User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

I could use some advice if you have any

Hi User:Iryna Harpy. As you have an interest in matters regarding history, you might (or not, I won’t blame you) want to look at this and this conversation on the Talk page of Constitution of Medina. The article contained the sentence: “This was the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule.” On the face of it that seemed like an exceptional statement to me. Even like a poster slogan for a cause, but it was quoted verbatim from a book on a sociological matter concerning Islam. In my view that didn’t suffice as a source for an exceptional statement on what is after all a matter of history and / or constitutional law and not sociology. And books by historians I found are basically in contradiction of this assertion. The conversation is getting awry and I’m of course partly to blame for being too proactive, if you can call it that, in the initial stage. Remarks on this matter are welcome. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, it is appalling prose..Irondome (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes that too of course... Spooky language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It may well be WP:FRINGE. Is this assertion repeated in other works? Also from the books' blurb "The book addresses the pressing need for a systematic show of an Islamic politics of human rights and democracy grounded in the Qur’an." So is this about a religious interpretation of democracy? Just some thoughts. I am at the limits of my knowledge on this here. Just my 2p. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is far from WP:FRINGE, I will be willing to hear from you if you have any comments that made you think that way, or you can sit idly and take it from Mr.Hebel Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a book by an American and an Egyptian sociologist. That quote isn't repeated verbatim anywhere, but it's basically (I think) derived from a work by a Pakistani professor in Islamic Law that said back in 1941, and I quote: "This was the first written constitution in the history of the world". Now that one is quoted in other works, but mainly by religious scholars and a few linguists. I've gotten tons of quotes by certified historians that implicitly and explicitly say very different things concerning both matters. Not so difficult to find if you search for the same language in just about any book on democracy and constitution in ancient Greece. But the conversation has basically stranded in passive-aggressive abuse by one user. Also, I've been too pro-active as I mentioned before so that wouldn't have helped things either perhaps. Read it. It's a treat (NOT)... And it might take you a while. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that backs your claim they have taken it or derived it from "a Pakistani professor in Islamic Law", I think you need to stop spreading misinformation on that part, you actually have zero evidence in that matter Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hebel: As per Simon, this is all well over the extent of my knowledge. I saw the 3RR board yesterday and have been wondering about how best to handle this as you'd pushed yourself into the warning zone before reporting it. The two editors you're dealing with are - how best to express this - very, very headstrong. They're knowledgable about Islam, but neither have a sense of how to balance information, and can get extremely aggressive about their interpretation of anything involving Islam to the point of FRINGE. I've been off-colour for the last week, so I'm hesitant to step into any more 'difficult' decisions than I'm already in the thick of right now. I'll make some time to take a look... but my energy levels are limited. P.S. I don't have to even guess at which is the passive-aggressive user. He's definitely far more aggressive than passive, and has been blocked for at least one extreme instance of this behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know. That probably hasn't helped as I also can't get anywhere with an ANI report. I've seen the user involved before also. I'm afraid his behavior and language got to me as his tactic seems to be to cause as much insulting distractions as possible, to avoid having to say anything helpful or constructive and refraining others from doing so as well. I'll probably have to let it go and put in a dispute and neutrality tag later and start an RfC. Seems the best way to go forward. Thanks for weighing in. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this is the best way forward. The most constructive thing you can do for yourself is to get a little emotional distance going between yourself and your frustration at talking to editors who don't listen, and the best way to trip yourself up is to take the WP:BAIT getting thrown at you. I know I've done that far too many times myself, and am bound to do it again, but stopping myself somewhere along the route to exploding is a priority. I'm adding the article to my watchlist, but do ping me when you start an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope it won't be necessary. At least one of these guys seems remotely willing to compromise, but I doubt we'll get there. But still, I've seen stranger things happen... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is your problem Hebel, you are willing to lie to other editors, Iryna, you might want to ask Hebel where did I say the constitution was the first in the world? Where did the authors took words from a Pakistani authors in the 40s or the 70s. It seems Hebel is willing to take huge lengths to disrespect and disparage the authors and make a flimsy connection to a Pakistani author. I'm willing to compromise when evidence is shown, and Hebel reduces his lies and disrespect to the authors and start bringing evidence if he has any to show any connection that they have taken their ideas from another source. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

sorry 'bout this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov and Hebel: Not a problem Gerard von Hebel. Alexis Ivanov, let's not use my talk page for anything that should be discussed on the article's talk page. I haven't had a chance to go through the discussion or sources causing the disagreements on the Constitution of Medina. I also have formed (what I believe to be) a good working relationship with CounterTime despite the fact that s/he has been caught up in some controversies in the past, and that there are other editors who don't have the patience to recognise that CounterTime is capable editor (although s/he does have moments of getting caught up in the moment, as do we all). The best I can do is to try and acquaint myself with the sources and lend a fresh pair of eyes to potential content changes according to the WP:WEIGHT in light of the subject matter. In the meantime, it's best to cool down for a couple of days before resuming discussions as it's fully protected until 8 June. Cheers for now, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna Harpy, Didn't get the chance to make a Rfc, but now we have this at least on the DRN notice board. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-verting of my edits

