User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Your unscrupulous edits

It appears you are trying to edit out your errant and rude comments on the discussion page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images My original request (which was edited out) was for clarification on exactly what was meant by "large populations"...very relevant to the topic, because it was being used for {{WP:POV]] and WP:VANDALISM. You then responded that you looked at my edits "in depth" and couldn't find anything. And this response was also edited out, as well as your snide comment implying I was challenging/faulting this discussion/topic. My initial query re "large populations" was still not resolved by the time this was closed. Either you remove YOUR response or you leave mine...you don't get to edit to make yourself look good, because frankly at this point you don't.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Iryna was following standard practice. According to the talk page guidelines, it is important to keep such discussions on topic. Hatting irrelevant material is not uncommon. It is not surprising that Iryna had the impression she did when you wrote, "I have no opinion one way or another, and was simply asking for help on a case of WP:POV and WP:VANDALISM", which implied that your postings had nothing to do with the ongoing RfC, and that they belonged at some place like WP:AN/I. Please cool off, and consider that the definition of WP:VANDALISM on Wikipedia is very specific. RGloucester — ☎ 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I responded on the relevant talk page before I was aware that you'd left this rather nasty message on my talk page. I left a final comment asking you to provide a working wikilink to your example to assist me in understanding what your point was. You did not. As the RfC has officially closed, the entire exchange between us makes no sense and would be an unnecessary distraction to whoever closes it and has to make a decision on extending the scope of the WP:NOETHNICGROUPS guideline. Turning it into a WP:PERSONAL issue is doing neither of us a favour. Frankly, if I could see that I'd done something wrong, I'd have no qualms about apologising to you. The fact is, you comments there did not make sense, therefore I don't consider that there is anything to apologise for. Had you put as much effort into posting a clear comment/question at the RfC as you've put into pursuing this as a personal affront to you, there wouldn't have been any misunderstanding. In future, please make an effort to construct coherent statements on any talk pages you post to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding 'notes to self' on behavioural problems with Trinacrialucente for archiving: here, here, here, here with regards to myself.

Additional notes as to attitude to sysops: here, here, here, here, and here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: What part of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA do you find it so difficult to understand? You have done nothing but assume bad faith, and abuse every editor who dares to question your fallibility in the most arrogant terms possible. At this rate, you will end up as the focus of a WP:ANI pronto. Suggested reading: WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Indian Singaporeans

Hello, you reverted my edit and I want to let you know that the source does not state the exact population and only states the percentages of each ethnic group in the country, that is why I reverted it. (121.220.81.170 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs), I searched the entire document and even performed a search on the document for "250,300" and could not find anything, I'm not sure where about in this document you say this information is in but I can't find it. (121.220.81.170 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

I found it. (121.220.81.170 (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Yes, it's on page 16. Self revert, and don't edit war. If you have an issue with content, use the article's talk page. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I already self reverted the edit along with all the other affected pages as soon as I found out. (121.220.81.170 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

That's good, but you're making a terrible mess of other templates and articles per the message I've just left on your talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know but I changed it because all other templates for various other diasporic communities are designed to encompass what the government defines as that area. I think I know what you are talking about but what template is this? (121.220.81.170 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Source

Hello, Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs), I know that you do not accept my edits but the pages discuss Australian Jews and Palestinian Australians not "Jewish people" or "Palestinian people". I only removed the template because it did not apply to these pages according to this source [1]. The page discusses Australian Jews who under the ABS are not considered "Asian Australian" but if the page discussed "Jewish people" a template referring to "Overseas Asians and Asian diasporas" would be needed because they are of Asian descent. However, the page does not discuss "Jewish people" but "Australian Jews" so that is why the template does not fit there because the parent page Asian Australians does not refer to any of the original peoples west of Central Asia. There are many pages on Wikipedia that discuss diasporic communities for example History of the Jews in Canada, under Canadian law Jewish people are considered Asian and thus the template is listed there because Canadians Jews are considered Asian however under US law American Jews are not considered Asian American and so the template for Asian Americans is not listed there. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? (121.220.81.170 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

The dogs are barking but the caravan moves on ...

