This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you, EdJohnston, for informing me of the outcome. My thanks, also, to TransporterMan. I'm fully aware of having allowed myself to be baited and, resultantly, am admonishing myself for my sheer stupidity and distinctly un-Wikipedian behaviour. It was one of those days where months of AGF explanations of the same things over and over tipped me into a knee-jerk reaction. I apologise for feeding the trolls and, resultantly, wasting your time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You infuriate me with your dismissive yet pervasive comments. The outcome was that we should discuss it more with each other. I am not baiting you. You are baiting me. You are not sorry for anything, you are an empty shell of a human being that enjoys pushing others over, and throwing your reality into their face by provoking them as you say in your profile. I will report you for the character assasination that your constant, continous and still unexplained use of patronizing represents. Every action and position I have taken I have explained in detail while your attacks on me, calling me a troll and baiter, a crusader, calling my posts forumposts and so on have had no reason behind them. So consider yourself reported. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea as to what time zone you live in, as you've already admitted to the fact that you mask your IP. I, however, do have an account and a user page you could have checked... and noted that I live in Australia. Whatever your gripe is against me, before accusing me of 'refusing' to participate in any form of discussion with you, try to keep your temper in check and don't make demands of editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about them while they're asleep.
You started a DRN during my 'overnight' then, that having been rejected, you opened an ANI into my "dismissive yet pervasive comments", adamant of my "continous and still unexplained use of patronizing " during my next 'overnight and asleep'. Please bring the diffs demonstrating this apparently "continuous" behaviour. Actually, allow me to save you the trouble:
09:28, 12 March 2015 - first communication with you at "Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" after I'd read your personal attack on RGloucester's own talk page where I told you not to use article talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX and advocating personal views in no uncertain terms;
09:30, 12 March 2015 - second communication on "User talk: RGloucester" immediately and simply invoked WP:NPA;
09:31, 12 March 2015 - third communication on "Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" simply invoking WP:NPA over your attack on RGloucester there;
09:32, 12 March 2015 - fourth communication leaving a "General note: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" template on your talk in case you missed the comments on the relevant talk page;
09:33, 12 March 2015 - fifth communication leaving a "Caution: Not assuming good faith on User talk:RGloucester" template on your talk in case you missed the comments on the relevant talk page.
Check my contributions page: that was my final activity for the evening. I did not log back on until 21:09, 12 March 2015, by which time the DRN had been closed. I was not interested in engaging with you personally as you'd already had other editors communicating with you whom you'd been abusive and dismissive towards. I did, however, join in on the thread you started on the RSN out of courtesy.
As I did not revert anything by you, I saw no point in further engaging with you as the DRN was already closed/rejected (all this taking place before I'd even logged in that morning).
Now, after your lack of presence during the hours in which I edit on Wikipedia, I've logged in for the day to find you have started an ANI about my purported devious actions and attitude (started at 20:44, 13 March 2015, whereas I had logged out at 05:48, 13 March 2015 and have only just logged in again) characterising it as being your 'dispute'(?!) with me. I will leave a brief comment on that thread, but suggest that you desist from this very, very personal WP:HARASSment you're in the process of WP:FORUMSHOPPING for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Demographics of Kyrgyztan, Vital statistics 1960-1980
Hello!
I've noticed you removed added info regarding natural movement during 1960-1980.
It's been taken from demographic yearbook of USSR
The full name is "Население СССР. 1987." and it does not exists anywhere in the electronic form.
Please restore the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.16.125.65 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Polish attitude?
Hello Iryna. Lately I see you are very fierce in deleting all the information that I put on Wikipedia to improve it.
I see that you wish Wikipedia to view the Poles as the worst people as possible, and you deny the Polish sufferings. Are you a fan of the UPA murderers? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are you trying to make a revenge on me? I didnt do nothing wrong. Since when an Ukrainian person decides about the article about Polish people, making some antipolish statements pass on Wikipedia? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Since you've been persisting in overwriting a correctly used term for anti-Polish sentiment (which happens to be the WP:TITLE of the article) and replaced it with a term one that isn't used in the English language (that is, blanking content and overwriting it with original research). The fact that "among the Poles in the UK there is a term 'rasizm antypolski'", therefore your translation of it into English as being meaningful to you has no bearing on the English WP:COMMONNAME. Had I found that your rendition, being "anti-Polish racism", was commonly used in the English language, I would have been prepared to add it to the list of terminology without eradicating the term that reflects the article title. When googling the term, however, I only found a couple of instances. If you wish to discuss it further on the talk page of the relevant article, I've started a section there for that purpose. This allows other editors to consider the issue and make consensus decisions as to whether the term should be added or not.