My edits are all sourced or based on the sourced material. There was no need at all for you to re-vert all of my edits on Portuguese people. As for the source about African slaves in Iberia, it is 1) not even a valid or academic source; and 2) does not say anywhere that the black African salves brought to Iberia during the slave trade "all remained there", and quite clearly states many involved in the trade were eventually moved on to colonies in the Americas. If there were 600,000 black Africans who remained in Iberia from 1600 onwards, with such a small population at the time, you would have a large black population there today like which exists in countries in the New World. This is not the case, and no native Iberian looks black in any way. Clearly, only a small number remained and were absorbed into the native Spanish and Portuguese populations. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't even get your stats correct. The statement comes A) from a reliable source (how is this not a reliable source!); and B) "It has been estimated that between 1400 and 1640, about 350 to 400,000 black African slaves were introduced in Portugal and Spain and assimilated in the local genepool." Where is this hysteria about 600,000 coming from? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't consider that French language source as very reliable, as there aren't citations for the statistics it mentions, but yes it is acceptable to WP:RS. I misquoted the number of slaves mentioned, but I have just read the material and it does not say anywhere that 350,000 to 400,000 black African slaves were "absorbed into the genepool". It merely estimates that number was brought to Iberian ports from Africa between 1400 and 1640, but does not specify the fate of many of these people. It does, however, state that many were then transported onward to overseas sugar plantations, especially the main Portuguese colony in Brazil, and including the descendants of slaves who were born in captivity Portugal. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, in reading it again, it's not really actually clear on absolute figures. From 1500–1600 less than 200,000 are received in the Americas, whereas between 1440–1640 350,000–400,000 are brought to Portugal and Spain. Then it breaks down the numbers in shorter spans being moved to Lisbon, Valencia, etc. (and that in the middle of the 16th century, Lisbon is the largest black city across the Hispanic world with more than 10,000 blacks representing approximately 10% of the population of the city. I think that, considering the manner in which figures are broken down, it isn't really possible to apply WP:CALC in a constructive way. Perhaps it's best served by stating that "a number" (rather than some) were absorbed into the population, and the mid-16th century estimate of 10% of Lisbon was represented by blacks, and that large number were shipped to the Americas. In that manner, there's no need to explain whether that population remained or not.

In fact, I know that the unexplained 'disappearance' of the black population in Lisbon (including DNA evidence) was one of the major research project looked into a couple of decades ago as an explanation as to whether Neanderthals really died out, or whether breeding with the much larger population of Homo Sapien Sapiens would account for no apparent evidence for DNA traces... But that's another story, and WP:OFFTOPIC for the article in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: IP identified as sock of User:DifensorFidelis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nelya Shtepa

I wrote this article on Nelya Shtepa last year, and was somewhat interested by her story. Sadly, it completely dropped out of the English-language press, and I haven't been able to update the article. I know she's currently on trial, but all the relevant sources are in Ukrainian and Russian. If you've got a spare moment, perhaps you could take a look at this block of articles I found on Google News and see if you can glean anything worth including in the article. It'd be much appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her case has dropped out of the Western press in a big way, although that's hardly surprising. Eastern Europe has been too bizarre and confusing for the Western palate, and a good upheaval in the Middle East makes for easy 'good guy, bad guy' fare.

Just a brief perusal tells me that she's still being held on the same charges; was shuttled off to a hearing in mid-April; has taken a leaf out of Savchenko's book and has gone the way of a hunger strike as her detention has been prolonged for a further 2 months (one of the judges was on holiday an not due to return until 13 May)... was refused having a defence witness being produced due to the documentation for the request being 'inadequate'. There's virtually no actual information other than brief statements (certainly nothing that counts as analysis).

As you can see for yourself, there have been no updates since 20 April, so whether she's gone on a hunger strike or not is unclear. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for update. I'll see if I can put together a little blurb for the article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, that was a sloppy catch-up (namely, I forgot to provide sources!). I'll bulk it out with refs, the most prominent being fairly vocally anti-Kiev, but not nutty-bananas so. The POV is fairly much irrelevant as the bare bones info is there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ta! I simply don't like leaving that article where it ends, as it is very anticlimactic for the reader...I tried a bit of Google "translation magic", but that was rubbish as usual. RGloucester — ☎ 01:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 ToDo Still needs to be investigated for further info. Preventing thread from being archived for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply to message left for me at Tobby72's talk page

Hello Iryna Harpy,

I am replying here to the message you left for me at Tobby72's talk page, rather than replying there and taking up more space on his page.

