User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 37

This is a lot so please bear with it

The current template has many issues. Apart from the disputed inclusion of Central Asians and Caucasusians there are also micro-errors and micro-ommissions. Several Chinese ethnicities and the Tamil people are excluded in the sections for Malaysian American and Singaporean Americans despite the existence of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians and Singaporean Chinese and Singaporean Indians and the Tamil language being official in Singapore and also Mandarin Chinese. Punjabi Mexican Americans should be group together with Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans and while the several miltiracial ethnicities should also be together. Taiwanese Americans should also include other Chinese ethnicities. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also Sindhi Americans are also Indian Americans not just Pakistani Americans and Pashtun Americans are also Afghan Americans. The only stuff that were being discussed were about Armenian Americans and Iranian Americans, who are presumed to be European Americans but the other stuff don't seem to be disputed. The person disputing this did not comment on Malysians just gave a vague "bogus" comment so it is unknown what their opinion is. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shhhhwwww!!: I've left a response on the template's talk page so that we can discuss it further with other editors involved in the content. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Shhhhwwww!!. My apologies for not following up on this as yet. I'm just leaving this note to let you know that I haven't forgotten that this is worthy of a discussion (and some sort of WP:CONSENSUS formed on the specific template page as to how best to structure the template is needed), but I'm still hopping on and off the computer at a moment's notice due to other 'stuff' happening in real life. Keep well, and don't get disparaged! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice on United Russia

Hello, a while ago you removed ideology and political positions from the article as there was no sourcing, however still, this has been re-added and keeps on being changed without any sourcing at all. Mellk (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mellk. Thanks for the heads up. I've responded on the article's talk page. If it continues, I'll apply for page protection, but the editing is so sporadic that it's most likely to be rejected at this point. If there's one more such addition within the next couple of days and I don't respond by reverting it, please notify me. Unfortunately, I'm about to embark on the final steps of my home move and my internet infrastructure is literally being transferred on Wednesday (3 May). In other words, with everything else that has to be done, I might not be in a position to do any work on Wikipedia for a week or more. Given that Jim1138 has this on his watchlist, I'm wondering if it would be too much of an imposition to ask that he actively intervenes on all our behalves. Would you mind keeping your eye out, Jim1138? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't on my watch list; I did a string of "unsourced" reverts. It is on now. Mellk "Centrism" and "conservatism" are mentioned in the body with rather self-published sources. As I don't have much opinion on the matter, I'll leave up to you. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138 and Mellk: As an FYI, I've applied for indefinite pending changes here. I don't have time to check on the sourcing in the body, so I'll leave it up to you to inform me (or, better yet, comment on it on the article's talk page) as to the calibre of the sourcing, Mellk. You do understand that, should my request be accepted, it will preclude you from anything other than reverting pending changes before an editor with pending changes authorisation makes a decision, don't you.

As regards the sourcing, it all comes down to Stephen White and possibly Thomas F. Remington's opinions (but no page numbers from either texts are cited), and being the brainchild of some academics in the field doesn't mean that Developments in Russian Politics is a high calibre publication. I don't have access to either issue, so I can't even verify whether the content is correct. It's all looking a bit spurious to me. What has caught my attention is that Richard Sakwa is one of the three editors. Hmm. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Demographics of Ukraine

You left me a message on my page after my message on the talk page of Demographics of Ukraine. Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. I pointed out there is a gross contradiction within the article, and no mention of the fact that official statistics are falsified (The 2 are related: a reasonable estimate contradicts the falsified figures). That was my way of suggesting there should be mention of this falsification and of the contradiction. I'm not sure how it wasn't clear. Н Француз (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Н Француз. My apologies if I misunderstood the brunt of your comment. It was couched in a lot of (shall we call it) colourful language... Okay, I'll take a look at the additional comments you've made on the article's talk page as soon as I can. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (Serbian military role in Syria)

Here are a few srspskih military participation srpskjih military forces in Syria. --Baba Mica (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Serbia participated last year announced after Palmira in mining, but the offensive ISIL in December that everything returns to the beginning. This ended in disaster. --Baba Mica (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Question

Hey Iryna, I have a question. If a reliable secondary source (or sources) that is not linked to the Syrian government would report on a pro-government allegation, would it be ok then to include that allegation? Of course we would attribute the allegation to the original pro-government source. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, EkoGraf, but the hypothetical is a little too vague to form an absolute response to. Are you talking about a-M? If so, context is everything. We have RS attributing breaking news and spurious revelations all the time, but do not include the information in the content of articles for good reason. The converse may also be true. Could you be more specific, please? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Address arguments to the discussion