The greater issue is that of your casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me based on my ethnicity. WP:NPA is a Wikipedia cornerstone for editing practices. You've made badly judged assumptions as to my character due to your myopic reading of the article and appear to have completely misunderstood the reason why the anti-Polish Soviet propaganda poster appears with commentary on the article. I'll address the parsing of the poster on the relevant talk page rather than on my own talk page. Again, this is an issue for the community of editors involved in that article to make decisions about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop posting bogus warning templates
Please stop it with that! It can seen as a way of harassment. My edit to Novorossiya was NOT unconstructive, as you wrongly allege [1]. Rather, I removed bias as explained at talk.
As for Holodomor, this is a case of legitimate dispute - whether to include the information or not. I shall be waiting for 3rd opinions at talk. NO WAY was my edit worth a ″Warning″ [2] due to supposedly ″not adhering to neutral point of view". This is patent nonsense. Which Point-of-View was my edit pushing then according to your logic? Russian? Ukrainian? Both? Bottom line: it is a question of whether this adequately sourced information is due/suitable. That's what should be discussed at talk there. My article edit itself was 100% legitimate from the point-of-view of WP guidelines.
Take care, Phil.
--Phil070707 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Phil070707, I realise you're a new user here, and that your edits are in good faith. I haven't had time to start a discourse with you as to being cautious about articles subject to WP:ARBEE. There is nothing 'bogus' about my warning templates: they're standard practice.
I'll offer the same advice to you as I do for any new users who start their editing learning curve by jumping in at the deep end (being articles that are controversial/identifiable as being contentious): read the talk pages carefully (including the archives). The boxes at the top of the page will inform you as to whether the article has been subject to serious scrutiny (i.e., the Holodomor talk page carries the WP:ARB warning template informing editors that the "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless." You've approached this in a WP:CIVIL manner, per WP:BRD on the article's talk page, for which I commend you. On the other hand, this missive you've left on my "own talk" is unnecessarily aggressive. I apologise that I've made you feel that I was targeting you individually for your good faith efforts, but that was certainly not my intention. I should have engaged with you in more detail sooner. Unfortunately, as a regular editor, I have my finger in too many pies across many areas of Wikipedia and don't always have time to communicate with users immediately due to being engaged elsewhere at any given moment.
I'll respond to the new section you've started on the Holodomor talk page ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna,hope you are doing well! I have been accused of being a sock puppet here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34. I am confused and very surprised and don't even know how to respond. I haven't even heard of that user. I don't appreciate of being accused for something like this after I have put so much effort into the Cuman article and brought it to where it is today - I have put countless hours into research and typing the information. There is also no evidence, naturally. I am very angry at this. What should I do? How should I handle this? I would really, really appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks!
Smart Nomad (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay, Smart Nomad. My only advice is that you write a WP:CIVIL comment on the investigations page pleading the same confusion as you have here. I'll take a careful look at the evidence mounted against you (including the use of language and any other obvious differences between you and others under suspicion) and will make a statement/comment on the investigations page for your case. Above all, don't panic. Mistakes have been made in these investigations before and the cleric's check my clear you without any dramas. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, I apologize for the late reply - I was away for a while. I appreciate your advice, thank you. Ok, I won't worry :-). I haven't written a comment on the investigations page - the accusation against me seems to have gone nowhere anyway, thank goodness. At least now i am aware that such mistakes happen. Until next time :-)... Smart Nomad (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. I kept my eye on the investigation in case you ended up being one of the users who ended up on the short list to be checked into (in which case I would have spoken up on your behalf). As it was, you were dropped as a 'suspect' to be followed up on after a couple of days. Yeah, stuff happens here, and it's not necessarily pleasant. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment
iryna harpy why is the new year chear not working i know it is kind of late but i need to know thank you and was that to much information true. please answer as soon as possible thanks by the way are 9 year olds aloud on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtubelover116 (talk • contribs)
I moved this here from your user page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, RGloucester. I spotted this a few days ago, but other editors had been contacted by this user and bizarre interactions ensued on their owntalk page. There hasn't been any form of activity for a few days so, on the assumption that the new user in genuinely a 9 yo, I'm going leave a recommendation that they create an account on simple.wikipedia.org. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So obviously there's more to come—coup via air strike, a mutiny or two, another coup via air strike, and a barefoot fighter jock. And a plethora of conniving politics/politicians who make it all possible.