Thank you for the link to WP:Aspersions. I was happy to read there that "broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another." I want to assure you that I am not meaning to cast aspersions against anyone, and I apologize for any disruptions I might have caused.

As to my comments about Volunteer Marek, I meant exactly what I said: he was smart, and he was clever. And I was trying to say, as delicately as possible, that I think Tobby72 dropped the ball when he let Volunteer Marek frame the RfC.

In retrospect, my conduct at the 'Russian intervention' talk page was far from exemplary, especially the rookie's mistake of mentioning conduct issues on the article talk page. I won't do it again. Everyone else's behavior in this particular talk page interaction was within the "broad leeway" granted to editors, IMO, and I believe at this point that I had no basis to mention conduct issues.

Thank you for your concern. JerryRussell (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, JerryRussell. We're all welcome to have our opinion about who is right and who is wrong, and the issue at stake here - as the case for many, many controversial articles - is that there are long standing bad feelings, and a history of disruptive editing from editors I believe to be disruptive... although, sometimes I feel that it has more to do with WP:COMPETENCE than bad faith. As you've discovered, there are, indeed, pitfalls in the bureaucratic processes by which these articles are handled. ARBCOM deals explicitly with recent disruptions, therefore bringing up past disruptions (unless action was taken) is useless. The reality is that there are no in-between venues, and various noticeboards have been tapped out for the same issues being brought to them over and over and over.

Bringing up past editor history when the community understands that lessons have been learnt, and that the editor has proven themselves to have evolved into a good editor will only reflect badly on the editor trying to resurrect the past. The community does not tolerate the application of past indiscretions and superimposing them on current 'disputes' simply because such practices are prone to WP:GAMING. This is of particular importance as you'll find that the same editors tend to work on sanctioned areas because there truly aren't many editors who have the stomach or wherewithal to tackle the difficult topic areas. It has become claustrophobic, and everyone ends up overstepping the line in their communications at some point or another. Nothing is actually as cut and dried as it may appear to be unless you've been involved for years: interpreting the overall performance of an editor by selectively following a fracas or two will not enlighten you as to who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are. Admins and uninvolved, experienced editors really prefer not to involve themselves as a matter of experience, and there are only a handful who are not afraid to step in. The "broad leeway" you speak of would not be tolerated on the majority of articles. On the one hand, more freedom is given to pretty nasty interactions; on the other hand it is only the masochists with a proven track record who are under the most scrutiny and provoke extreme judgement calls by the numerous lurker and trolls.

New editors who have entered the arena to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS won't survive, nor do they deserve to. I'm not suggesting that this has anything to do with a dog-eat-dog mentality, but a matter of how much discipline it takes for an editor to detach themselves from their own personal perspectives and uphold consensus even if it goes against every fibre of their own being. There is a point to my meandering WP:TL;DR. I hope you're getting the sense of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Montenegrin Americans

Hey, sorry about the edit, I just thought those two contained the same information, so I felt we should only leave the more recent one. Didn't use edit summary as I felt it was self-explanatory. Sideshow Bob 07:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sideshow Bob. My apologies for the (extremely) tardy response. Yes, I can see how this edit is an easy mistake to make. Cheers for the explanation, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ughhhhh

Genocide of Shias by ISIL and Genocide of Christians by ISIL. WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST ON TRIVIALIZING GENOCIDE BY CALLING EVERYTHING GENOCIDE??!!? There have been mass graves of Yazidis. Mass graves. They are considered devil worshippers and cannot even pay jiyza or flee, they must convert or die. On the other hand christians and shias are told to flee, convert, pay jizya, or die. Big difference. The hatred of the yazidis has a significant ethnic component- some aren't even given the chance to convert. There is a great deal of genocidal rape too, they are even picked out for their hair and eye color. Yazidis are a people. "Christians" and "shia" are not peoples. Armenians are a people who have a religion, bosnians are a people who have a religion, this is different. The victims are generic "christians" and "shia". We cannot call every persecuted religious group a victim of genocide, or else the protestants in southern ireland were subject to genocide too. And the pagans of Rome. The "religion" part of the genocide definition is rarely invoked because it's much less clear-cut. Frankly the only reason it's there in my opinion is because of the jewish holocaust, and a misunderstanding about jews as a religious group rather than an ethnic group for political sensitivity.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know. Anyone with an iota of common sense understands this to be an exploitation of RECENTISM, and how it will be qualified in years to come is not contingent on current media hysteria... I'd be mortified if it actually became mainstream as there is no genetic identity in the equation. How do you override politico-religious Newspeak idiocy when POV pushers keep throwing RS at you and insisting that a corrupted usage of terminology is so well backed up that it must be encyclopaedic and, therefore, included? I'm honestly disgusted. Okay, I understand that what's going down is horrific, but call it for what it is and don't equate it to something it is not. We need to find a big, fat plug to shove in this hole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly the people who really push the POV in my opinion are american christians who like to think christians around the world are under attack. Anyway, something doesn't become genocide because politicians say it is. It's genocide when a war crimes tribunal rules it so. Oh, hahaha, that's a fascinating thought. ISIS before a war crimes tribunal! Wow!--Monochrome_Monitor 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, it is genocide as far as Wikipedia content goes if credible usable sources say it is genocide by using the word genocide to define it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: We're not attempting to go against RS... just having a moan about the use of the terminology. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] according to THIS article "“Genocide has occurred and is ongoing,” the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic said in a statement recently on the crimes of ISIS against Yazidis." Note: not against christians or shia--Monochrome_Monitor 03:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

