User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Ukrainian National Committee

What do you mean? The article has a list of sources, and according to them, the Ukrainian National Committee was an organization set up with Nazi German assistance, which had claims over Ukraine, at the time part of the USSR. Therefore, they were collaborators with Germany. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What was their purpose? To serve the Germans, or to represent Ukrainian interests before the German authorities? If a hospital or clinic were set up under the Germans, would its staff or organizers be collaborators? How about schools? Organizations to feed people? Etc. I don't know enough about the Ukrainian National Committee to determine if they were or were not collaborators; there is not enough info in the article right now to support the idea that they were. Please add that information before placing them in that category.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Polish wikipedia page is much more detailed and contradicts the opinion that this was a collaborationist organization: [1].Faustian (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Славянский патриот: Per Faustian's response, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find RS to in order to expand content, categories, etc. As it stands, the stub is unreferenced, and you've just made it clear that your own additions to the content are based on your assumptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
They were Ukrainians working with Germans (in other words, collaborators), that's what it already says on the article, and the sources are listed. For example, on Russian Wikipedia, the page is in the category "Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany" and on French Wikipedia it is in "Collaboration during World War II." Even on Polish Wikipedia article you posted a link to, it is in the category "Organizations collaborating with the Third Reich during World War II". I think my point here is made. Славянский патриот (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, read WP:WINARS. Secondly, yes, it is becoming abundantly clear that you are making a WP:POINT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The Oxford definition of "collaborator" is [2]: "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector." There is no information in the article that clearly demonstrates that the Ukrainian National Committee meets that definition.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
... And that is exactly the definition applied to any individual or group who 'collaborated' with the Nazis in WWII, although I don't think we actually needed to qualify this for Славянский патриот as he is very much aware of what his priorities are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, I know since you are part or full Ukrainians with a pro-Ukraine POV, you have an obvious interest here in not having the Collaboration during World War II category on there (even though on Polish, Russian, and French Wikipedia, that article is in collaboration-related categories, a fact that you seem to be ignoring). I am part Ukrainian myself. But the fact of the matter is that, as the the Ukrainian National Committee included Soviet citizens and was collaborating Germans, they are by definition collaborators. It says that they controlled Ukrainian Nazi-sponsored units, which were mostly Soviet citizens working with the enemy, and Pavlo Shandruk, a former officer of the Polish army and a Polish citizen, had overall command of it as one of the leading members of the committee. "A person who cooperates traitorously with the enemy" definitely describes them, there isn't any way around it. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That is one POV. Another POV, taken from the sources, is that it was involved with removing/transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command. Polish wiki paints a picture that it stood for its community in talks with Germans, refusing to subordinate it to Vlasov's collaborators. And whether or not cooperation was "treason" depends on POV. Shandruk was involved here after the Polish state had ceased to exist. He was awarded Poland's highest military award after the war - hardly an indicator of his having been a "traitor." Basically, whether or not this organization can be considered "collaborators" does not seem clear-cut, depends on POV, and simple categorization does not seem to be appropriate.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That's strange, since Polish, Russian, and French Wikipedia seem to disagree with you. That Polish article? It has the category "Organizacje kolaborujące z III Rzeszą podczas II wojny światowej" (Organizations that collaborated with the Third Reich during World War II). It was transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command because the war was lost by then, and they were attempting to get favor from the Western Allies. It was founded with permission from the Germans, included non-German citizens (most of the forces it commanded consisted of Soviet POWs), and worked with the Germans. In other words, collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I will repeat: read WP:WINARS. I genuinely don't care what part of the world this took place in, so stop trying to read some sort of nationalist agendas into it. I don't care whether you are part Ukrainian, part Danish, or part Moroccan... this is English language Wikipedia, meaning that we follow policy. The only arguments for being "collaborators" you've brought to the table are WP:OR. You're welcome to speculate and draw your own conclusions on any subject you wish, but you are not welcome to add content, append categories, or change article content based on your own WP:PPOV. You may think it's cut and dried, but that's something for you to take to blogs or forums and dispute there. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, not a repository for content based on your original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"Original research" that is on three other language Wikipedias (Polish, Russian, and French)? I've seen a lot of articles that use other language Wikipedias as a source. It even says in the article that it was established with Germans, and if you look at the pages for the units it commanded, they were mostly collaborators from the USSR. By definition, collaborators. Again, it seems you are letting your pro-Ukraine POV get in the way of the fact that it was collaborator organization. It's not my opinion, it's a fact based on the information that is on the article and on other articles related to it. You are also free to write your opinion on why an organization including Soviet citizens working with the Germans is not a collaborationist group, despite also being identified as such on three other language Wikipedias, in a blog. Славянский патриот (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Review the definition of collaborator and be specific about the focus of that article. A Soviet citizen who betrayed his country and fought for the Germans would certainly meet the definition of a collaborator. But this article isn't about such individuals. It's about an organization that represented Ukrainian interests (many different Ukrainians, including those who meet the definition of collaborators, as well as those who don't) when dealing with the Germans. Since their focus was on serving Ukrainian rather German interests, they don't seem to be collaborators. Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, might I add that Faustian is wrong about Shandruk, who did affiliate with Vlasov eventually: "Meanwhile, an agreement had been reached between Vlasov and General Shandruk, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian National Committee, who came to approve of Vlasov's views and programme." (Against Stalin and Hitler: Memoirs of the Russian Liberation Movement, 1941-1945, pp. 226-227) Славянский патриот (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Approving views and programme is not concrete. Reaching an "agreement" can mean many things. USA and Iran just made an agreement, for example. Details matter.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You're still simply WP:CHERRY picking in order to shoehorn your own POV. Pulling threads of this and that together in order to create a piece of WP:SYNTH is still just that: your own WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's simply nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the Ukrainian National Committee acted in interest of the Germans. Their forces continued fighting the Red Army as before, the majority of them even still being under German command, and at the time the Ukrainian "nation" consisted of mostly the Soviet citizens fighting in German-organized and -armed formations (which, might I add, played a far greater role in the German war effort than Vlasovites or units of other Soviet ethnic groups). Shandruk himself was a foreign citizen fighting in the Wehrmacht (he was obviously not a German citizen; they only considered a select few "Germanized" Slavs to be so), and therefore a collaborator by definition. He even became Vlasov's ally. The Committee functioned no more than an instrument of the Germans as they fought alongside them westwards to surrender to the Western Allies so they would not be repatriated to the Soviet Union. The majority of those in the Committee forces were from the Soviet Union. And again, you ignore the fact that three other Wikipedias have it labelled as a collaborationist organization, which alone is enough to add the category onto this article. The only one shoehorning your POV is you, I am simply stating the facts while your pro-Ukrainian nationalist bias is causing both of you to try to get a collaborationist group of Ukrainians that just served the Germans not be labelled for what they were--collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
A foreign language wikipedia article is not a reliable source (not that it matters, but neither the Ukrainian nor the Italian wiki pages categorize it as collaborationist). If the purpose of the Ukrainian National Committee was to serve the Germans in the war effort then I agree the categorization of collaborators would be appropriate. Find a reliable source stating this, please. If, on the other hand, this organization's purpose was to help Ukrainians (including even Ukrainian collaborators) by, for example, disengaging them from German command, or providing relief, etc. then it doesn't meet the definition of "collaborator" just as, for example, someone having to meet with German administrators for the purpose of running a school or clinic for his people is not a collaborator. Please, find reliable sources for evidence of activities clearly meeting the definition of collaboration and I will not object to that categorization. As a reminder, here's the Oxford dictionary definition [3]: "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector."Faustian (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, why do many articles list different language Wikipedias as a source and often times there are tags on different articles saying that the corresponding article on a different language Wikipedia should be translated onto the English article? But anyway, the Ukrainian National Committee was the reorganized Ukrainian Central Committee, a group of Ukrainian collaborators organized by the Germans on the territory of occupied Poland in 1939. The only difference was that the National Committee helped group all Ukrainians in the German armed forces into one unit, and brought several smaller organizations into its fold, with that unit remaining under German command. Славянский патриот (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Translating with sources is acceptable. Speaking of which, please find the source for info that meets the definition of collaborator I provided, so the category can be applied.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Just gave you one. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You what!! Where?!! You just linked to the ru wiki article which is, itself, not cited. The could list a hundred books as general references surrounding the subject, but it matters not a hoot if there are no specific references that can be verified. We can't even verify that these publications indeed do, or ever did, exist. Well, actually, I can verify their existence because they've simply been taken from the uk wikipedia article here. Have you read them? Do they actually substantiate the ru wikipedia article's contentions?
Seriously, I'm really tired of this circular argument. Which part of WP:WINARS are you having such difficulties in understanding? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Славянский патриот: Please read Wikipedia:Translation, WP:COPYWITHIN and Template:Translated page/doc. Translated articles need to be attributed to the original article in whichever language wiki they came from (as a copyright issue). After they've been translated, the translation template on the article is closed off and the corresponding data carrying the information of which and when is transferred by means of a talk page template. References need to be checked, and additional citations are added, and unverified content is removed. Translated articles are just that: they're not suicide pacts. It's up to editors working in the English language Wikipedia to scrutinise the articles, just as it should be with English language articles being translated/transferred to other language wikis. The buck still stops with WP:RS and WP:V.