Hi, Georgejdorner. A pleasure to make your acquaintance. The WP:ANCHORs to section headers within the relevant articles seem to be working now. I did notice you'd had some trouble with them yesterday. If there is a problem with them at a later date (sometimes this happens with hash tag anchors for no obvious reason), sometimes a more pronounced invisible anchor needs to be added to the relevant WP:TARGET. For information on how to create such anchors, see Template:Anchor.
Hope this helps! If you have any problems, however, please feel free to drop me a line here, or ping or mention me in from the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I just realised that I didn't respond to your second query/concern: being the need for citations within what is, essentially, a list article which is mainly supported by the main articles wikilinked. The reason that the 'needs further citations' tag is still in place is predominantly due to generic entries in the alphabetised list. There are still a large number of entries simply pointing to the main article on any given nation-state, but there are no sections or content discussing coups in those articles. Those are the problem entries which need some form of elaboration on the when, the where, and the who needs reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It's just that I am used to citing any info I add to articles. I was unaware that I was creating any problems with hashtags. I do generally have to fiddle my way into such in linkages, as I am not too ept with the wikicoding.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The use of hash tags is fine by me, and is WC3 compliant. I don't recall encountered any policy or guideline that states, categorically, that linking to sections is unacceptable practice. The only problem that can occur is, of course, if someone renames the section header, or if a spin-off article is created. That being the case, those editors should check the 'What links here' and update any affected articles themselves (although it does provide incentive to create an anchor independent of the absolute section title).
As regards citations, I have the same problem. Most of my time is spent on contentious articles, meaning that I end up having to occasionally get down to some serious citekill! I do understand why list articles of this ilk shouldn't have to reiterate citations. Just as a comparison, List of coups d'état and coup attempts only includes a few additional references where specifics aren't to be found in the wikilinked articles. I find it problematic as keeping on top of new additions requires a great deal of time and energy ensuring that the articles, in themselves, are well cited. Ah, well, Wikipedia never seems to cease being a learning curve. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Iryna! There is currently a discussion on Talk:Kherson Oblast regarding maps including Crimea. A user started removing the NPOV maps with Crimea depicted as a disputed region stating that those are "nationalist POV". I mentioned that there was a consensus and a number of discussions a long time ago on Talk:Ukraine right after Crimea's annexation to depict Crimea as a disputed region on maps and articles as that was the NPOV option. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that you were one of the users participating in the discussions going on at the time which is why I would greatly appreciate if you stopped by and provided links to some of the most relevant discussions as I am sure that you would know better than I do which ones are worth reading since I was not a part of those discussions. You are also a user who always tries to seek NPOV which is why it would be great if you joined the discussion. Thank you! --Leftcry (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Leftcry. I've just responded on that page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Leftcry (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to please ask you to return to the discussion as some users only show disruptive behavior. One user went as far as changing the maps back to the ones with Crimea shown as an integral part of Ukraine despite the fact that most of the users who commented on the discussion did not agree with that change. --Leftcry (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that as they're all on my watchlist, Leftcry. Reverting and starting an edit war isn't worth the grief, nor will it win consensus. I suggest a bit of patience is required until there's been further discussion (remember, nothing has to be done straight away). It's already generated quite a bit of serious discussion, so we'll see how it goes over the next couple of days as various editors weigh in. Dependent on the conclusions drawn there, it may yet need to be turned into an RfC. Patience and a cool head over knee-jerk reactions. It's those who produce the best policy and guideline based arguments who get community consensus right. Whatever ends up as becoming consensus as to depicting one map will automatically be applied to all of the maps. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I didn't bother reverting his edits as there is really no point. --Leftcry (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
And you are telling this after reverting these edits on three pages [3], [4], [5]! Also note that you were not able to provide any links or diffs to support your claim about past consensus in this edit summary. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about the changes made by Taivo none of which I reverted and as for the links, I told you many times to go to Talk:Ukraine and look at the discussion. There are a lot of them and they aren't hard to find. Either way don't start a debate on Iryna's talk page --Leftcry (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
My edits were entirely fair. Unfortunately, Wiki is for the most part controlled by biased reductive materialists who continually work to try to discredit sincere and well accomplished research into NDE. They continually quote unreliable and biased sources such as Gerald Woerlee who tells bare faced lies such as ignoring the jurisdiction of the chief witness in the denture case. Jason Braithwaite who has never conducted any serious research into the phenomenon, is so desperate to preserve a world view he is prepared to postulate that the brain can somehow continue to give rise to clear consciousness with memory formation even when no EEG activity is measurable on the scalp or during complete cessation of blood flow. Total nonsense. I'm sick to death of materialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.54.242 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be using talk pages in order to attack editors you disagree with. I'm not interested in your diatribe, nor am I even aware of ever having engaged with you anywhere on Wikipedia. The only clue was in this edit on the Talk:Sam Parnia page where, judging by the editing history of that article, you've evidently been IP hopping, and I happen to be one of the editors reverting your POV content changes.