An excellent, well presented and thought out article... and the "Jerusalem Post" could most certainly not be considered a revolutionary WP:RS. The allusion to Christians or Shia muslims is discussed as an aside, while the actual "genocide" aspect points squarely at the Yazidis. I've only just bookmarked these articles out of obligation for the moment. I'm not at all happy with how they are being developed, but I find that it's better to pick and choose when to step into controversial articles and start the clean-up process. I'm wedged in the feeding frenzy of what are essentially current affairs articles in a number of areas of Wikipedia. After the edit wars and POV pushing are over, there will be plenty of hard graft based on non media-hype RS to bring WP:TITLEs and content into line in a genuinely encyclopaedic manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Let's wait for the dust to clear. In the interim I'll do a bit of research on what the UN actually said.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

TA-DAAAAAH!--Monochrome_Monitor 05:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well found! I've also double-checked that both articles have captures on the Wayback archive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hooray! --Monochrome_Monitor 05:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile a google search shows all the sources talking about "christian genocide" are christian.[2][3][4][5][6]--Monochrome_Monitor 06:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But it MUST be true since John Kerry said it![7]--Monochrome_Monitor 06:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC) [8] This canadian resolution (fortunately it didn't pass) also said they were committing a genocide against gay people! They forgot to mention their cruel genocide against foreign aid workers and people who break fast on ramadan.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Marrovi

Ok, thank you by the notes. Greetings.--Marrovi (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Marrovi. Please remember that editors work as a community. It would also be appreciated if you could provide edit summaries as it informs other editors of what changes you've made and why. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, we are in contact.--Marrovi (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, What is the order of references? We have in contact, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Which article (or articles) are you referring to, Marrovi? If you mean which order references go into an article in general, it depends on the order in which they are used within the content. There's a simple tutorial for how to add references here. If, however, you need help with more complicated references and referencing techniques, the WP:HELPDESK is the best help service to assist you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse and sockpuppets

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34/Archive

Hi Iryna. Are you aware of that long-term abuse case and his non-stop sockpuppetry/disruption? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wario-Man. I certainly know the moniker, but I'm only vaguely aware of this problem editor as there are only a few areas of Wikipedia where our interests overlap directly. I've just reacquainted myself with their POV pushing and editing style through the SPI cases. Is there any way in which I can assist you (i.e., current articles I could put on my watchlist)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can help me and I appreciate your help. For example, see these recent socks [9], [10] and targeted articles Haplogroup R1 and Haplogroup R1a. Per WP:REVERTBAN, we can remove his edits. Please check his LTA case and add some of those articles to your watchlist (articles that you're interested in them). --Wario-Man (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: With pleasure. Tirgil's genetic POV pushing does overlap with my areas of interest, so I've added more articles, most particularly "Haplogroup R1". The evader's interests are all in spin-off and related articles, so they're easily spotted. Feel free to ping me if you suspect sock activity on any articles I haven't added at this point. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards. Cheers. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Constitution of Medina edits

Thanks for your recent intervention. It's my opinion that the other editor involved may not have the understood interest of the article foremost in his mind when editing, but rather past occurrences in which he may or may not have been involved. If he has however, he should really explain himself better. I do believe that it's his responsibility to do so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the interest of the article in my heart when I have done the edits I have done to improve upon it, but since your arrival, you have just brought misery, distraction. Just have to count my blessings that you don;t ruin other articles. I have already explained my multiple times, your inability to comprehend or understand is your problem, we can't fix your attitdue, maybe you need an atittude adjument from Dr. Cena, but there is nothing we can do. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Whatever the circumstances, all editors involved in content changes need to explain themselves clearly. If they're incapable of explaining their thought processes in a manner that makes sense to other editors, they really have no business editing. I've found myself regularly veering away from this genre of article simply because the information is shambolic, overemphasises trivia, and is plain confusing for the reader. The only way in which I've been able to untangle the subject is by reading the sources carefully because the information conveyed in the article seems barely related! When one tries discussing the content, it's greeted by paranoia and abuse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