	A hot chocolate for you!
	Your competence, integrity, and willingness to edit even "hot topics" is much appreciated. I hope you enjoy a hot chocolate. JimRenge (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, JimRenge. The hot chocolate has warmed the cockles of me heart! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A thought

[2] I understand that we may all be getting exasperated, but please, do not go to the point of hitting the 'save page' key if your comment included swearwords. Otherwise I'll have to start chiding you, too, about being civil. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do apologise, Buckshot06. It was uncalled for, and the first time I've actually ever used an expletive in all my years here. There's been a run of extremely antagonising editors coming in from all over the place over the last couple of weeks. I failed to do the re-read, wait, then re-read on an objective head routine. My bad, and it shan't happen again (no matter how aggravated I get). I've weathered far worse, so I don't know why I let him get one over on me by allowing myself to resort to silliness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. You're the last person I thought I'd have to speak to about this kind of thing, and you seem well aware of the need to step back and take a pause before submitting comments, so please do bite your tongue and hit the backspace key in future. Fortunately or unfortunately, this remains the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - see the first italic quote on my userpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed,Buckshot06. I'm not sure of whether to redact my comment on that talk page, or whether that would make it even more obvious. Perhaps a simple apology would be the most appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you've covered yourself by your explanations at AN/I, but it would be best if you struck the comment at Talk:Afghan Americans), and made a one-line apology to Krzyhorse22, in a brief comment (on the same page). We don't always get to hang onto our pride around here. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any qualms about apologising when I've overstepped the line. As it stands, it makes for appalling reading for any would-be editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking for a city in Ukraine

Is there a city or town or fortress called Tavan below the lower Dnieper river north of Perekop that was constructed in 1492 C.E. by Mengli Giray? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: The only references I've been able to find are for "Тавань" (transliterated as Tavan'). Apparently, the fortress was captured by the Cossack leader Bogdan Glinski in 1493 (Ukrainian Wikipedia page, plus Glinsky is listed here in English Wikipedia). It's located in the Ochakiv Raion (you'll find a few short paragraphs about it in that article), although Meñli I Giray is only mentioned in the Ukrainian Wikipedia entry as having constructed the fortress. The fortress must have existed for some time after that as various forces tussled over it due to its strategic value. I have no idea of whether anything remains of it. The Russian articles have even less detail than that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I've found some more information. Although I noticed that there were a number of references to it being on the banks of the Dnieper, it appears that it was an island strategically located between two shores, and was flooded at a later date in history. Here's the map.

As an aside, be careful if you want to use the written Slavic word (Тавань) as a search term: unfortunately, Google confuses it with "Тайвань" (Taiwan), probably due to a lot of searches where people typing in Russian or Ukrainian mistype it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes yes, this is correct, it seems nobody lives there anymore, also Bogdan is a Tatar renegade from the Glinsky family, their coat of arms even have a tamgha on it. What is the admisntriation divsion of Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania in Ukraine in the late 15th century, I'm looking for Volhynia like the Kiev Voivodeship , but the one on Wikipedia starts very late, known as Volhynian Voivodeship (1569–1795) or maybe I'm confusing myself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was just reading up about it at the Kherson Litopys website, and it wasn't clear. I get the impression that it changed hands a number of times during that period of time, but I'll see whether I can dig up something more specific about the latter half of the century. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: It was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the 1432-1569 period), which tallies with what I know. None of the other candidates rang a bell with me in relation to what was going on in that particular region. Also, bear in mind that the area was very much a domain of the Ottoman Empire until the mid-1500s. Per the Kherson Litopys, entitled "The territory of Kherson region in the IX - mid XVIII centuries":

"In the XV century, the entire territory of the Northern Black Sea was part of the Crimean Khanate, formed in 1443, after the collapse of the Golden Horde. In 1475 the Khanate fell into vassalage to Turkey...

... The first reports reflecting the Cossacks raiding Tatars in Ukraine are from 1489 and 1516. Cossacks descended down the Dnieper in their boats ("Seagulls"), went out into the Black Sea, appeared at the walls of Istanbul, made trips to Crimea, destroyed the fortress, the enemy's fortifications, freed prisoners. Often trips were made alongside Russian warriors. In 1556 Russian soldiers and Cossacks captured the fortress on the island of Tavan'." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Iryna Harpy. When I saw the original question, I was intrigued, but I found nothing useful on WP, so I have been interested in what has been added since. All I managed to do was google "tavan ukraine" and this sent me here. What this tells me is that it is ruined, having been destroyed in 1695. At least that is consistent with what you are saying. Anyway, thank you for giving me a clearer idea about the Crimean Khanate, which was something very much on the edge of my consciousness. Interesting to see what was going on elsewhere in the days of my Valois Dukes of Burgundy and their Habsburg successors. LynwoodF (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That is correct I think that is the old Ruthenian word for Tavan (which is Tjahyn) that was used by Grand Duke Alexander son of Casimir in a letter to Mengli Giray in 27 June 1492.