Suggestions: 1) If you're a good faith editor who is WP:HERE to work collaboratively, create an account; 2) Do not engage in personal attacks on editors because you just don't like the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Diatribe ? You are presenting a page of so called information to the public which is blatantly biased. You alter the facts and the meaning of study results. For instance :
You assert that Mr A the patient in Parnia's aware study merely heard a noise from the machine. He did not, he heard a specific group of words "Shock the patient." That is not a noise and how dare someone try to paste that in ? You also assert that he "supposedly" described accurate events. Wrong ! He DID describe accurate events there is no supposedly about it unless you are a materialist trying to suppress some awkward facts. You're not are you, Harpy ?
Lastly I have not changed my IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.54.242 (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in engaging with you on a personal level, so please don't treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND... and, again, no personal attacks. If you are convinced that you have reliable sources to back up your claims, take them to the relevant article's talk page and try to discuss it with editors involved in the article in a WP:CIVIL manner. I have tried to give you some good faith advice. No more comments on my talk page, please, or I will simply delete them. As it stands, you've already set yourself up for an ANI for harassment of editors. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am one of those IP addresses but NOT the other. I am not trying to deny that I made relevant additions to a couple of Wicki pages but only on the subject of NDE and when it was correct to do so as a matter of principle, something you "lot" (sceptics) don't seem to have (principles). Keep on telling it as it isn't in some ridiculous battle you can't win. If we have a soul, we have a soul, get used to it, lady, good lord, you might even have one too. All the best to you Harpy x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.54.242 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Russia didn't exist as a medieval country
You're right, but on the other hand, in the history tree it has become a habit to categorize by current country (as well). Every current country has a breakdown of Prehistoric, Ancient, Medieval etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I did indeed edit the wolfsangel page to remove the "neo-Nazi" tag in front of Azov battalion. I did this because Azov battalion is not a neo-Nazi group. Are they nationalists? Yes. Are there Nazis among their ranks? Undoubtedly, but they are not neo-Nazis, they are a territorial defense battalion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.105.215 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's sourced, although I consider it an explicit WP:COATRACK for misrepresentation. If you'd like to start a section on the article's talk page, I'd be more than happy to support you. I've had a try but it's been supported by POV editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Ukrainian help!
Hi Iryna, do you think you could help me translate this? "ваше редагування было видалення патрульним"? I'm not quite sure what the exact English equivalent would be.... your edits have been reverted? your privileges revoked? It's from the handwriting on this file which I want to make sure has a good caption on Ihor Kostenko's page. I would really appreciate if you could take a minute to look at it. Thank you so much! Wikimandia (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you've started transposing the handwritten version using the Russian alphabet. I've just got a few thing I have to get on with IRL for a day or so, but will type out and translated the placard ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I speak Russian but I think this is Ukrainian, and I remember seeing you spoke both? I could make a guess but I want to make sure it's right. Thank you! Wikimandia (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Later - Temporarily forgotten, but placing a reminder to myself before the thread is archived. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just about to log off until tomorrow due to IRL commitments, DDima. I'll take a look ASAP (I'll try to get to it on my return in the evening). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, DDima, there's only been one instance of the account being used since the 24 hour edit war block, immediately followed by the other user cleaning up a little more. Endukiejunta seems to have a reasonably good grasp of English, while the other account appears to be attached to someone whose English isn't good, it's WP:MEAT at the least.
