła" operation was seen by the same publication as the gross violation of human rights of the local, mostly Ukrainian but not exclusively, population. Picture yourself that 2.5% of population of any country would actively belong to an insurgency, for example in today's Denmark to the Al Qaeda insurgency. You may draw your own conclusion. Regards, Zbigan (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I restored the content as it is awaiting citations. I had no personal stake in restoring the content other than the fact that there has been heavy, unsubstantiated POV trolling of the article. No, I'm actually following English Wikipedia's NPOV policy: please take a look at the page and note that it is listed as being under WP:ARBEE sanctions. If you wonder why, you're initial response on my talk page makes it very clear. Please provide RS for your position that the organisation functioned with 'the tacit approval and imported material support from the German 3rd Reich' for the duration of its existence. You've now provided substantial rationale for why you removed this material. Your analogy with percentages of a nation-state during peacetime, or Al Qaeda are too preposterous to even entertain (er, what 'nation-state' does Al Qaeda belong to?). I was truly stunned to find your initial comment lecturing me as to the truth an unabashed POV. I now know that I have to assume your allegiances from your biased activity: quoting from Polish sources. You removed this as 'false' information, yet how could you know it to be 'false' while Polish sources could only be impeccable? Does that mean that I have to equally accept Russian Soviet sources as being equally impeccable? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

99.90.196.227

Re. 99.90.196.227 (talk · contribs · count), you placed a "final warning" on their Talk page - but the IP has been blocked three days ago... kashmiri ^TALK 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Thanks for alerting me. I've been aware of the user for a while, but misread the date of the trolling crud s/he'd left on the talk page. I've self rev'd and slapped myself with a trout for being inattentive. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

• Editorial: Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition

• In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia

• Special report: Revision scoring as a service

• Gallery: Darwin Day

• Traffic report: February is for lovers

• Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish

• Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

Dear Ms. Harpy, I would like to apologise for any inconveniences we had earlier. Could you please help me with a page which is continually being changed. The page is Katrina Kaif, and I would like to change where it says her personal life section. Could you please contact an administrator as I do not know how and ask him to stop any further vandalism on the page. On the page itself, it claims that katrina kaif's father is an Indian-kashmiri, however, I have proof showing that he is 'Pakistani-kashmiri'. My proof being, he is a British-Muslim kashmiri, and statistics show that 94% of Muslim-Kashmiris within the UK consider themselves to be pakistani. Please could you contact an administrator to change it, as there are constant changes to it. Here is my source 'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_diaspora#United_Kingdom' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article and see what I can make of sourced information. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've actually checked the sources, and there is no reference to her father being anything other than Kashmiri: not Indian-Kashmiri or Pakinstani-Kashmiri. Because the article is a biography of a living person, there can be no speculation as to how he self-identifies, nor how Katrina Kaif identifies his ethnicity. I've removed the 'Indian' and left only the Kashmiri for the article.

I've left a comment on the talk page of the article regarding the matter. I know this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but at least it's going to put a stop to POV pushing of any particular ethnic group where there is no reliably sourced information on the subject. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much, and I once again apologize for my inexcusable behavious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologise for. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention. The use of Indian-Kashmiri was not supported by the sources, so you've made a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian Federation & Russia

There's no 2 seperate articles called Russian Federation & Russia. Follow the link. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies! Yes, you're quite right. I ought to know better, having been working on articles surrounding ex-Soviet and current CIS nation-states for so long. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please rate

Здрастуйте Ірина. Прошу оцінити рисунок: дотримання авторських прав, ліцензія, мову... [1]. Дякую. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaila vnuk (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Debaltseve

Hey Irina..Indeed I removed content from "The Battle of Debaltseve" but I did leave an explanation.The said content cited a report by the Kiyv Post that alleged an attack to refugees leaving the town of Debaltseve by the rebels-or separatists if you like-was not verified by any other source and based on hearsay.Moreover it was likely put there to steer sympathies to one side.Similar "accounts" of Ukrainian soldiers firing on fleeing refugees exist as well.. TonyArzenta (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, you should take it to the article's talk page and express your reservations as to the use of the content, per Bold → Revert → Discuss. Please bear in mind that this (and other articles surrounding events in Ukraine) are extremely high traffic and attract a lot of problematic contributors, therefore sourced material being eliminated without discussion tends to get reverted due to the pace of editing. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just telling