That said, no one is stopping you from adding reliably sourced content and improving any article/stub. All that is being asked of you is that you find RS that back up your contention, even if I do see this as being part of a series of WP:COATRACK articles all supporting each other in order to legitimise mutually sourced content. I have a watchlist five times as long as my arm encompassing virtually every field Wikipedia deals with. For the better part, I just keep my eye on them for copyediting, ref checking, expanding them when I have an opportunity, etc. Can you please stop using my talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND? As it was, this discussion should have been started on the relevant talk page in order that other editors could involve themselves, and in order that it kept on record for the sake of transparency. You've turned it into some sort of personal battle with me being hosted exclusively on my talk page. If there's any more to say on the subject, please open a new section on the article/stub's talk page. Thanks for you understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll stop posting here -- I'll list the sources I found on the talk page. But "personal battle"? I replied to the message you sent me with legitimate concerns about the contents of your edit, as you seemed to have done it for personal reasons rather than the available information. But, like I said, I'll list the sources on the talk page from this point. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Славянский патриот and Faustian: Actually, considering the amount of discussion that's taken place here already, would either of you object if I were to move this section across to the article/stub's talk page so as not to end up starting from scratch again? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your support Iryna Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Govindaharihari. My pleasure! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hello!

I am sorry, but I think the datas in relation with Bulgaria are not consistent with the data at that link below. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.229.120 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP 178.48.229.120. Could you please remind of which article we're talking about? If I've reverted an edit by you, I'm happy to take another look. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

List of state mergers

Well it looks as if he has stopped editing that page. If you want to follow up then ANI would be the place. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CambridgeBayWeather. It's a pity I didn't catch the comment when he left it... even though he'd ceased actually editing the article, so it'd actually gone stale prior the diatribe anyway. Unfortunately, it's his MO (aka 'gaming') to duck out before the ground gets hot under his feet. Any further activity of this ilk, however, and I'll take it to the ANI while the iron is still hot. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kanye West in Kazakhstan

I don't normally edit the article Kazakhstan, but was inspired to do so by the 7 October 2015 Wikipedia Signpost article, detailing an (apparent) longstanding sock farm of dubious governmental and/or PR firm origin, which has larded the article to such a point of blandness that one could easily be forgiven for not realizing the country has one of the poorest human rights records in the world.

You reversed my small addition to the human rights section, arguing that it was WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. I disagree strongly: I think it is important for a reader to know there exists an informal cultural boycott against the country, based on its human rights record. Would it have made a difference if I had given you another dozen or more mainstream US news citations from September 2013 calling attention to Kanye West's guest appearance at that Nazarbayev wedding? (Even The New York Times ran a story.)

Just please know where I'm coming from with the edit. It may not fit into the section flow, but it is not really so much of a pop culture story as it might seem at first blush. I certainly don't think it so trivial it deserves to sink into the memory hole, along with all the other facts this authoritarian regime would prefer outsiders forget. Nazarbayev would like to buy legitimacy, but he got caught out this time, in my opinion, largely because of West's cultural prominence. In any event I hope you have a look at the Signpost Op-Ed, and in light of what's there, we might come to consensus (perhaps) on alternate or improved wording and sourcing for this. I do think it has a place somewhere in the article, and who knows, might give a naïve reader some context that not all that glitters there, as it were, is gold. Thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: Hi. As you're already aware of the existence of the Human Rights article, it may be appropriate for that article per WP:TITLE (i.e., the article deals specifically with such issues, therefore it would not be misplaced so long as other editors believe it to be DUE). It is not, however, DUE for the broad scope article for the reasons I outlined.
Please read the COIN discussion carefully. The Kazakhstan article has become a magnet for WP:ADVOCACY surrounding an article dealing with the history, culture, ethnic groups, etc. it should be about. Again, I'll invoke WP:RECENTISM. I understand you're approaching this in good faith, but you're actually trying to pull the article towards what the socks and meat are trying to accomplish. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not married to the edit, and I appreciate your arguments and suggestions. Googling around, I couldn't really find support for the notion that there's a wider cultural boycott in place which might give this story the weight it would need to merit inclusion on Kazakhstan. (That said, the West/Nazarbayev wedding singer flap did get an unusual degree of domestic coverage here in 2013, all the more surprising because Kazakhstan human rights issues usually fly so far below US media radar.) In any event, the last thing I want to do is spark some meat 'n socks edit war, particularly over an entertainer whose talent and cultural import I would otherwise scarcely champion. Thanks again Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, sometimes there more good PR for a 'celebrity' factoring into high level reportage than any genuine concern for the reality of the issue (Kanye West's agent suggested it'd lift his profile as a caring, PC kinda guy??!!). I'm neutral as to whether it belongs in the "Human Rights" article, but I tend to feel that it's more along the lines of WP:EVERYTHING/Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. That's only my position on the matter. You could always test the waters by following WP:BRD for that article if you wish. Happy editing, either way! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Reference errors on 19 October