They have explained themselves long ago, before you started edit warring and bringing your negative vibe to the article, why should they serve you and explain things toward when you are not willing to do any ounce of good work. Of course because anyone trying to improve the article must be give the little Iryna an abuse. It must really hurt your feeling to edit articles and destroying them Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Stop this childish behaviour. I don't have 'hurt' feelings: I'm actually extremely angry because you have a history of being extremely abusive towards other editors on every article you work on, and that is detrimental to Wikipedia above and beyond anything any editor can bring to the articles of value. Writing walls of text about how much you hate this or that editor, bad vibes, and personal abuse is a waste of everyone's time and energy in trying to establish why content is added or removed. Where have you explained the removal of Banu Qaynuqa section even once, much less "multiple times" ( [sic]), and where have "they" explained it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: > on every article you work on
You always resort to lies. You need to stop lying, and every time I catch you lying you always cry that it is a personal attack, when you are personally attacking me first with this so called "Misinformation"
>and that is detrimental to Wikipedia above and beyond anything any editor can bring to the articles of value.
What did you expect when I brought my valuable work and have Hebel decide to be deleted and you join him, this is all you and Hebel's fault, so don't cry wolf. When people don't like both of you tag-traming effort. Now I have let your edits slide, because once I revert them you are going to cry and call more people to help you in your Crusade. WONDERFUL
>Writing walls of text about how much you hate this or that editor, bad vibes, and personal abuse is a waste of everyone's time and energy in trying to establish why content is added or removed
I have the right to criticize bad editors like you who have nothing else but to ruin articles in Wikipedia and not only that your attitude of removal content that other editors who have worked hard to find and provide valuable contribution to Wikipedia. For you is walls of text, for me it is not.
>Where have you explained the removal of Banu Qaynuqa section even once, much less "multiple times" ( [sic]), and where have "they" explained it?
I told you I removed it because I added by mistake, how many times should I explain to you, seriously how much does your brain operate at this moment. You need to show respect to the other editors that you have been targeting, they have explained in the summary of their edits. And I have agreed with them Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jamala

Hi,

I would like to ask why exactly was my edit undone? The reason why I removed it was because the source is not in English at all, but the sentence was however mentioned in an English wikipedia page of Jamala. Readers who don't speak Armenian could never then check if the source is reliable or true. Hope you understand my action. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• understand DavidThomson1997 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And As I see now that sometimes non-English sources are allowed, I would like to ask why this non-English source was allowed. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a beginner at Wikipedia so if You would like to answer, I also have another question,let me know if you want to answer that one too, thank you. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DavidThomson1997. Yes, I do understand your rationale, however many articles are based on sources not available online, and verifiability is not contingent on the reader's ability to access the source.

I used Google translate on the article cited, but I don't know Armenian and the translation is not clear on what exactly she says about the relationship. As this is a WP:BLP, and the source is an interview (she is talking about herself), I think it best that we ask an Armenian speaker to verify that the article actually says what it purports to say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as the source isn't very translated correctly don't we have the right to take it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take it to the talk page of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I also have another question, when there are contents on wikipedia with the source saying "cituation needed" can you also remove it then?or is that not allowed? Or must there first happen something? Thank you.

And thank you for removing the content, thank you for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, if you're referring to this removal, I've already seen it and am letting it stand because I've checked sources for this in the past, but consider it to be WP:SYNTH. Yes, there have been some references to the Armenian genocide as having influenced the 'final solution', but they're hardly consistent with any general consensus amongst historians. Where there are 'citation needed' tags, it's best to treat these individually and with discretion. The Armenian Genocide article is an extremely contentious one, and is subject to Arbitration Committee sanctions. I've found that best practice for any articles, let alone contentious ones, is to follow Bold → Revert → Discuss. As a pre-emptive move, it's wisest to open a new section on the talk page of the article and explain why you removed the content that was tagged. The fact that I haven't reverted your removal doesn't mean that another editor won't chose to revert. Be prepared to follow up with good faith, WP:CIVIL arguments for removal of the content, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining to me dear! If I have any more questions in the future I hope I can always ask it to you? You're the first Wikipedia editor who helped me. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, DavidThomson1997. You're welcome to ask for assistance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, well my question now is how can I mention your name here? So that you will get a singal? And my second question is, sombebody modified a link, and when there are links to content which are expired, for example the news article is deleten, what can I do best for the situation? Thank you! Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@DavidThomson1997: Please take a look at Template:Reply to and Template:User link. They're a good starting point for learning some simple wiki markup.