Comments like this do not require any answer because they are utterly off topic and repeat the same argument over and over again. No discussion is frequently a very good thing because it allows a faster closing or self-archiving of a thread, especially on the ANI. Unfortunately, I frequently do not follow this advice myself. Here is an interesting essay [2]... Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, I know. That's the same advice I'd give, but haven't practised what I preach. I could kick myself over this one (or you're welcome to throw a whale my way). I usually try to avoid taking the bait, but kept letting my irritation override my sense of good judgement in holding my tongue.

Ultimately, if he wants to try to introduce the sources under discussion into any article, it's best to start a section on the RSN. I'd rather avoid the RSN as it's always a popular place for a few editors to start on POV pushing. I am not going to push it any further at the ANI so that the incident can just be closed off and archived. If there are any such attempts on articles that may not be on my watchlist, please ping me or drop me a line here as you know it's one of my areas of interest.

On another subject, I'm very pleased to see that you've decided not to retire entirely for the moment. I understand what a difficult decision it is to make despite the fact that of the project taking over ones life, the frustration, and the levels of animosity one has to deal with here. While I have no doubt that there would be editors jumping for joy to see the back of you, you would certainly be deeply missed by those who respect integrity, knowledge and the occasional nudge to remind us that we're doing the wrong thing. Even where we disagree, you're one of the tiny handful I will go the extra mile to listen out their arguments for as I know you always have good grounds on which to argue a point. You know you're always welcome to just drop by to vent your frustrations or discuss any dilemmas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! No, actually, I should not participate for a number of reasons and probably will stop tomorrow. I became a worse person after editing here. Same with many others. Therefore, I would not encourage anyone to stay. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As about WP:RSNB, I did started a discussion about one of the sources related to this case and used by YMB29 long time ago [3]. This is a typical historical pseudoscience produced by a modern-day propagandist, but is is interesting to see how and why the results of this discussion are very far from certain and should probably be summarized as "no consensus". Some participants simply have little idea about the subject or the book... My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can fully empathise with your reasons for leaving the project as I know I've been taxing ex-colleagues from uni and in the Australian parliamentary system in my 'social life' in order to pick their brains regarding university syllabus standard texts, as well as political theory positions for some time (i.e., it's become disruptive to my personal life on far more levels than simply taking up my own time and energy). Wikipedia is project that 'anyone can edit', therefore there's no true deference to scholarly sources and opinion: if it's online, it's fair game for inclusion. Finding that an 'academic'/'expert' has been quoted/cited by a few publications and 'respected' authorities in any given area of studies/research is used as enough 'proof' of the significance of their hobby-horse or politically driven and subsidised work to push it through.

I'd still feel deeply saddened by your simply retiring, and would be cheered up if you were to consider semi-retirement as an option... but that is your option, my friend. If you know that you're incapable of popping in from time to time, then detaching yourself again, you must do what is best for you. POV-ers who are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause have far more energy and determination than those of us who seriously analyse the area of studies and our own positions at every step.