Also thank you Iryna and LynwoodF for the help. Also Iryna if you still have the book I gave it to you, by Paul Magosci, you can see Tavan on page 178 in the map. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Magosci map is very rudimentary, so if you were going by that, I can understand why it didn't make sense as being an island. His map is unclear for me, also, as I know none of the major tributaries of the Dnieper are located around there. The Tyahinka makes sense as it doesn't appear to be a tributary but, rather, flows into the Dnieper (although that's just a guesstimate: it could be a minor tributary). You can certainly see why Tavan' was such a desirable strategic vantage point to for building a fortress on the island. The word, 'Tyahinka', is a diminutive for "tyahat'" which means 'to pull', so it would probably be a reflection of its having good currents, but not dangerous ones (hence the name 'little puller'). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, LynwoodF. Thanks for joining in and assisting on this search for those details that bring history to life! I'm a history buff, and all of human history fascinates me... but there's something about this period of history that really tweaks my whiskers. The Ottoman Empire - in itself an intriguing study - has suffered from centuries of bad PR in Western historiography. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was actually interested in Tavan not because of the map but because of the destruction it received under Bogdan Glinsky. I didn't know what it was, I know only that Mengli Giray was building it. Also how about Islamkerman on the lower dnieper? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov In the case of Islamkerman, it was Ostap Dashkevych. See this reference (The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania: International Diplomacy on the European Periphery (15th-18th Century). A Study of Peace Treaties Followed by Annotated Documents. Chapter 2: On the East European Chessboard. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania in the Years 1523-1671). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I'm reading that book actually, but I'm a slow reader. Also you linked a perso named Ostap not a city Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Oh, I thought you were looking for the person (Ostap Dashkevych) who destroyed the Tartar fort at Islamkerman (see page 65). Are you trying to find where Islamkerman fort was located in modern times? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on mentoring

I appreciated your supportive words during the recent AN/I, and I thought I would give you a brief outline of my methodology which I attend to adopt.

• A holistic approach is essential. I have seen a lot of mentoring attempts, but they often degenerate into ad hoc, firefighting interventions which do not tackle the whole situation.
• An initial approach, and considerable discussion with the mentoree. Often behavioural "triggers" can be identified and honestly explored at this stage.
• A period of about a week, where no controversial editing is done by any party, a cooling off period. It would appear that those who aggressively wish to edit despite this during this period, are often causal factors for issues.
• Initial discussions in a safe space, not the article T/P, in order to gain understanding, trust and finally concrete consensus amongst all involved parties. The safe space will be my own T/P. All parties are welcome to participate but I shall be ruthless in deleting or ejecting material and/or parties who are completely unable to show a colleagiate spirit.
• When consensus is reached on an issue, transferring it to the relevant article T/P for the community to examine.
• A two month shadowing of the mentoree and significant other parties if necessary to monitor improvement.

From Krzyhorse's initial responses, I am confident that he is not using this as a ruse, but in fact has pertinent things to say on the subject, and calmly and rationally outlined his issues re sourcing and facts. Not one personal attack was made. The tone was constructive. I believe he is here to build an encyclopedia. I believe we can get a positive outcome from this. These are my initial impressions. I think Kh just responds poorly to perceived pressures, and feels there is some kind of deadline. He is very reactive, which I think he recognises. I have had to revert a couple of edits Buckshot made earlier, as I felt this would inflame the situation and bring us back to square one before the process has begun. He has not reverted and I sense he understands the situation. I will drop him a note some time thursday explaining my methodology. Please take a look at the comments I have made on Kh's T/P. Any comments are welcomed. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for passing on this info on your strategy, Simon. It's well thought out and, once Krzyhorse22 is past using your talk page an SP, he's welcome to use my talk page as an extension of SP when he's in need of using someone else as a sounding board. I, too, feel confident that he's HERE, but that bad judgement calls spiralled out of control into prejudging all other editors and attacking first. Mentoring someone who's here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and get to THE TRUTH is a waste of everyone's time, yet I've seen some strange offers for mentorship where the editor is so far off the mark that it's like trying to help someone from upside-down world to turn Wikipedia into upside-down world, and the mentor has no structure set out. Is there a little engine-room for mentors with a community generated 'manual' anywhere?