Iryna Harpy, please address your arguments to the facts and policy, not to me, my intent, or my motivation. I am concerned by language you have chosen to use in [talk page edit]. In particular: "...don't try to conflate..." "do not resort to winging it " "Such development is WP:ADVOCACY" "Trying to spin-doctor it" "our objective is not, and has never been, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." "Whatever our personal political proclivities" You do not know my intentions or motivations or political procliviites. And you are not a mind reader. Some of this stuff is insulting. You've been around long enough to know to direct your discussion to the article, not the person. Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Jd2718, these were observations about what is fitting for an article, not WP:PERSONAL. I'm sorry if you took this to be a personal affront but, if you read my observations carefully, you should be able to make the distinction. Secondly, please read the entire civility policy carefully, paying particular attention to WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, as well a WP:CRUSH. There have been CRUSH techniques deployed on multiple articles surrounding events in Syria where a-M has been used contrary to WP:RS policy... and this has been carried across to the development of the article on Masdar itself. As editors, we are not in an ideal situation of being physically in a room together where we can workshop and discuss issues, meaning that we need to stick to the content issues at hand and be terse about them on article talk pages. As a consequence, we need to accept that we can't take everything on board as being condescending towards us (personally). As I noted in my comment, I understand you to be a good faith editor. I'm not quite sure as to what else your expectations of me (wearing my 'editor' hat) are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please direct your discussion towards the article, and not the editor. We can go through line by line if you like, because no matter your actual intent, you have in fact strung together a series of, imho, ill-founded accusations. Did I "try to conflate" something? Did I resort to "winging it"? Am I engaged in wp:advocacy? Have I "spin-doctored"? I am not trying to read your tone; I am reading your words. Why don't you reread and think it over. Jd2718 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jd2718: Could we please just agree to disagree about the intent behind my comment. I don't want this to escalate into a falling out with you as I am of the strongly of the conviction that you are a intelligent, neutral editor. What I disagree with is your interpretation of IAR as regards the content of the article. I'll respond to you on the article's talk page ASAP. My internet connection is being (virtually) physically moved to my new home in a couple of hours, and the signal strength is dropping out right now, so I'm not even sure of whether it'll be gone before I post this. I'm not certain as to how long I'll be incommunicado for, but will hopefully be back on board some time in the next few days. Much to do. Happy editing until then! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Since you were the first of the more experienced Wikipedians I came across during my time as a contributor to this encyclopedia, I wholeheartedly believe that you deserve this. Time and time again you have shown me kindness, helped me to better understand Wikipedia and how it works, as well as being an overall fantastic editor who has made this website a better one for everyone. A huge thank you and best wishes, --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I think you may be interested in the North Slavs article that I recently created. If you do check it out at some point, feel free to share your POV on my talk page (you can be as unencyclopedic as you like there, I'm interested in your personal views on this). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Samotny Wędrowiec! It's always a pleasure to work with you. As for the 'North Slavs' article, I'll add it to my watchlist. As I have pressing commitments IRL, it may take a few weeks before I can take the time to look over it, but I'll certainly do so as soon as is possible. Keep up your good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and yeah, I figured as much considering the header at the top about moving. :) I hope it goes as smoothly and stress-free as possible, good luck --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

José Janene

Hi, it's not unsourced and it's not an assumption, it's mentioned on a source (source number 12) on his article that he was buried at the Cemitério Islâmico de Londrina (Islamic Cemetery in Londrina). This is the exact source: https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/youssef-enviou-1-bilhao-para-exterior-14001740

It says:

'Janene, cardiopata, morreu indiciado no processo do mensalão, antes da sentença. Quando foi enterrado no Cemitério Islâmico de Londrina, na terça-feira 14 de setembro de 2010, seus negócios com Costa e Youssef já estavam fracionados entre caciques do PP, do PT e do PMDB.'

I don't disagree the section may be redundant though, so it's fair enough to remove it.

PMLF (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PMLF. My apologies for the revert, and thanks for clarifying that it was actually sourced. I do think, however, that a notables list is WP:OFFTOPIC for Islam in Brazil. The same is applicable for articles on any religious group in a nation-state, and I'm not aware of any parallel articles having such lists. If you're aware of any, please let me know as I'd like to go WP:BOLD and delete them as being redundant. Conversely, if you do feel that they're relevant, feel free to leave a comment on the article's talk page in order to gauge consensus. I didn't bother to do so because the section was atypical for such articles, therefore justification is redundant. Nice to meet you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems this is done mostly via separate lists, like List of Druze, List of Latin American Jews or List of American Muslims. Maybe a similar list should be created regarding Brazilian Muslims, with sources for each case.PMLF (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are enough to create a separate list, and they are well sourced (as in self-identification), I have no objections to such a list. The prominent issue, to my mind, is that their religious and cultural self-identification should be clear. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that I'm leaving

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsXx236 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: We shall see. There are no foregone conclusions... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin intervention?