I'm going to keep my eye on both as it seems reasonable to assume that these are being left as sleeper accounts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You are probably right that the article should be deleted. That I declined to delete it at speedy deletion just indicates that the articles shows some possible basis for significance; notability is judged at AfD. I made some comments about what is needed on the article talk page. If it is deleted by afd here, this would more easily lead to getting it deleted at other WPs also, though they all use their own standards. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: Thanks. I admit to the fact that I was trying to take the lazy way out in light of the long-standing status of the article. I'll resubmit the article via AfD and his user page separately. As regards the other Wikipedias, I'm not going to try to pursue that at the moment. Ukrainian Wikipedia, for example, has a massive backlog on edits for multiple articles (literally going back to last year) where only admins can accept them. There's obviously very little activity, so I very much doubt that any submissions for nondescript articles to be deleted are going to be a priority. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
it might not hurt to mention on the article talk p. in the fr and de and other similar was that the article was deleted in enWP. I agree there's no point in bothering with the one you mention. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added you for DYK credit - as you have done excellent improvements to the article. Hope you don't mind.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's sweet of you, Doug Coldwell. I don't think I merit any credit as yet, but I still have a few ideas as to tightening it up which I'll post on the article's talk page. I've got a couple of issues on other articles on my priorities list I need to address first, but will get back to it soon. Happy editing for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see your improvements and any ideas for improvements. Thanks.
Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
Iryna Harpy, please note that you are free to state the position of the Ukraine on the matter of the massacre in the article, the same way that I can state the position of Poland. Wikipedia clearly allowes for this and it is not a form of bias. Please do not vilify other users and call them disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't vilified you... you've done that on your own. I'm not interested in stating Ukraine's position or Poland's position, but the position of reliable sources. Thwacking the Polish National Institution of Remembrance's stance into the lead of the article is is WP:UNDUE assuming good faith, but you are making it extremely difficult to assume that you're WP:HERE. You've had ample time, and two close shaves at the ANI over your behavioural problems since beginning editing in August of last year, in order to drop the edit warrior position. Instead, you're continuing down the same route. There is nothing clear about what is and isn't 'allowed' on articles that fall under specific sanctions areas (in this case, being WP:ARBEE). While the protocol is that I don't hold past mistakes you've made against you, I've checked on your more recent editing practices which don't support the idea that you're making a genuine effort to break bad habits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page! But the only reason I am still active is my addiction. It's not that I am uncomfortable with editing controversial subjects or talking with other users. I do that for fun. However, editing here distracts me from my scientific work, and I do have some other reasons, as noted on my userpage. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd guessed as much from the number of times you've retired, taken a Wikibreak, yet continued here. I promise I can empathise with your plight. I have so much that I want/need/must get on with. I promise myself that I won't go near it for a couple of days, then have to take a peek at one article or another, and that's it for the day. I'm hooked. It isn't as if I'm well grounded in the psychology behind addiction, it's a vice I don't really want to give up. Happy editing to you, too! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha! It's probably time for us to form a "Wikipediholics Anonymous" support group on Blogger or Wordpress. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Kievan Rus'
Completely agree that Kievan Rus' is common to Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The point is only that it doesn't make sense to parent articles from the Kievan Rus' category also to the Russian history because the Kievan Rus' category is already in the Russian history tree. By the way, the same applies to Ukraine and Belarus which I oversaw. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Marcocapelle. I wasn't clear as to what was going on in the category moves as I'd not been aware of any discussions as to how to clean up old parent cats, etc. Cheers for your hard work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no rule that forbids parent categories. In fact, just the opposite is useful, for clarity and completeness. -M.Altenmann >t
I have to agree with Altenmann on this, Marcocapelle. After your explanation, I initially understood that you had some form of plan for cleaning up the categories in a more rational manner. Once, however, I saw that you'd removed the cats 'History of Belarus' and 'History of Ukraine', I realised that all you're doing is trying to depopulate cats that you consider to be redundant, hence the article Kievan Rus' fell under the extremely generic Category:Former Slavic countries! Sorry, but there are Eastern European Slavs, Central European Slavs, Baltic Slavs, etc. The categories you're depopulating were created in order to make it easier and more logical for the reader to identify which group, region, or whatever they're looking for specifically. These cats also encompass old Slavic languages and their relationships to each other, plus a multitude of other distinctions. Just because they're old categories, it doesn't mean that their remnants from early in Wikipedia's history that need to be swept out.