Well, I guess that we all have our little egos to bolster, and like to feel superior... and certainly don't like admitting that we've made bad calls, but learning to be self-effacing is probably the most difficult part of the Wikipedia editor's learning curve, yet is more crucial than knowing the policies and guidelines off by heart. I'll be checking in on progress, but I won't interact with Krzyhorse until he's ready to interact, or unless he wishes to interact with me. I'm sure this is all embarrassing enough for him without having to feel as if I'm enjoying being condescending towards him, because I certainly don't believe myself to be superior to any other editor. Happy - and productive - mentoring! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A great, thoughtful response Iryna. I have not looked for a mentoring essay. I don't think one exists. This could be a framework for one. Maybe i've found a vocation :) Regards Simon Irondome (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: I'm glad I could be of assistance in helping you to work out what you want to do when you grow up. I still haven't figured out whether I want to grow up. In all seriousness, I do think some outlines for strategies are worth developing. There are good editors around who obviously want to use their potential skills for mentoring, but they really don't have any grounding in how it should be tackled, or in how to eliminate the wrong candidates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not grow up! Signed 54 going on 3 aka Irondome (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, identifying unsuitable candidates is critical. A time sink. We should add that. Maybe we can get something together over time. Would be useful in ed retention etc. Simon Irondome (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The list of editors willing to act as mentors has dropped dramatically in a couple of years. It would only take one bad experience for anyone who wants to try their hand at it to blow the chance of another mentor becoming a stable on the list. Currently, it's a lose/lose situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could work together on a framework for an essay. No rush, I know you are busy, but hashing out something may be useful. Mentoring is a bit chaotic at the moment. It's a greatly underused resort. Maybe we can firm it up. Signed A.N.Infant Irondome (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm willing to help cobble an essay up. We'll bang our old heads together to see whether there's anything left to drop out when we both have some time. There may yet be gems encrusted in the clumps of dried out earwax. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounded good. But you will have to speak up.Its my ear wax issue :) Irondome (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You did? That sounds nice, luvvy. I'll check back in after I remember where I left my specs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrovsky & Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grigory_Petrovsky&curid=11363402&action=history check this out....--Galassi (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi: Hmm, there's been a resurgence of 'interest' in any articles related to the subject. Thanks for the heads up. I've added it to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You For the Concern