I'm going way for a long holiday weekend and don't have time to do this now, but do you think it might be time to as for intervention in the case of the disruptions at the Blue Army (Poland). I'm at the point where a topic ban might be helpful.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Faustian: Given that the article has been seriously edit warred, and that there's obviously no evidence of WP:CCC since the RfC, I'd say that it's one for the AE should the battleground party act to remove content one more time (although the case is ripe for the plucking should you wish to report them). I don't think that the ANI is a good venue as it's likely to draw in a lot of opinion from other POV editors and turn into a fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

chileans

Why you reverted edit made by me and leave the inaki salazar one??? those edits have a link or page to read???? he move my contribution, even deleted my link WITH a PROPERly reference, its a joke??? you are a moderator??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.253.9 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mixing sources and creating WP:SYNTH. The references used for the percentages are attributed to other sources, and the source you have introduced is not properly attributed. If you have issues with the current content, take your arguments and source to the talk page of the article. Note, also, that the article is not about DNA studies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Destroyed Heritage in Russia

Hello! I'd like to expand an existing article. Here is a list of destroyed churches in the Soviet Union (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8E). I think it should be mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.70.30 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Привет вам, IP 91.157.70.30! Да, я соглашаюсь с вами. I fully understand what it is that you wish to add, but it is actually a very, very long list of cultural/historical buildings under the Soviet regime. In fact, the majority of the destruction took place during that era (probably more than wars and invasions for hundreds of years beforehand!). I think that it should be set up as a separate list (entitled 'List of Destroyed Heritage in the Soviet Union', or something to that effect). This would be broken down into all of the Soviet Republics with the subsections on the List of destroyed heritage carrying a hatnote for 'See also' (although most of the destruction took place during the Soviet era, therefore the hatnote would be to the 'Main article').

I'll take a look at the Russian article and see what I can do in making a good start on a list article for English language Wikipedia by working on Russia before I start developing a broader article to include all of the satellite states. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Demographics of Ukraine

Hello. I am Belal. I deleted the sentence - The total population including those territories is 44,882,411[5] cuz we cannnot add Crimean+Sebastopolis population (2017) to Ukrainian ppulation (2017). For example, it was ~383900 people in 2014 and 428700 in 2017.This people moslty came from Russia (or they wer born under Rus jurisdiction. They have no any relations to Ukraine. The same with Crimea. Maybe we can add Criamean+Sebastopolis population (2014) to Ukrainian population (2017)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.27.105 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

History of the Donets Basin

Hello, Iryna!

You reverted my edits on some pages. I'd like to explain why you should not have done this. I read on you page that you can speak Russian and Ukrainian, so I am going to give you some links in Russian or Ukrainian if you don't mind.

The Donets–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic can't be named after Donetsk, because the city got its today's name only in 1961 [1]. As you can see on Russian Wikipedia, one of the name is "Республика Донецкого и Криворожского (в некоторых документах — Криворогскаго) бассейнов". The word донецкий has different meaning: river, region, oblast, city. In this case, it was named after the Donets Basin.

Now, let's talk about its flag. [2] That flag – which is used on the page – is not the flag of the republic. This is the flag of a pro-Russian separatist organization from the 90s, so-called Intermovement of the Donets Basin (Russian: Интердвижение Донбасса). They just modified the flag of the Ukrainian SSR.

“ Флаг придумали мы с братом. И сошлись на нем довольно быстро, исходя из контекста всеукраинской идеологической борьбы. Дело в том, что к периоду незалежности боролись две концепции — либо принять в качестве символа Украины петлюровско-скоропадский сине-желтый флаг, либо же оставить красно-синий флаг УССР (пусть даже без звезды и серпа с молотом). <…> К красно-синему мы добавили черную полоску, символизирующую уголь нашего края. Это и стало знаменем Интердвижения, под которым мы устраивали все митинги. <…> Позже организация «Донецкая республика» перевернула наш флаг и добавила двуглавого орла. ” — Владимир Корнилов, http://ukraina.ru/interview/20151118/1014858890.html

Why did you delete the Russian name of the river? On all other similar pages there are only lesser coat of arms. So, what is wrong with WP:POV on the page? Here you wrote that it's WP:OR. Well, one can check it: [3], [4], [5]