I've noticed that you're doing a lot of work on cats going through Categories for discussion process only. Many of the regular editors working on the articles the cats are attached to don't spend time there, and decisions are made so quickly that cats disappear and have to be created again from scratch once we twig that something has happened. I think it might be useful to actually consult on article talk pages in order to establish what you are trying achieve and allow a little time for regulars to respond as to their take. I'm not being condescending in saying that there is a lot of work to be done on categories across Wikipedia, and that it's fabulous that you're putting so much deliberation, time, and energy into this. What I am saying is that, while overcategorisation is undesirable, Wikipedia isn't a race against time, and making your intentions understood is important as none of us can read your mind. A little discussion and consensus can, in fact, go a long way in saving time. Thanks for hearing me out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I oversaw your ping recently and thanks for thinking along. I don't think that categories disappear that quickly and easily though, in fact, on the reverse, there have been complaints about some category discussion staying open for months. I definitely agree that a little discussion is very useful, and I've noticed multiple times that by merely discussing things we often find new and better solutions - I hope you've seen that for yourself in the category discussions. But I must say that I find it difficult to determine who to notify individually and I would actually hope that if editors are attached to a category that they would also regularly maintain the category and thus observe the tag on the category page.
It is definitely a misunderstanding that I would consider 'History of Belarus' and 'History of Ukraine' redundant. That is not the case at all. The point is just, as explained earlier for Russia, that Kievan Rus' is already in the tree of 'History of Belarus' and 'History of Ukraine'. By removing duplicate categorization, readers will much more easily find articles that are only directly classified in the history category (or in any other category for that matter). For example Great Russia could never have been found while there were still 200 articles in the Russian history category. So to come back on the last sentence of the previous paragraph, while I think that categorization is a fabulous feature of Wikipedia, I think it's regrettable that categories are being maintained so poorly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I do see your point in it being a method of bringing attention to proposed changes. Nevertheless, in my experience there aren't terribly many editors who do pay attention to cats. On the contrary, I've often spotted additions where the parent cats are already in place. I fully understand that it isn't easy to bring editors focussed on one aspect of editing Wikipedia into something they're not particularly interested in (or even aware of). There isn't any quick fix for this, so I guess you'll have to continue the trial and error route. It just strikes me as being unfortunate that you're more likely to be subjected to an ear-bashing when you do something others don't like than a thanks when you get it right. Still, that's the great reward in being a Wikipedian: you can't be accused of dedicating time and energy for the accolades (coz der ain't nun)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no one could possibly claim that being a constructive Wikipedian is easy. All we can do is 'our best' without getting so bogged down in the machinations that we cease to actually 'develop' anything. It all ends up as being aware of good faith editors and, as you've noted, an expectation of discussion as to what the most constructive method of dealing with content is as a collaborative process. Decisions made are never going to please everyone. My personal experience is that of not shying away from the fact that being a good Wikipedian means that one doesn't take criticism personally, and being comfortable with the fact that it's not a popularity contest. That isn't to say that I condone battleground approaches in any shape or form. 'Our best' means being prepared to listen, but not back down where opposition is based on emotional arguments. Oh dear, I could prattle on all day. Rather than subject you to further pearls of wisdom, here the lecture endeth. Feel free to ping me any time you think my prattle may be of any use in discussions, even if only to bore the opposition into submission! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. I assume that, as a new user, you're not sure as to how to do this yourself. I'll try to find the time to update it today, but I'm going on holiday for a week as of tomorrow.
If I don't manage to do so, you could try to work out how to do this yourself. If you don't feel confident about doing this without assistance, please create a new section on the talk page of the article noting that you've added the update required template, and the url you've provided for me, plus ping or mention me from that message in order to remind me to work on it when I've returned. Thanks for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. All the best, — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and my pleasure. Well deserved! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Greets
Greeting Iryna Harpy. Welcome back from holiday. I hope you had a pleasant time. I appreciate your input and contributions. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MrBill3. I had a marvellous time. Sadly, as is always the case, it only takes half an hour of returning to 'business as usual' for it to become a distant memory.