Don't delete dead links as most of them can be salvaged: see WP:ROT. You might want to experiment with methods of finding archived captures, but it's best to start from learning how to create a citation to a reference so that you understand how markup parameters and syntax work, so start with Help:Referencing for beginners. When you're starting out, the best method for for trial and error experimentation is using your own sandbox so as you don't accidentally damage citations in existing articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy Thank you! Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I know I removed an earlier section about this from your page, as I noticed you are busy in real life, but I would like to bring to your notice an ANI notice I placed here. Leave it to your leasure if and when you want to look at this. Advice? Don't even consider it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: It was a necessary move. The latest 'communication' with you, alone, demonstrates the WP:HARASS and WP:NOTHERE attitude. Seriously, "Watch your mouth, son. I don't have to repeat myself again, I already told you and it's done deal. No go do your business." would be so offensive as to leave me gob-smacked... except for the fact that this has been an ongoing behavioural pattern by the editor. Everyone who doesn't agree with him is a liar who lies about him, the content, and anything else that comes to mind at that moment in time.

I need to organise my thoughts and find some relevant diffs, but I'll add a comment to the ANI as soon as possible. I think that you need to go through a couple of the links you provided there as they don't appear to point to the rights diffs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Take your time Iryna, I hadn't noticed you were busy when I posted the first notice. Which I then retracted, for which Ivanov thanked me! But you are absolutely right about the fact that it was his latest communication that triggered this ANI action by me, and so I posted here again. I had basically deleted and archived his comments before I thought the better of it and got that remark. Puzzling is that he still hasn't told me what his actual complaint is. He seems to think I should just guess. That's not a game I'm in for. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Thanks, I will look at the diffs I provided there. That's what you get for typing in perceived haste..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The diffs should be ok now. Turns out I started typing comma's in places where I should have typed spaces, which messes the whole thing up.. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't know how to add beer, cookies, stars or stuff like that. I'll have to learn that another day, but you are welcome to all of them. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I don't know if you noticed but I added some text pertaining to the situation that is now going on on Ivanov's talkpage and the Lithuania article, somewhere in between on the ANI page, under your earlier comment. In a way this is an ongoing situation now. Which makes me feel justified now to ask for a block. Which I did. Gerard von Tweedledum (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I know I'm not any good at this but just a thought; Perhaps it's better to ignore any "incoming incidents" until this thing on ANI is over. Unless they're really unavoidable of course. As enough has been brought to that table. Easy for me to say because I won't be anywhere near a computer or other device tomorrow, but I'll just be answering questions from admins and other third parties for the time being. You should choose what you do of course... but for me it's better to just watch what happens and see how that works and act later. I'll let you know how that goes and I'll be happy to hear any comment you may have! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Quite right. The 'incident' erupted unexpectedly and has caused even more confusion on the article. I'm just going to try to avoid the crossing of paths and continue with fixing article refs where link rot has set in. Have a good break away from the computer! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna! Remember there will always be time to edit another day. Big eye or not. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Back from my day in the outback of the Netherlands. As it's a small country it didn't take me much time to return to my computer. I have seen how things developed and what you and others wrote. I have placed an opinion on ANI, supporting the option "try mentoring first". I expressed my skepticism however, but if there can come some good out of that... I can't really stand in the way I think. I know and understand that the hatch is supported by others. But that can also be wielded another day. We're none the less for trying. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon is very strict about mentoring, Hebel. If AI can't recognise failures in his behaviour, and is unable to modify that behaviour, it will become apparent very quickly. If mentoring fails, he'll be blocked. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Iryna. I see that this is on the road now. Well, let's hope this will do some good for Ivanov and the community at large. I certainly and sincerely hope it will. Thanks again! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

'Its extremely disruptive - this account need to be blocked'

I replied to your ridiculous over the top-ness at the page where these things are brought up. 'Extremely disruptive'/ 'Needs to be blocked'. Really. I will try very very hard Iryna, just for your peace of mind, to never edit a talk page, or add a link to a BBC article, or a Human Rights Watch report, on a talk page ever again. Must be very disturbing and 'disruptive' for you I'm sure. As I said elsewhere I don't ever bother with reading wikipedia on Ukraine or Syria because its too likely to be written by adherents of global research or RT or consortium news.com or some such nonsense and only ever very occasionally added a sentence or two to a talk page. I'm so sorry this extremely disrupted wikipedia. FFS. (Why don't you lot just ignore my occasional sentences on talk pages ? what do you think will happen? That I will add more and more and more? I won't. Absurd).