I've bookmarked the RSN discussion in question for future reference. As an aside, if you don't intend to keep posting your poetry to your user page, do get a Wordpress or Blogger account. I've truly enjoyed (if that's the right description) reading your work. Sending you 'my very best wishes' in your future endeavours. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Speaking about RSN discussion (link above), it helps to understand who is doing what in the project. User A: "It [the book by Dyukov] says nothing about "mainstream Western historians.". No, the entire purpose of the book was to disprove the "majority view" by "Western" science, as authors openly stated in the introduction (the direct citation of the introduction was provided in the beginning of the thread). That is what Senyavskaya also openly said in the beginning of her article. User B: "[The book by Dyukov] is defending Western scholarship". I can't believe this comment was made in a good faith, but the person who makes this comment behaves like an "expert". Same person tells below that "The link you provided says that it was published by Penguin Books", which is simply not true: the book was published in Russia by EKSMO, famous for publishing Stalinist pseudohistory [4]. So it goes, and these guys are protected by WP administrators until one of them becomes too disruptive. Strictly speaking, taking part in a project where some participants are engaged in intentional disinformation amounts to a scientific misconduct. However, this is not the most important reason for me to leave. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Yes, I've had the time to go over the link you've provided and, yes, I understand (and empathise) with your position. I've encountered less obvious variants of the same misconduct. Again, I reiterate that it will be a loss to Wikipedia and to myself, on a personal level, to see an editor of your integrity and knowledge of Eastern European history and politically motivated revisionism leave the project. I don't think that a lot of Wikipedians (admin or regular editors) are entirely honest about knowing that 'revisionism' may be a modern term, but that this fact plagues 'historical' interpretations from the first documented form of purportedly documenting history 'subjectively' (i.e., Thucydides through his History of the Peloponnesian War). Personally, I've spent my working life deciphering - not Linear B - but what Dylan Thomas so eloquently brought to the fore in his The hand that signed the paper.

I've seen propaganda being pushed at all levels in my research work and thought that Wikipedia was an opportunity for me to detach myself from my own original research habits of decades. I was ill-prepared for the learning curve, but I've always been reasonably proficient at approaching subject matter from entirely different stances... but I've not been able to prepare myself enough for the fact that so much is institutionalised here. Again, I will deeply feel the absence of your good sense, but you must get on with your life in a manner productive to you. You must get the priorities in your life in order of their importance. I wish you all the best or, as I can't help myself when it comes to bad puns, 'My very best wishes'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please could you add an article to your watch list

Please could you add an article to your watch list. Edits like this suggest another Kremlin sockpuppet.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for picking up on that, Toddy1! It's already on my watchlist... I just hadn't gotten to the alert as yet. There are rejects from the current affairs articles trying to create messes of any articles to do with Ukraine (as well as all the articles that have anything to do with Russia). I can hardly keep up with them any more. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi, Iryna Harpy, long time no see. Would you please make that report at WP:AN/I or do you intend to wait for someone like me to go ahead with it [5] ? Look again at his contributions. He did not stop after your last warning, just the opposite; he intensified the removal of See also sections and blocks of images [6] from every WP:ARBEE sensitive article he can find, without a word of summary. All this would have to be reverted by an admin in a coordinated move. Poeticbent talk 05:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Poeticbent. You must have posted this at the very moment I was logging off for the afternoon. Yesterday, I was editing on the hoof and was engaged in some 'disputes' over current affairs articles. When I logged in this morning, I picked up from where I was and didn't get a chance to catch up with a plethora of notifications. I've only just logged in to start a catch-up, but have to go out in a few minutes. I'll be out most of the day tomorrow... so, I'd be much obliged if you could report him/her. If not, it will have to wait until tomorrow evening or Monday. My goodness, what committed 'contributor'! Aside from a few bizarre edit summaries (a couple of which are misleading in terms of the changes actually made), the only ES the user has ever left has been a couple of instances of "ottoman is not colonial empire"(?!!).

After a mass revert, I think earlier edits will need to be picked through as other contributors often don't bother checking the history of an article and salient, sourced information may be lost in earlier versions. Thanks for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I took the liberty of using your direct quote from above in filing my report. I hope you don't mind. Best regards, Poeticbent talk 14:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. The thread was archived without being addressed. It is now at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#User:Qordnlrns vandalizing the WP:ARBEE topics. Possible backlog at AN/I ... We would have to fix it manually somehow, on a one-to-one basis. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 07:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway, Poeticbent. I'm just going through the changes carefully, little by little. I've left an ARBEE sanctions notification on his/her talk page. There's only been one change made to an article since you issued the notification on their talk page, and it looks legitimate. I suppose the only thing to be done is to wait and see whether the user tries to revert or reintroduce these POV changes. If so, I have the neglected and archived version to refer to for another ANI... and this time there's been a discretionary sanctions warning issue, so there's no excuse.