Regards,

Ιγκόρ (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You did it again. Why? What other evidence do you need? — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ιγκόρ: Please take these individual content concerns to the talk pages of each article. You're mixing and matching various issues in one breath. The best venue for such discussion is article talk pages. It's not me you have to convince, it's other editors and the Wikipedia community by en masse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

It seems that Wikipedia attracts people with problems, who are happy to bash me. User:Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: You're welcome! It was an unfortunate outcome, but I hope that won't stop you from working on the many articles not directly related to 'Soviet' topics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Irreligion in Albania

Could you explain specific complaints as for what is OR? I believe most of what I had in there was fairly cited. --Yalens (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: I'm about to log off for the day (although I'll try to find time to get back to this issue specifically before tomorrow). There was potentially some useful content introduced, but the general overview of the new content was a breach of WP:NOR. I'll get back to you on the article's talk page so that we can go through the material and develop the article constructively ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert on June 9 2017.

Hello. This is a message regarding your recent revert of my edit(my recent contributions) to List of most common surnames in Asia. I understand your point that forebears.io may not be a reliable source. Nevertheless, that is the reference used(forebears.co.uk is used but they are the same thing) for each and every other item on the list. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindreddy96 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aravindreddy96. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. There are actually a few reasonable reliable sources for some of the country entries, but I hadn't realised how many were using this self-published source. For the moment, I've tagged the article for better, reliable sources so that other editors have an opportunity to find better sources. If there is no activity for a while, I'll have to start removing the unreliably sourced entries. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain then

Why is Ukrainian crisis tagged with the {{EngvarB}} template, but the {{British English}} (or similar) template is inappropriate?

They serve similar purposes. The first template is to tell bots which spelling to use for making corrections in the article and the second template is to state the spelling variety to clarify to viewers on the talk page. Thanks, --Finlayson (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: I've just left a note on this on your talk page. I hope it's clarified matters. EngvarB is not the same as British English, and there is no corresponding 'variant' template for tagging the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your note, thanks. Just wanted to fix that template above to clean-up. --Finlayson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A nationalist user pushing nationalistic POV and removing article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Note for own reference: Resolved here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

'Overciting'

It does not make sense to say: estimates range from 5-10 (while other estimates range from 3-16). It has nothing to do with overciting, it's just not proper. Just make the range include ALL the numbers, or just leave it how it is now. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Berberine

Thanks for your help. I am novice in Wikipedia. But the note I left pertaining berberine is correct. I will be glad if you explain me where is the "vandalism"Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz: Apologies if I gave you a scare by using a standard template for tampering with another user's own page. I would encourage you to read the links I provided, paying particular attention to WP:NOBAN. If you wish to engage with the user regarding your thoughts on the matter, you should try to initiate a discussion on the subject on their talk page. User pages are the user's own space, not someone else's space (regardless of whether you believe yourself to be correct or not). Should Cutesolar be amenable to your adding to their personal page, then there is no problem: but always ask first. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

russian armed forces: since you are involved in editing the page, can you please help explain?

[6] my edit was in good faith according to the user who reverted me and the user wanted to discuss, but i cannot find his responce. since you are involved(you have been editing this article and you are russia related articles) can you please explain why my edit got reverted? 83.185.80.173 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

we cannot use an outdated incorrect number with one source while there is a real correct current number with several sources, per consistency do you see any other case in wikipedia? 83.185.80.173 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

the new sources contradict the old outdated incorrect one 83.185.80.173 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

why must the old number be stuck? 83.185.80.173 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on the article's talk page where you've duplicated this query. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Moldovan SSR Anthem

Hi Iryna! My name is "DeroVolk". I'm one of the people from Youtube that helped to find the original lyrics of the Moldovan SSR Anthem. I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know very good how this stuff works. I was editing the MSSR Anthem page with new citations and checking the structure of the paragraphs and ortography but it seems that it is not "Neutral" enough. That is why I got a notification from you reversing the changes that I made (I think it was a generic message on my talk page. I answered it but I think that you didn't see it). Is there a problem? Thanks! DeroVolk (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your consistent sanity and civility above and beyond, please accept this small token of my appreciation. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Scaleshombre! I certainly aspire to live up to such high praise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Irreligion in Albania