Thought for the day: 'Every time a Russian politician references Europe & Nazis they should preface it with the words Molotov & Ribbentrop.' 92.3.6.54 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Retain for archiving purposes +add this SPI entry in order to easily identify the user's behavioural and writing style. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My 'behavioural' style might be different if you addressed me as a person and not as some kind of disease. All I did was add a sentence on the talk page you know. That was all. And then the provoking started - why is that? 92.3.6.54 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You are a banned user who evidently doesn't understand why they were blocked in the first instance. You still don't understand that blocks are not handed out indiscriminately, nor that your WP:ADVOCACY is disruptive to the community. I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend that talk pages are not a forum or blog where you are welcome to express your own personal views on subject matter. You will never be unblocked if you continue to make personal attacks and conduct lengthy tirades on who you believe to be an 'evil' Wikipedian and who is a 'nice' Wikipedian. All editors have their personal opinions, but being unable to detach yourself from your opinion makes for a terrible editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence about incendiary munitions on a talk page - as possible content for the article. That is not treating the page as a blog. Or forum. I do not advocate on wikipedia - I am very biased for certain trends and am aware of this but have not added any content to articles in that spirit that was not justified by RS. Or indeed added any content to an article since I was banned. 92.3.6.54 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

92.3.5.54, the WP community is permeated with discrimination against IP users. I've also had my discussions with this piece of work. Don't expect too much. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And I don't expect anything. Anything 'nice' I mean. 92.3.6.54 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using my talk page for bewailing your non-discriminatory treatment. You can both empathise with each other elsewhere. One of you is a blocked editor WP:EVADEing their block; the other an equally WP:BATTLEGROUND contributor who has no idea of how to discuss content with other editors without starting by throwing tantrums. Both of you treat Wikipedia as if it were YouTube. If you don't have the requisite skills to edit responsibly, and show no signs of attempting to learn how to contribute, or take the most fundamental niceties on board, you are going to keep bashing your heads against the wall you've constructed yourself. The community will feel no sympathy towards rude, abusive editors who can't even concede that they have behaved aggressively towards other editors over and over again. The one thing you do have in common is your conviction that editors hold some form of grudge against you, personally!!?? I beg your pardon, but how does that logically with the fact of editing under your IP? There are hundreds of IPs who edit constructively, know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines inside-out, and are valued members of the community. Having a moniker and account vs editing without an account does not influence judgement calls by other editors as to your efficacy as an editor: it is a user's behaviour that is judged. Neither of you know how to behave like reasonable human beings towards other editors, and no editor should, or will, tolerate intolerable abuse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You have an insane measure of what is 'intolerable'. If I don't now how to edit how come all my work on Therese of Lisieux, Animal Farm, The Road to Wigan Pier, Jean Simmons, still stands? Because I do know how to edit. There, my self important tone can almost rival yours. Not quite, Thats too high , your self important tone. I just got banned because it suited certain editorial 'tendencies' to get rid of my editing, mainly because I clashed with a series of SPAs who were vandals. - I just added an anecdote btw to An Englishman Abroad, - better run off howling to delete it - this EVADE of a ban is utterly intolerable, shocking, absolutely disgraceful. Blah, blah, blah. btw you've accused us of throwing tantrums, bashing our heads against a wall we constructed, not knowing how to behave, being rude, abusive, incompetent, paranoid etc . None of this is a 'personal attack' , not because it isn't aggressively rude and hostile, but because you know how to play the game. Well done. Happy editing, Harpy. You'll be decades on this site with your high intelligence and 'skills'.92.3.18.114 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just had to point out, in respect with your first comment, it is not Russians today that are to blame for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was conceived of by Stalin and if you want to blame anyone it should be him, not every single Russian politician forever, even if they were not born at the time. Also I feel that it is neccisary to also point out that if it was not for the pact then the Soviet Union would have been unable to beat the Germans in the Second World War and it would be most likely that Nazi Germany would still exist today. The pact gave Stalin the chance to finish his purges and rebuild his military to be able to combat and eventualy beat the far superior German military. Stalin was evil. He killed millions of his own people, but his brief rule of the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, much better than an indefinite Nazi and Japanese occupation of Europe, Asia and Africa. And even if you ignore all of this your point is irrelivent. Politicians today in Russia mostly despise facism and nazism. It does not matter if people who lived 80 years ago in the same country did not share the same view as they do today (which they actually did anyway). Based off your assumption is it also wrong that German politicians today denounce the actions of the Nazis because Germany was ruled by the Nazis ~80 years ago? Do you see my point? When the Russian state media and politicians liken western countries to the Nazis they are usualy exsaggerating to demonise the west. Nobody is denying that, but implieing that they themselves are hypocrites and even nazi-sympathists is ridiculous and has no relivence to this discution.