I appreciate your concern over the edits in the DPR article. I can understand why you would get the impression that I appear to be trying to force my opinions upon someone, but I assure you, that is not my intent. I am simply trying to prevent another incident like the Whole ISIL status debacle. The debate currently going on in the talk page is showing signs of becoming just as bad as that incident, I was merely trying to revert the article back tothe way it was prior to the debate. Quite frankly, I find the entire discussion to be pointless and idiotic, and I want no part of it. The only reason I'm involved is because they started changing the article without reaching a consensus. I believe that is against Wikipedia's policy, so I was trying to restore it to the way it was before this whole arguement started. Unfortunately, it seems that simply doing that is dragging further into the discussion. Honestly, I wish these people would just leave the articles alone until a consensus is reached, or better yet, just leave the article the way it is without starting unnecessary arguements that end up getting everyone in trouble, which inevitably leads to users getting banned, and especially when it is over something as ridiculous as this. Who wants to argue over a stupid infobox? The arguement has nothing to do with the relavency of the facts within the article. Its all a matter of opinion. Encyclopedia's are about fact, not opinion. To let opinion take precedence over fact makes the article biased, which makes it practically useless to the reader. But I digress. I simply wanted to explain my actions. I apologize if I appeared to be trying to start another edit war. Thanks for the warning. Anasaitis (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: There's absolutely no reason for you to apologise! I'm not taking this as being a reflection of any personal animosity between myself and other editors, such as yourself, who are HERE. Any comments I'd made about POV pushing were made earlier with regards to some other editors. My take on it was that it was a matter of consensus can change, and that the infobox being used had turned into this: no attribution and over the top. Again, per my comment at the RfC, I'd actually !voted for infobox 'country' in December of 2014. Since then, however, the situation has become less clear and the Minsk II protocols, the closing down of the Novorossiya Project, lack of any official recognitions, and the ongoing war still being ongoing have made an NPOV article even more difficult to gauge. The RfC is POV in its wording and, frankly, I don't believe it was the appropriate place for an RfC if the question is in regards to how multiple articles about unrecognised states and states of limited recognition should be treated for the sake of parity across Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First you thank me and now you threaten me? Why? Don't you get it? This is the same stupid arguement that started that awful edit war on the ISIL page! In fact, some of the same users who started that catastrophe are behind this one! That stupid discussion degenerated into an edit war that waged off and on for almost a year, maybe even longer. Several users were banned, some of them permanently! All because of some stupid infobox! Now, some of the same people from last time are starting exact same thing all over again! It was so frustrating that it even made me lose my cool, and the incident remains the only time I have ever been blocked during my time as a user on Wikipedia. All I am trying to do is to remove the appearance of favoritism towards one side of the arguement, which hopefully will prevent an escalation like last time. I don't want the same problem to rear its ugly head again. Anasaitis (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: As I explained in the ES in reverting you, I'd mistakenly thought your message on the LPR's talk page was in reference to retaining the military infobox until the RfC is over. I understand what you're doing but, whatever the outcome, there have already been edit wars over this on both of the articles, and nothing has to be 'remedied' right now. Wikipedia is not a race, and if you start another edit war up, you will be blocked. There are admins watching over the pages attentively, so just don't put yourself into a position where you could get yourself blocked. It's not going to stick at the moment, so why put yourself in such a position. Once the RfC has been closed, editors will have a clearer view as to how to proceed from there. At the moment, it's turned into such a mess that it's best to let things blow over. Just try to keep a cool head over the matter and things can be sorted in a fresh venue and without forum shopping. These are problems of parity across Wikipedia articles and it would be worth the while considering them via more discussion to avoid future edit warring. One thing at a time... and let the dust settle whichever way the decision falls. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I have no intention of starting an edit war. I was just trying to prevent another edit war resulting in the banning of multiple losers, all over some ridiculously trivial issue. I'm glad this was just a misunderstanding over intentions. I don't want to get in a fight with another user. We have enough of those already. I was just felt that leaving the war faction infobox up, which reflects the views of those users who want to change the article, gives the appearance, however unintentional, of favoritism towards one side of the discussion. I simply restored it to the way it was before this nonsense started, thus preventing any changes until a consensus is reached. That's all I was trying to do. Anasaitis (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: Yes, I know it was done in good faith. I think that the fundamental problem lies with the templates themselves. There are no clear recommendations as to which ones apply to what sort of entity. As noted by another user, geopolitical organisations actually refers to this. There needs to be some form of community discussion about these infobox templates as there simply isn't any clear delineation as to which suits what purpose. It may entail creating another infobox specifically designed for breakaway states/separatist states, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem

With the word German, I just wanted some sort of unifying word. Nazi occupied Europe isn't quite right, because it's not just Nazi occupied, its also puppet states, and states with pro-nazi fascist regimes... By the way, you're from the polish-Lithuanian commonwealth? That's pretty awesome. My family is from there too. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Well, technically, I'd count myself as being 'Ukrainian'... whatever that really means. Convoluted histories make 'bitsers' of all of us... and that, essentially, is the problem with finding a unifying word for an extremely complex ideology. 'Nazi' is hardly ideal, but I don't know of any existing terminology that describes the bigger picture in 50 characters or less. Anyway, I've responded on the article's talk page. Perhaps a bright spark amidst other editors might be able to come up with something better. It ain't easy being green NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have family from Ukraine too. They were from Odessa. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They left cause of this --Monochrome_Monitor 11:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I suspected that might be the reason considering that there had been a thriving Jewish community there. The Russian Empire was not a good place to be Jewish. In fact, it was not a good place to be anything other than a well-to-do Russian. Truly horrific stuff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, exactly. Serving in the Russian army was a bitch too, they controlled every aspect of their lives (like who they could marry) and demanded something like 15 years. Many of my ancestors were deserters. :D But I'm glad they left... because of this.

I think it's super cool you're descended from Cossacks though. No hard feelings ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(t/p/s) I don't think there were any in the first place MM :) Irondome (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say that there are monumental moments in history that I'm definitely not a fan of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, that's exactly what I was thinking of. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

GfK poll

In this edit summary you said "Rv It has been discussed thoroughly on this and surrounding articles." Can you point me out to the discussion, as I cannot see any on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Thanks. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Bakharev. You'll have to allow me a little time to find the various discussions. Articles were being moved, merged, and overlapped on information at such breakneck speed that I'm going to have to dig around. Thanks for bearing with me while I pull a couple of years of diffs together. Sigh! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, I may have to wait until tomorrow to start casting the net around. I'm about to log off for today (although I might find time this evening to start on it). My apologies if my reaction seemed blunt. It was most certainly not aimed at you, but I just want to make that clear in case it was misunderstood. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, take your time. I have seen mention of this poll somewhere in a Crimea-related article, but I do not remember which one, nor what were the arguments for and against inclusion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Little green men (Ukrainian crisis)=