Could you explain specific complaints as for what is OR? I believe most of what I had in there was fairly cited. --Yalens (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: I'm about to log off for the day (although I'll try to find time to get back to this issue specifically before tomorrow). There was potentially some useful content introduced, but the general overview of the new content was a breach of WP:NOR. I'll get back to you on the article's talk page so that we can go through the material and develop the article constructively ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's been quite awhile, not exactly ASAP. I understand if you're busy dealing with probably more serious issues (and that's really good). But I also think if you're going to delete 9000K+ of info with a lot of sources involved as OR by 'general overview' you really gotta explain what exactly the problem is so that it can be fixed, without also deleting tons of sources from the mainspace. I'm trying to improve the quality and informativeness of the page, and if I'm doing something wrong, I appreciate knowing actually what it is, everyone makes mistakes. If you want me to move the sandbox discussion to the article page of course that can be done-- sorry about having the discussion in my sandbox if that was an issue; I was impatient at that time and had info in my head I wanted to add. Also this convo got archived as I was replying (agh), so that's why it's now at the bottom again. In summation here are the changes I just made from your version [[7]]. Let me know what you think, especially if there are still issues. Hope this request isn't a bother. Cheers. --Yalens (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I am actually getting dragged back and forth for time, so I'm not going to waste your time asking you to hold off on a few changes to the content. I've inadvertently stalled you for ages, and I appreciate your patience in waiting on me. Please feel free to reintroduce your changes. Any tweaks or copy editing can wait, and Wikipedia is a long term project. It really isn't a matter of life and death if the article isn't perfect. We both have the article on our watchlist, so if I make any changes, you'll know... plus I'll ping you if I think they're dramatic enough to consult with you. By the way, "ouch"! Are you sure that wasn't a whale you whacked me with? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact it was a very special fish :). All that above sounds good, and it was perfectly understandable. Cheers, and best of luck with all the other stuff you're dealing with. --Yalens (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

'Disruptive Edits'

If you're going to threaten me with being blocked, I'd like you to point out which rule in Wikipedia specifies that one cannot modify the size of an infobox picture. Otherwise, it sounds like I'm having a few users dictate to me how to edit just based on their own opinion (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

@Emiya1980: No one is 'threatening' you, but you've been playing with the infobox picture of Joseph Stalin since June 28th (over and over again). In the meantime, actual content disputes and substantial changes to the content have been made, and your trying to work out whether you like it better at 220px, 240px, or 235px is disruptive to the reading of changes to the article's content proper. Article content takes precedence over images, and your last spate of edits was 5 variants on size: which cannot be understood to be constructive editing under any circumstances. Remember that you are working on an active, real time article space, not a sandbox. If you wish to experiment with image sizes or any other aspect of editing Wikipedia, by all means use your own sandbox, or use sandboxes specifically tailored to more complex aspects of editing (from tables to templates). Your sandbox options can be found along the right-hand side of the very top of the page: Talk → Sandbox → Preferences → Beta → Watchlist → etc. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

that guy...

...blugeons the process in every article he touches. Thank you for standing up to him. I keep him on my radar to keep him from wrecking Scout articles.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, Kintetsubuffalo. He's like a particularly bad tempered terrier with a bone. Editing is stressful enough when civil parties disagree, but there are always those who nitpick points because it's their way or no way. It's civil bullying, and I don't actually care whether it's good faith, intentionally designed to provoke incivility in responses, or a by-product of trying to prove that they're smarter than everyone else: it amounts to the same level of disruption. Please feel free to ping me should you need an extra pair of eyes/a third party on any articles he's disrupting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

White Latin Americans

Again for 3rd time in a row....Those quotes from Isabel Allende ara fake, she himself confirmed, here's the interview http://elcomercio.pe/luces/libros/isabel-allende-mario-vargas-llosa-encontro-mujer-formidable-436730

Isabel Allende: — Hay una frase tuya que circula mucho el redes: "El chileno tiene un complejo de hace mucho tiempo: racialmente quiere ser Argentino y culturalmente Peruano". ¿Es tanto así? ¡Esa frase no es mía! Hay varias frases que me atribuyen y son muy inteligentes, ojalá se me hubieran ocurrido a mí. Pero esa no es mía.

English "There is a phrase of yours that circulates the networks a lot: "The Chilean has a complex of long ago: racially wants to be Argentine and culturally Peruvian." Is it that much? That phrase is not mine! There are several sentences that attribute me and are very intelligent, I wish they had occurred to me. But that is not mine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.228.141 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding on the article's talk page where it belongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by user

Recently, user Chase Moylan has made a significant number of disruptive changes to many different articles, which are clearly vandalism, and he has been warned on his talk page only at the moment, so I'd highly appreciate if you could block him from all editing while I try to revert all his disruptive edits which haven't been reverted yet. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely, so no further action required here. Mellk (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mellk. I'm not a sysop/admin, so am not in a position to block anyone. Fortunately, an admin picked up on the account and has blocked the user. For future reference, the best place to report such activity is the WP:ANI, but thank you for picking up on the activity and making an attempt to report it. Your vigilance is greatly appreciated.