You also claim that all articles on Ukraine and Syria are pro-Russian. To that I say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbass. Here are 2 good examples of articles on Syria and Ukraine that clearly are not writted by pro-Russian sources. I could list probaly every article on wikipedia as well but honestly I don't have the time for that. Your assumption that most articles in these fields are "written by adherents of global research or RT or consortium news.com or some such nonsense" is just false. Feel free do provide me with some examples of said 'bias' articles but with current evidence, to me it sounds as if you may be more bias yourself. Generic User (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

M-P pact was conspiracy to commit war of aggression. It allowed Hitler to occupy Poland, France and suddenly attack Soviet Union. Stalin ruled a lot longer than Hitler and killed more people than Hitler. Were German people responsible for Nazism? It is generally accepted that the answer is "yes". By the same logic, people who support Stalin and his ideological successors right now (more than 50% of population in Russia) are responsible for the current politics of Russia. BTW, more that 1,500 pages in WP are linked to page RT (TV network), although this is usually good linking. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: evader self-identified as User:Sayerslle. Retaining section for future identification by style. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Philip Karber and General Breedlove

Hi Iryna, I was reading this report from the intercept: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/

And was sure I recognized the academic "Philip Karber" from somewhere. I thought it might be in Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), but a search brought nothing, until I checked this article we cite in the lead: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/11/thousands-of-putin-s-troops-now-in-ukraine-analysts-say.html

I think it's significant because Karber was working with Breedlove on this project. Anyway thought you might be interested. -Darouet (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Menagerie straight out of Dr. Strangelove. More theories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Second look

Hello. I haven't been very active as an editor for a while, and noticed that those editors with whom I would regularly collaborate on Ukraine related topics have mostly gone silent. I came across your work and was wondering if I could trouble you to take a look at an article: Andrij Dobriansky? Twice now it has been edited in what I consider a deletionist viewpoint. Even though there are obvious typos throughout his work, since this was done by an experienced editor, I'd like another perspective. Thank you! tufkaa (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Tufkaa. I've added the article to my watchlist and will take a look ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I believe I have been very respectful of you and the least I requested is the same towards me. I am not clutching at straws (I just learned this expression, I give you credit for it) as there is no futility in my acts, and sorry for my lack of reasonable cognitive skills or if my replies sounded unintelligent and illogical or as WP:BLUDGEON tactics. What is particular with the talkpages, is that unlike the articles, they are not temporary as changes remain there to be judged by their value in the years to come. But be careful the next time before making bold claims of long time consensus, when it was only recently the ranges have been removed to be changed with up to [11] to then be changed with the current wordings [12] (2 months ago). But this is not the same with German Wikipedia [13] which still kept ranges, or even French Wikipedia with a lower estimate [14]. I will remain silent to any more accusations you might be coming up as my advocacy on that page just ended, this time for good. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yahya Talatin: My sincerest apologies. I work on so many controversial articles that I sometimes forget when changes were made, so my thanks for reminding me of how recent a change to the content this was. I noticed it at the time and was waiting for other responses as I thought it a little too bold. The problem was that you entered the talk page with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards established Wikipedians instead of coming straight to the point and courteously explaining which edit you objected to and initiate a discussion about that without implying bad faith on behalf of the other editors working on it. My greatest interest in the article is to act as a moderator between editors who have an emotional investment in the content without stirring up more grief (although, if you check through the talk page, you'll see that I've raised a few hackles there before).

I do see sense in your argument now that you've put it into perspective using the diff. This has now created a whole new series of tensions in an egregious article. Personally, I'm going to reintroduce the diff and query it again in a day or two. I have enough experience to know that, if I were to jump in immediately with the query, I'm going to paint myself into a corner with other editors who have taken a stronger stance on the change, and that's going to lead to edit warring. Please allow me a little time to think on the matter and how best to initiate a fresh discussion as to the range and how best to ask uninvolved editors to caste an eye over the changes in the most diplomatic manner I can. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit being abrasive, but I think the main problem is my limited ability to express myself. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that it can be difficult, but it's best to try to work at tempering how you interact with other editors. That's why the golden rule revolves around commenting on content and not contributor per WP:NPA. Remember that you're often dealing with other editors who are possibly even more abrasive than yourself, but who have more experience and a standing in the community. Starting out by targeting individuals and getting their backs up is going to put you at a disadvantage from the outset. As you've noted yourself, article talk pages are highly visible and the worst thing you can do is be visibly antagonistic. Leave that kind of behaviour for others and you'll make them look bad instead of yourself. Editing is a difficult learning curve as it is, but starting from the most controversial articles means that you really need to keep a check on yourself lest you overstep the line, particularly when other experienced editors who just keep their eye on these types of articles have been exposed to the same fights, the same content, the same everything being replayed week after week, month after month, year after year. Sometimes, it's better to let things go for the moment as it's an ongoing project, and articles don't have to be perfect this very moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, particularly for pointing me to the Golden Rule. It is sometimes difficult to dismiss what are part of our human nature and remain unaffected by what others post. The key is to distance oneself from any subject in a way to not contaminate it with our personal thoughts. The only way this is really achievable is to separate the person who does possess the knowledge and the person who express it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I replied to Armen comment in the article. Your input would provide guidance. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, noted. I'm just thinking on how best to start up a civil dialogue. I'll make some noises soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)