Oh, come on Iryna — don't tell me you didn't laugh when you saw the "soldier with cat" monument! Something like that should be preserved for the future generations! Cloud200 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cloud200: The Russian Defence Ministry's weird-pride laser beam show is pretty high on the mirth scale, too... but I'm not here for the laffs. If there's an argument for inclusion, take it to the article's talk page. Talk about a good argument for not letting someone anywhere near your pets or livestock. "May I fit for your sheep for gumboots, ma'am?" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help

Hello Iryna, I noticed you are a heavy 8 hours a day, editor. I was looking for a paid wiki editor possition and I assumed you may be able to help. I live in Sankt-Peterburg and my friend told me about the place on ul. Savushkina may be looking for English editors. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about you, maybe you can send me other users you know about. Regards Gladstonemoscow (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Russian.

I stumbled on this page that needs some translation love. Can you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army

Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikieditor101. I've added it to my 'hopeful' list. Unfortunately, I've given up on 'to do' lists as I'm far too interested in so many areas of Wikipedia to even dream of improving the content of every article I'd like to get my teeth into in one lifetime. Sigh. Too many pies, not enough fingers.

You have, however, inadvertently reminded me that I have a stub for the Great Patriotic War I'd promised Buckshot06 I'd pull out of my sandbox and set up (including templating it for expansion from Russian Wiki). Given that I'm likely to be developing the article and getting drawn into other articles surrounding this area, I'd say that the Soviet Army article stands a good chance of going from 'hopeful' to 'so enthusiastic that I have to try to get it up to par'. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan War

So I added the citation using the prove it box, but its by itself at the bottom of the page. Also I can't seem to get it to move up with the references and cite in the infobox at the top of the article. Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Wikieditor101, I think I've worked it out. Is the Max Boot book you introduced here the reference for the 'dissolution'? If so, do you have a page number/page numbers for it so I can set up the reference to the statement in the infobox? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Kozhedub

Dear User:Iryna Harpy, there is a discussion about Ivan Kozhedub's place of birth on the talk page [3], the matter concerns the problem of status of Ukrainian SSR. I would be very glad to hear your opinion! Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna. Do you know anything about this dispute? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: ). Neither side comes out looking good, but I'm unsure if there is an admin action I could take that would help anything. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I took a brief look at it yesterday and was going to try to intervene with a compromise. I'll take a look at a couple of tertiary sources and weigh in at the ANE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Okay, I've left my 2¢ on the article's talk page. Ушкуйник can dig his heels in on aspects of articles, but he certainly does discuss content and work collaboratively. It's really an issue of the prominence of a technically, so I don't think any admin action is going to help to resolve this. Hopefully, we'll be able to work out a consensus solution. Maybe a warning to Viggen is in order. I am, however, concerned about another editor having crawled out of the woodwork after two years. Ah, well. We shall see. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dugin

I'd be inclined to keep that info. It really speaks for itself, regardless of Dorpater's intentions.--Galassi (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi: I'm fine with the added content as it currently stands. I was not fine with this piece of WP:COATRACK malarkey. I've had it up to my eyeballs with WP:JUNTA JUNTA. Talk about editing to make a WP:POINT! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Crimea talk page

To: Iryna Harpy

Cc: Tobby72, Haberstr, Moscow Connection

Iryna, your recent posting on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation contains personal attacks on WP users Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection. You accused these WP users of "POV pushing", "disruptive editing", and presenting arguments with "no good faith".

Wikipedia article talk pages are for constructive discussion of article content, not for accusations against individuals. Are you trying to discourage comments about content from people whose views differ from your own? If you are not trying to discourage comments, please make this clear as soon as possible, by withdrawing the personal attacks you have made. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: What kind of bizarre message is this meant to be? Is it a 'warning'? I've never seen a "cc" used in this way... and it looks like WP:HARASS having posted it here and to the other three editors' talk pages alone. Firstly, I did not accuse Moscow Connection of being disruptive, but of POV pushing. In his case, it's good faith, but misjudged.