Do note, however, that you be careful to use the correct terminology when reporting single purpose accounts. Judging by the contribution history, this was not a WP:VANDAL account, but a POV pusher (WP:POVPUSH)/ disruptive editor (WP:DE) account. Please read the vandalism policy carefully, and make a note as to what is WP:NOT VANDALISM. Still, all's well that ends well! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Mellk (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian Interference

[8] - We are currently engaged in a discussion regarding this issue on the talk page. Feel free to add to the discussion about it there, but I am reverting your edit until a consensus has been reached. DN (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please pardon my revert

Several of the political articles experience near constant edit wars in the ledes and infoboxes. So, hidden text is used to express that hard-won consensus cannot be changed without Talk discussion. Not totally Kosher, but very common and accepted. Respectfully, Objective3000 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and Darknipples: The fact is that shouting in hidden text is still shouting, and utterly futile when a couple of months down the track the article is being edit warred over. The closer who added the hidden text may have been well intentioned, but jumped into the deep end of editing while still being highly inexperienced. Yes, I can appreciate the IAR argument, but hidden text messages of this nature tends to deter new editors unless they're WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:EVADE. I'll join in the discussion when I have a moment, but quite simply fail to see anything positive to be gained from maintaining the hidden message. As is evidenced by the ongoing warfare on any controversial articles, it is simply ineffectual. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah, I hate shouting in general. Just complained about that couple hours ago. But, it's hard to see hidden text without shouting.:) As for recent political articles, we don't have to wait a couple months down the road for edit-warring as unfortunately it's, more or less, a way of life. As well as trips to the drama boards. I welcome any discussion on alternative solutions. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: In my rather lengthy experience (uff, I'm a tragic wikipediaholic), it takes a couple of years for warring to settle on what are, essentially, current affairs subjects we skirt around pretending they're NOTNEWS when they actually are. After that, they fall off the usual editors' watchlist radars and are taken over by POVers (AKA trolls) from one side or the other. After all of the grief and blocks, articles become yesterday's news and shoddy articles become shoddier. You're welcome to keep the hidden text as I'm certainly not about to try to find consensus for keeping or deleting hidden text, but it ends up still sitting there years later attesting to edit wars. If editors aren't getting the point of the heavy sanctions on the article in simply trying to edit it, a line of shouting isn't about to deter POV warriors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(uff, I'm a tragic wikipediaholic.) Is that anything like Puff the magic dragon? I didn't put the text there; just restored it as such is not uncommon on controversial articles. And yes, POV-pushers and, to a lesser extent, those who think we're a 24-hour news channel are a problem on these articles. But, attrition rate is rather high as they are eventually blocked. (Two with opposite POV in the last few days.) Editing articles under discretionary sanctions can be like dancing the tango in a minefield. Thanks for the response. Objective3000 (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not an improvement?

Hello Iryna, you reverted my edit. Why do you think this was not an improvement? The sentence "The South Slavic alphabets (with the exception of Bulgarian) are generally derived from the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet" is factually incorrect, because this does not apply to those South Slavic languages that use the Latin alphabet. Of course, you and I both know what was meant here, but the simple fact that people started adding Slovene to the exceptions makes it clear that it is not obvious for everybody, hence my clarification. Please consider unreverting it. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@IJzeren Jan: Yes, I agree that it is an improvement, but the revert was AGF on my behalf. Your ES was extremely cryptic. Had you qualified the context for the change using a brief summary of your rationale (as per the above), it would have drawn my attention to the actual problem. Thanks for getting back to me to explain. It was, indeed, an error in judgement on my behalf! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I never doubted your good faith, by the way (in fact, I've "known" you for years, as I encounter you quite often on my watchlist), and you're quite right, my edit summary was a bit cryptic. I'll try to be more precise in the future! Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@IJzeren Jan: That's why I was confused. I know you're a skilled, sensible editor from our mutual collaboration over the years, so I was a little embarrassed to revert you. The main thing is that the issue has been cleared up, and that the content has been improved as a result. Keep up the good work (...and hello, how are you? I hope all is well with you and yours!). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, thank you for asking! I'm fine as always, even though I plan to extend my wikibreak a bit further. In the thirteen years I've been editing Wikipedia, it has always been like that: sometimes very active, sometimes practically inactive (although I've never given up the habit of checking my three dozens of watchlists at least once a day). Being a mod on NL, I feel kind of obliged to be more active than I am now, but to be honest, the constant bickering over there puts me off. All the best to you and yours! (hope to visit Ukraine again one day, it's been much too long)... Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The bickering on EN Wikipedia is also absolutely horrific. I try to keep my nose out of controversial articles, but I can't seem to help myself. Give yourself all of the wikibreaks you need: you deserve them. I've been slowing down my editing over this year due to IRL commitments, and I feel better for it. I think mods and long time editors of all descriptions function better when they're not under the constant stress and inevitable overreaction to everything the constant traffic and silly flare-ups induce. It's a long term project, and the only way to survive and actually constructively edit is to not break the sonic barrier! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's very well put! Let me wish you a lovely day! Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Percent of Mexico in White Latin Americans