It's a pleasure to 'meet' you. I look forward to working in a positive collaborative atmosphere in future. Please feel free to ping me if I'm slow to get back to issues highly pertinent to the development of the Sam Parnia article, and any other article you envisage my input as being of some use. You strike me as being one of those rare, elusive beings - an analytical, contemplative NPOV editor - so I pass on my best wishes and happy editing in return. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back, Iryna! LizRead!Talk! 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz! We haven't said "hi" for ages. I keep seeing you on various noticeboards, but haven't sent on greets despite good intentions. I hope all is well with you, and that wiki life hasn't been more difficult than it ought to be. Bugs (bear hugs)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that life is as crazy as always in the Ukrainian editing world! I'm been doing pretty uncontroversial stuff, housekeeping tasks. But I've seen even obvious improvements get challenged and you never know what some people will get upset about. I did take a break last summer and just came back in December. I just got tired of conflicts that didn't seem to end, even if I stopped editing in certain areas. Some Wikipedia editors never get beyond first impressions. LizRead!Talk! 21:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to avoid current affairs and work on 'stuff' that I find satisfying (basically copyediting and developing articles of interest). Ah, the best laid plans of mice and women... I can't get away from trying to objectively analyse where content changes and tone are being abused, and where subjective editors are trying to sway the content from RS. The most problematic area is, however, in recent activity on articles surrounding historical subject matter surrounding Eastern European countries. These are being neglected in light of current affairs, and the fish that John West rejects have moved their focus to taking advantage of the opportunity to rewrite history in their POV favour. It's difficult to collate a dossier on this activity and, in terms of personal energy, I don't feel inclined to challenge sources and the explicit tone of these developments. I've been waiting for the 'enough rope' moment, but it's actually come and gone. At some point soon, I'm going to have to tackle it via ARBEE, RSN, etc. I truly wish I could distance myself to not care. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I pay enough attention at noticeboards and AE to see that compiling diffs, building cases against other editors never works out if it is just a you vs. them, grudge match. There has to be support from other editors that problems consistently are happening, that they look like they will continue to happen and that editing restrictions or temporary blocks will result in a return to a detached, objective, collaborative editing environment. LizRead!Talk! 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, even if one were to achieve such stability on contentious articles, it couldn't last. All it takes is for one or two new editors (+ socks, + meatpuppets) to insinuate themselves with a battleground mentality and walls of text about the 'cabal' running the show... and we're off again. The most unfortunate by-product is that we've lost a potentially excellent new editor whose proclivities were pro-Russian, but argued well and respectfully on content matters, and was willing to follow consensus. The articles were simultaneously swamped by a resurgence of a couple of gamers, and any productive dialogue was drowned out. It's a loss for Wikipedia, but the only method whereby things settle down again seems to be to let the incidents run their course. In the end, only the most resilient stick around. It shouldn't be that hard. It's the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, yet it defeats its own purpose in recruiting new, constructive editors who don't have the stomach for warfare. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Iryna Harpy, thank you for your good natured and candid response on the the talk page of List of states with limited recognition. You were not incivil at all by the way and I agree with what you said. Happy editing. Mbcap (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Mbcap. Having re-read my most recent comment on the talk page, I genuinely felt that it was unnecessarily hard-nosed and that an extension of apologies was warranted. My interests are with discouraging the re-dredging of POV pushing where there has been no change in status since the last bout of OR battleground behaviour.
My area is, essentially, Eastern Europe and post-Soviet (CIS) nation-states. I prefer to stay away from Middle-Eastern affairs as, having my fingers in more pies than digits, I don't want to spread myself any thinner. Nevertheless, if you feel that a third party NPOV editor (or so I'd like to believe of myself) would be of use to you on any articles/areas you work on, please feel free to ping me from the talk page of the article in question. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice and action. I am mildly concerned. I am not seeing indication that i100, affiliated with The Independent, is a blog per se ... particularly when, on the link you provided, it indicates "The journalists at i100 write all the articles." I am simply trying to include a statement for balance that is similar to the entries in that list for China and Israel of the number of states that do not recognize Palestine (NOTE: those similar statements for China and Israel are also UNSOURCED - should I remove?) to accompany the statements with numbers that do (which is sourced for Palestine, but the pro count is also contested). As well, if the number matched our 'tally', which is based arguably on an unofficial list (owing to what constitutes a state), the content might have stayed in place. So, edits to point seem...imbalanced. Craftwerker (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Even if it's not a blog, using it as you did is certainly WP:OR. Trying to deduce whether a state recognizes or not merely by it's colour on a map is not at all a reliable method of WP:VERIFICATION. Just because a state is too small to be worth colouring, does not mean its absence implies anything meaningful about its recognition. For example, as per your count they only coloured 131 states as recognizing, but that number is clearly incorrect. See International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Diplomatic_recognitions for a sourced list of 135 states which recognize. Or see an official list maintained by Palestine [6] which also gives 135. This number is not in dispute. (France has not yet recognized, and no sources claim it has.) The only different number I've seen is your count of coloured states.