I'm much obliged for your effort! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

Please stop your violation of NPOV writing that the RF had "annexed" Crimea. It is an accusation of crime against the international law and can't be stated without international court decesion of guiltiness. It is also a direct insult against all who stand for freedom of Crimea, the quistion is is it done purposely or under influence of regime in Kiev's propoganda. I have a feeling we need a seriuos NPOV discussion involving users living in Crimea. Viktor Š 22:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

We follow WP:RS. WP:NPOV means that we follow what the reliable sources say presenting the information in as neutral a tone as possible, and global consensus (NATO, etc.) is that the annexation is illegal. No one is interested in further prolonged discussions as to this status. Read the talk page of the relevant article, including the archives. The Wikipedia community has had enough of the type of WP:POV-pushing you're engaging in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Translation project

If you're looking for something to do, I think you might be interested in the new article South-East Ukrainian Autonomous Republic. I'd like to help building it, but English sources are sparse. It seems that the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have decent articles on the subject, if you'd like to consider doing some translation work. It is nice to see these gaps in the narrative filled. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. I've been falling in Wikipedia rabbit holes while being late for very important dates IRL. Yes, of course I'll take a look at it... provided I don't get waylaid by eating mushrooms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Just something I thought I'd throw out, in case anyone was interested. Be wary of wild juntas. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How did you know I was nearly swallowed by one a couple of days ago? It's still lurking around somewhere with some of its dejected compatriots and rabidly chewing the non-existent fat with them, but that's their nature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few, now. They come and go with ease. Better to just ignore them. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

• From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish reports, indicate operating changes

• Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report

• Traffic report: Attack of the movies

• Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes

• Interview: Meet a paid editor

• In the media: Kanye West rebranded; Wikipedia in court; editors for hire

• Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Blog: Black History Month edit-a-thons tackle Wikipedia’s multicultural gaps

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled 1

Well, i tried to help pointing out a WRONG information in Wikipedia. If people who helps is regarded as "uncostructive" and "unhelpful" so i will never ever help Wikipedia anymore. As you said, it is not a reliable source, it is a piece of s. where people who contribute are treated like garbage while vandals reign. Shame of Wikipedia.Farewell.I will be happy to leave the millions wrong information i see in Wikipedia without contributing from now. 180.183.46.110 (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Sandbox ? Discussion ? This is bulls... It had happened in the past I have tried to draw attention to bad and false information in Wiki articles by discussion and sandbox and after YEARS nobody cared to change them. That's why i have added that tag and the error was corrected. So it was helpful indeed, otherwise the false information in that Comoros article would have stayed there for years and years. Anyway, I will not do it anymore, I swear, I will leave Wikipedia as bad as it is with its horrible reputation which it fully deserves. Cheers and Farewell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.46.110 (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you take polite, generic templates so personally, particularly as I genuinely thanked you for drawing my attention to the discrepancy between the two pages. These are no intended as methods to put you off editing, but to provide you with an insight into policies and guidelines. I certainly hope you don't give up on contributing, but please try to refrain from singling me out for abuse because you've had bad experiences with Wikipedia in the past. You expect to be treated respectfully, as do I. Hopefully, you've gotten that complaint off your chest and are willing to let bygones be bygones. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Hi Iryna, You changed my edit on Kyrgyzstan and asked me to cite my reference. I actually changed the content of the article to properly represent the quoted source. Please change your edit back to the way I had fixed it. Check the source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risbek Hewitt (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responded to on contributor's talk page where same query brought up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to five year plan

Hi you must have missed it up above so i hope you don't mind me reposting. Thanks for the message to my talk page. Firstly that wasn't a test edit that was an actual edit. The edits goal was to flesh out that section which was a single sentence long and according to the well sourced 9th 5 year plan article, didn't even cover the main aspect of the plan, that of increasing consumer goods. As for the link between the plan and computer tech. i fail to see what is confusing. The plan caused the development of computer tech in the Soviet Union. Sorry if any of this sounded aggressive but i simply wished to improve Wikipedia Awnman (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for missing your previous post, Awnman. Yes, I've reviewed the revert and have self-reverted. It does need a little fleshing out, but the entire article needs a good copy-edit in order to get it up to par. I think I must have interpreted in at getting WP:OFFTOPIC, but in retrospect it was bad call on my behalf. Cheers for pulling me up on my error, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)