Hello Iryna, I'm writing you to probably consider that the source used to establish that "47% of Mexicans were self-defined as white", in fact the document says that 64% of Mexicans were self-identify with brown skin (mestizo) and 15% with Light skin (white), the results can be found on page 42 or 43. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Issue has been addressed on the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at Soplica

Hi Iryna, I hope you've been well and not too stressed from moving. I would really appreciate your help at this page. Someone is either playing an unfunny joke on me or is seriously confused. Sorry for bothering you about this, but when there's abuse of power from privileged Wikipedians like this, I don't really have anyone else to turn to. Cheers. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, never mind, looks like he guy was just being weird about it and it was actually for a different page. No idea why he notified me about it on my talk though... Now he's upset that I "accused" him of this. People are strange heh. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec: By the time I checked on the problem, it was established that the user's notification was an error. Pretending that it was not his error, however, is inappropriate. I've left a comment on the relevant talk page. Why do people find it so difficult to simply apologise when they've made a mistake instead of turning it into a drama? Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Another set of eyes on an obscure subject?

I realize you are busy...It's an obscure topic, so another seasoned editor taking a look would be great. Someone tried to blank info here :[9]. I started a discussion about the removal. Any input would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Faustian: It may be a little on the obscure side, but it actually happens to be on my watchlist. I'm probably a bit obscure (or just obtuse)! I've responded on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User Zocklandy

Hi Iryna. After your revers of edits by this user, he has beem making more of the same. I have dropped him messages on his talk page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Rui Gabriel Correia, I'm a little tardy, but I'm responding on the article's talk page and reverting the user's latest round of edit warring now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

a reliable source

Hi, Iryna, you wrote to me: "you didn't provide a reliable source". I've provided reference to the Wiki article on Mikhail Epstein. Which other sources should be provided? Thank you, Markitin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markitin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing in Reconquista

Hi Iryna, hope you are doing well! As as follow-up to other edits in several articles, the IP editor 174.119 has made also a foray w unconstructive edits in Reconquista. S/he has been sufficiently warned, is there any way to stop by now this disruption quickly by an administrator? Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Iñaki LL. I've added the article to my watchlist, and your latest reverts seem to be holding. It seems that this user is going OR and POV on a number of articles in the subject area of history. They've not been constructive, but there aren't enough edits in their history to do much other than keep an eye on their 'contributions'. There also hasn't been enough activity to suggest that it's a blocked user, so it may well just be a boorish newbie who thinks that their position on any given subject - and long-winded edit summaries about how wrong the content they're changing is - is good editing practice. I'm going to go AGF on this one and push them to use article talk pages and, most importantly, familiarise themselves with policies and guidelines. They'll A) get bored; B) might set up an account and try to learn the ropes; C) keep pushing and get blocked for not being HERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I have met the editor before, his content approach is not something I can identify clearly w a certain profile, sometimes looks like another editor blocked, but it gives a bit of a headache anyway. Best, Iñaki LL (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Yes, it's frustrating. I'm also reminded of 2 blocked editors, but there isn't enough evidence yet. The tone of the edit summaries really makes me think it's one blocked editor in particular, but I wouldn't be able to tell unless he discussed something in more detail on one of the talk pages. Oh, well. As long as there's at least 2 of us watching, we'll be able to work it out if they keep editing... Best for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

FrankCesco26 is still editing despite being blocked

Hello Iryna. I just opened a sock investigation since I am almost sure that one of the IPs whose edits you recently reverted (Religion in Belgium) is FrankCesco26 bypassing his block. He also added a pie chart to Religion in Sweden with another IP, and there are possibly other edits made with further more IPs. These IPs edit from the exact location where FrankCesco26 once revealed to live, and they show the same editing pattern.--Wddan (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wddan. Yes, I've been watching the various articles he edits, and am aware of his 'soft' temporary block. I'm on medical treatment at the moment, and my energy levels are very low, but I'm keeping an eye on the situation. While he may be AGF to an extent, after the battleground mentality he has continued to display, the admin is being extremely lenient. Do keep me updated by pinging me (as you've been doing). I may not respond, but I'm ready to step in again should it be necessary. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor is an harasser