As regards Tobby72 and Haberstr, I'm not 'retracting' legitimate criticism of their editing. It's called WP:SPADE. I don't particularly like to call a spade and spade, but the history of their editing practices on multiple ARBEE sanctioned articles (including this one) warrants such criticism (i.e., read the archived talk pages and read WP:BLUDGEON). Now, stop trying to use my talk page to bully me, and a springboard for trying to initiate a WP:HUNT. Do not post here again unless it's to notify me of a formal complaint. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin).  Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue with user

You seem to have handled a Neutral Point of View issue recently. I stumbled over the same user because of some really biased edits. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[4]] and [[5]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). This is all in line with the critizism mentioned in this Neutral Point of View notice board issue which you seem to have closed. Did you consider all these edits or just the ones about the Washington Post issue? What is the appropriate way to act here? I have notified the user and his discussion page seems to indicate more of these issues. Shall I "reopen" this neutral point of view notice (if this is possible) or discuss this somewhere else? I am pretty new to the English wikipedia (I actually just opened an account to track these issues) so any help would be appreciated. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Yes, I retained the user's talk page on my watchlist due to a feeling that there's something not quite right about their editing habits, and noticed your warnings. Having checked through the diffs, I'm feeling fairly confident that, even if the editor is not a POV pusher, there's either a WP:COMPENTENCE problem, or that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Most of his/her contributions appear to be minor, yet there are significant changes lurking in these minor changes in as much as there are instances of the removal of legitimately placed tags for citations... coupled with the fact that the editor doesn't provide edit summaries for such significant changes.

Given the overall behavioural patterns, this is really something to be taken to the WP:ANI, not the NPOVN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall I report this? Or do I have to wait for some time and see whether my notification does provoke any response or change in behaviour? LucLeTruc (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: I'd actually like to see some form of discussion between editors regarding content. As it currently stands, the editor has never involved themselves in any discussions: per this talk page summary, you'll note that talk pages have only been 'visited' twice since creating their account, and then only to change the project class template, plus to remove vandalism. To that end, I've started a talk page section regarding content for the Poggenburg article. Let's see what happens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your constructive and communication focussed approach. The censorship behaviour, however, does not seem to stop. I have send some more escalating warnings but I doubt that they are actually read. At least there is no response. I have written warnings directly in the revert comments so there is no way the user does not see this. If there are some more edits like this without interaction I will report this to the board that you mentioned, correct? LucLeTruc (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: You're welcome. Given that the editor has actually responded with an attack from the outset of his/her communications with anyone, I'd say that another one or two exchanges without a change in attitude would clinch it for an ANI. Should you open a section there, please feel free to ping me from there — i.e., use {{ping|Iryna Harpy}}. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Volkstod did not change his behaviour but engaged in the next edit war straight again. I have opened a section on the ANI noticeboard. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Okay. I'll take a look. Cheers for notifying me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha. I see that the ANI returned a quick response, and that Volkstod has been indeffed. All's well that ends well! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No-neutral

On the article about human rights in Russia, your point of view was not neutral. There were no sources cited about the UIA fighting the Nazis, and I don't think there were any real battles, not to mention that they were collaborators. 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your removals were WP:POV in both (here) of the articles (and here). Wikipedia is not concerned with your personal opinion or my personal opinion, but that of reliably sourced opinions by experts. What 'I think' is that you've been getting your information from blogs, forums, and other hysterical op-ed sources. Suggestion: do some serious reading by serious academics and experts before you edit based on "I think". In fact, read the article properly for well cited information on the fact that they fought the Nazis before you try to push the "I don't think there were any real battles" with German forces line because you are absolutely wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Enjoy! CounterTime (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Thank you, old friend! Just the thing to have with my cup of tea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help

Hello Iryna, I noticed you are a heavy 8 hours a day, editor. I was looking for a paid wiki editor possition and I assumed you may be able to help. I live in Sankt-Peterburg and my friend told me about the place on ul. Savushkina may be looking for English editors. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about you, maybe you can send me other users you know about. Regards Gladstonemoscow (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 2 April 2016.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking whether you should be indefblocked on the spot for trolling, but you have made marginal contributions which, with some effort, can be considered useful. But you may be sure next time you get blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenia

I don't have a good command of English, therefore I would be grateful for your help. But the sense of the sentece should be that "Ruthenia" and "Russia" are in some other slavish languages absolutely separate meanings. And during the history, very often they have been even deadly enemies. While in Russian language the word "Ruthenia" means the old form of "Russia", so it means the same. --Grb16 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I.e. in Polish langage, the Duchy od Moscow, or the Tsarship of Moscow would never be called "Rus", always "Moscow", and only after many ages "Russia". While todays Ukraine and todays Belarus have been always called "Rus" - in Polish. Belarus was the "White Rus" (wchich until today means the same) and Ukraine has been called "Red Rus", with the name Ukraine as a geographical name. And never "Moscow" has been called a "Rus" - in Polish. And Poland has been (then, once) the most populated slavish country. --Grb16 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Grb16: Thank you for your comment. Yes, I know the differentiation of the historical use of Rus'/Ruthenia amongst Slavic groups. The sentence I fixed up was virtually impossible for English speakers who, frankly, don't know much about Eastern Slavs, to understand. I know that it needs to be better clarified, but such an elaboration requires that I find reliable sources to elaborate on the historical distinctions. I'm capable of describing it more clearly and in more detail in my own words, but that would contravene WP:NOR, so I'm going to have to leave that section as it stands until I find more sources for an NPOV explanation. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! As you understand most of Polish (Russian + Ukrainian = 90% of Polish), you can read [6] that until 1764 Polish refused to use the name Rus/Russia connected with Moscow State, wchich has been called Wielkie Księstwo Moskiewskie (Great Duky of Moscow). Therefore in short "the Moscow". And as late as in 1764 the Commonwealth of Poland has been forced by Catherine the Great to recognize the name of Russian Empire. Which however still does not mean Rus' in Polish. The source given in Polish Wiki, is a very well known in Poland book of Norman Davies "Boże Igrzysko". --Grb16 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit on the Ukraine war page.

Hello, I have edited the page due the fact there is no proof that any of those men had any affiliation with Russia or its armed forces. As a soldier in the Russia's army, I personally know that that their gear and weapons are not used by us, and the uniform they wear which resembles that of those used in our armed forces, is not only sold at many sporting and general stores across the world, but are also used in the Ukrainian military. As you may know several soldiers in the People's Militia are former Ukrainian soldiers, and several Ukrainian military bases have been raised showing how these outfits may have been acquired. So due to lack of counter evidence, and educated assumptions, I believe it should just say 'rebels' or 'people's militia' since they are almost certainly not part of the Russian forces. ))))) -"Vlad" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetsnazvdv (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Spetsnazvdv: Actually, the content is reliably sourced, therefore your contention is incorrect. We don't write encyclopaedic articles based on what your personal point of view or my personal point of view may be: articles are written according to what reliable secondary sources say on the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and disturbances on Ukrainian culture, Belarussians and Ukrainians

Hello User: Iryna Harpy. I would like to draw your attention to this report and to this report. This probably also involves User: 67.81.5.244. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this, Hebel. I'll keep my eyes open for any similar activity. We can pinpoint where the user is IP hopping from, so they won't be difficult to pick out given their SPA activities. No "Szapiro" in Polish? This person either doesn't have a clue about Polish and Eastern European Slavic history and culture, or is on a course of blatant POV editing. Well, I've now added their favourite articles that weren't on my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Only now I see that one of these IP's was involved in the Shapiro thing as well.... One of the IP's seems to belong to a New York school and has been blocked in the past. I will treat any more infractions as a case of sockpuppetry. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Hmm. I smell a related SPA at work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello, see my comment below on your talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for Ilirida page

Hi Iryna

For some while now, a series of anonymous IP's have continuously been placing copyrighted images and pushing POV related imagery of "state symbols" on the article: Republic of Ilirida (see talkpage of article and page history log for more). This has made editors such as my self, but especially other to constantly revert these additions for where those pushing of it have made no attempt to explain in the talkpage. Instead those anonymous IP's have even resorted to offensive language to those doing the reverts. As i am not familiar with the process of how to go about this, as an Administrator would you be able to place a autoconfirmed user thing on the page, so only those with a Wiki account can make edits and limit what has become a farce on that page. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Resnjari. Just to clarify, I'm not an administrator, just an ordinary editor like yourself.

I've taken a look at the article history, as well as the talk page, and can see that it's problematic. Fortunately, someone has already applied for semi-protection which will last until 7 May. You can apply for page protection at WP:RPP if you encounter similar disruption on any articles. I've added the article to my watchlist as a 'the more eyes on the article, the better' measure. Keep up the good work you're doing, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and i look forward to working with on topics if our paths cross. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)