You apparently did not read the edit summary or delve further -- the map is based on data accessible on that same page via the 'Get the data' link in the bottom right, revealing said counts for 'yes' and 'no'. (So, they are not 'my' counts but from a journalistic source, not OR, and I certainly did not deduce the 'coloured areas' on the map. Please.) Moreover, the count of 135 states IS disputed (emphasis added): "The Palestinian Authority estimates that 135 countries have now recognized Palestine as a state, although that number is disputed and several recognitions by EU member states date back to the Soviet era.". So, we do not know for a fact that 135 countries recognize Palestine, despite what some sources say, any more than 49 or 59 may not. (And note that the non-exhaustive list at International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#No_diplomatic_recognition now tallies 51 UN members/observers.) I object to arguably original, even possibly non-routine calculations where state tallies are concerned, as you have argued above, to the detriment of sourced matter ... while glazing over similar notes without referencing for Israel and China. Logical? Hardly. I am done here. Craftwerker (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
1) In and of themselves, blogs can be understood to be reliable sources dependent on whether the blogger is a reputable journalist or scholar in the area of the subject of the article, and avoiding op-ed pieces (or, where such op-ed pieces are recognised to be WP:BIASed, by use of WP:INTEXT attribution).
2) My reading of the i100 disclaimer is that it fits into the blogosphere category. More to the point, the article you cited is by a 'journalist' by the name of Evan Bartlett who doesn't appear to be a known entity. The greatest problem is, however, that you're using some strange method of WP:CALC by subtraction. Without WP:UNDUE detail regarding how the UN is structured, what is produced is an 'it doesn't add up' tally. In simple terms, this is WP:OR.
If you deem this to be worthy of challenging it, you're welcome to take it to the article's talk page and begin a new section in order to seek consensus. I would suggest that it will be understood to be WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read your edit summary and clicked the 'Get the data' link, but you apparently haven't read my reply above carefully. Clicking 'Get the data' does not give "counts for 'yes' and 'no'", it's a CSV list containing "ID,Label,Recognition". 49 is not stated anywhere I can see. I presumed you counted the states with "yes" and "no" under recognition from this raw data used to colour the map. But you deny counting them so how did you get 49? I certainly never suggested that you had counted anything other than the linked source nor that you counted states from a visual inspection of the image (you misquoted me here), so those are Straw man.
The specific counting methodology (CSV or image) you used does not change the fact that you counted states based on their assigned colour grouping, that numerous small state were uncoloured on that map, and that using the colours on a map which is not comprehensive to make definitive claims unstated by the source is WP:OR and not credible. Nowhere does the source say that "49 states do not recognize". It provides a partial list of states and their positions for visual representation. You've drawn unstated conclusions by assuming that all unlisted states recognize. That's WP:OR.
Most sources give 135 so even if it is disputed by a few, WP:DUEWEIGHT means that the preponderance of evidence leads us to conclude that 135 is the "best estimate". If 135 is wrong, it should be fixed, but as long as it is our best estimate I don't see why we should give figures inconsistent with it. 59 is at least consistent with 135. And even if 135 is disputed (presumably it is disputed as too large as Palestine would have no incentive to underreport) that would make the figure you're pushing even MORE wrong! I fail to see how it's productive to re-argue the number of recognizers on every single page where Palestine's recognition is mentioned. We link to the article so if there's legitimate dispute over the number it can be discussed there. If you think there is significant evidence that 135 is wrong, then start a discussion at Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine, specifying which states should be corrected and what sources support this. In the absences of any such evidence, we should follow the sources and use 135 consistently.
Regardless, as I argued previously, if there is a dispute over the number it is better to leave it out entirely (as I did). You seem to be arguing that the number is disputed so therefore we should WP:CHERRYPICK any old source we can find and state that disputed number without any sort of qualification. As you say, there are 51 sourced non-recognizers at International recognition of Palestine. Giving a number that contradicts this based on WP:OR from a partial map is not sound WP:V. TDL (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In other words, Craftwerker, TDL has just provided you with a far more comprehensive breakdown of my short response. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Later - Temporarily forgotten, but placing a reminder to myself before the thread is archived. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