This user has misused 3 tags to harrass me with my edits, that are legitimate. One incident was NPOV, the other to NPA and a SOAP. The editor makes a point on their User page about being biased and puts the onus on others to prove each incident, rather than requiring its own behavior to be correct. I am going to escalate immediately to an administrator if this continues. Alamatp2 (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this editor trying to cover up my accusations of harassment? If you dispute what I say then prove each of your tags. Otherwise it's covering up your nefarious editing practices. Alamatp2 (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Retaining as a reminder of the editing style by this user, along with primary account as Alamatp (talk · contribs). Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Attached to above editor. Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Talk:Stefan Zweig.
Message added 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there, sorry to bother you but it looks like you haven't seen this, where your participation would be warmly welcomed! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Not a problem. I think I've made all of the necessary changes in both the body and refs. If you could quickly go through to ensure it's all dmy compliant, I'd appreciate it. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks so much. I will have a close look but I bet you got them! Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've had a good go through. (I ought to be working but hey.) I went through the page and the code just checking by eye; I also did a search, which I think might have been useful, for all the digits 0-9 followed by a space. I would like to think that this might have found all or most instances to be concerned about. I may of course have missed something laid out differently but certainly I found nothing using those methods; in other words I think you nailed it! Thank you so much for your kindness and tolerance. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. I'm just going through the refs in order to clean up link rot, expand 'em, and cite check. Should I have missed anything, I'm sure I'll catch it this time through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Holodomor in Modern Politics.

Moved to Talk:Holodomor in modern politics as appropriate venue for discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issues concerning "Barry's Council's" Traveller Site

Hi Iryna,

Thank you kindly for bringing to my attention concerns regarding the location of an Irish Traveller settlement (RE: Environmental racism in Europe). I have provided a friendly reply on the article talk page there as well, and I welcome further feedback on this matter. I appreciate peer review and constructive inquiry.

At the moment, I am currently awaiting an email reply from the Irish Traveller Movement inquiring about this site. They may be able to clarify where, specifically, this site actually is. I will also attempt to contact the article's author, Dr. Colm Power. It is possible the site may no longer exist -- in which case additional sources and documentation would be further important to have--and there would almost certainly be a significant amount of documentation of the site's demolition or relocation. I am also looking into some additional published sources that may provide further context.

I am (currently) of the opinion that the original document is published by a reliable source. While we must always be careful and critical of all sources, the report was funded by the Association of London Government, the Community Fund (UK Lottery fund), and St. Mary's College (University of Surrey, UK). If, however, nobody is able to locate where this so-called "Barry's Council's Gander Traveller Site" is within a timely manner, then yes, I would agree to removing the section in question.

I will reply within approximately a week's time to report on any findings. If we are unable to find evidence of the existence of this site after two weeks (or whatever amount of time you think is right), then we should probably begin the formal discussion for deletion.

Best, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sturgeontransformer: I certainly think it's worth pursuing. I don't have any doubts as to its being a reliable source, either. What is needed are other sources describing the area known as 'Gander' in order to define its significance/reputation. Like any major metropolises, London has areas that have become run down in more recent history, as well as areas that have been 'traditionally' working class to impoverished. To be a true cockney, for example, you need to have been born within earshot of the 'Bow-bells' which, I believe, covers approximately a one mile radius. Given the build up of the city, it's unlikely that the sound would travel as far in contemporary times, but the streets considered to be within those parameters would still be the defining area.

I'm sure that the 'Gander' has its own story, but it's a matter of finding the sourcing. I hope the ITR will be able to help you out. There's possibly plenty of third party sourcing out there... so long as you know how to look for it. Certainly, if nothing comes up after a couple of weeks, there are options like moving the section onto the talk page and hoping that it will be developed from there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! And this is interesting - re: the 'Bow-bells' which I didn't previously know about! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I just wanted to notify you that I have sent an email with additional updates, along with a new response on the Environmental racism in Europe talk page. Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sturgeontransformer. I've received the email, thank you. I haven't the time to ponder issues raised in detail, but I gather you've done some good, old fashioned investigative 'research' on this (that is, digging around for pre-existing info without any original research/AKA grunt work). I'll get back to you by email with further thoughts as soon as I do some checking of my own. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sakwa

thank you for your comment. I will add a response to your revert in the relevant article's talk page.Kkostagiannis (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)