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, ReferenceBot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: changes made to Ukraine post

Hi Iryna, Please indicate where you believe my changes were not neutral. Actually I found the article to be biased against Russia, using words such as "russian invasion", "russian aggression", and I believe this needs to be corrected as it misleads the reader and creates an undue negative impression on Russia. I am, however, willing to discuss any spots where my changes may have overstepped the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.200.103 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As suggested by me already, read the talk page archives. This is not a matter of consensus between you and I, nor is it a matter of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which is WP:POV). Please read WP:NPOV as it's unlikely to mean what most new contributors think it means. We are an encyclopaedic resource, therefore reflect what reliable sources say on any matter.
If you still wish to challenge the consensus and reliable sources, please start a new section on the talk page of the article. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You failed to answer my question, which indicates you found nothing that contradicts any policy. Your stated reason for removing changes was "Your recent edit to Ukraine seemed less than neutral to me". It SEEMED something to YOU, which means it is clearly your personal opinion of my changes that influenced your action. Now you are using a vague general excuse about a wikipedia policy that hardly applies here, instead of answering my question. You are effectively censoring what you personally disagree with. Speaking of "reliable" sources, frankly, any source is considered unreliable if it is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But that's a topic for the talk page. What I'll do for now is I'll go through the NPOV and redo my changes if they don't agree with it, however, I fill also scrutinize everything that's on the page already so that it also complies with those rules, as I believe it currently does not. Then we'll talk some more. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.200.103 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you will not bring it to my talk page. You can take it up on the article's talk page. I have no interest in a one on one discussion with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN to what an experienced editor tries to explain to them. No more comments on my talk page about policies and guidelines you don't understand. The only thing I am trying to avoid is this escalating to becoming WP:UNCIVIL. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"You will not", "No more", Wow...So far, you, the experienced editor, have explained zero as to what's wrong with my edits. But as I said, I might be wrong about policies and I will do the due diligence in making any necessary corrections. I will then edit the article in strict accordance with the rules and at least up to the already existing standard and WILL post on your talk page only if you try to prevent properly written changes from reflecting. After all, we don't want any system-gaming in Wikipedia, do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.200.103 (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Hinduism in Iceland

Iryna, thank you for reverting 41.136.53.229 at Religion in Hungary + Moldova. Please see ANI. JimRenge (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, JimRenge. I'm just logging off for the day, but I'll take a look first thing in the morning (should there be no other editors or, more importantly, sysops involving themselves by that point). If the sock relationship isn't self-evident, I'll eat my hat. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@JimRenge: It seems that NeilN has blocked the dynamic IP range temporarily. In the meantime, I'm checking through all of the sock changes and reverting them unless there's something of merit. Should the activities begin again after the block has expired, it's definitely time for an SPI. I'll be keeping an eye on all of the articles affected. There really don't seem to be too many sets of eyes on the various religion by country articles... which is strange considering that they're a prime target for POV pushers to turn them into fiascos rather than encyclopaedic resources. Sigh. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The range block seems to be effective. Thanks again for the cleanup. :) JimRenge (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian conflict and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,Tobby72 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, Tobby72. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I have read your edits on various pages, and I truly appreciate your feedback. This is the first time I have thanked somebody on Wikipedia, but you truly deserve it. Andrew1444 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew1444. I hope your Wikipedia experience is a good one. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

aw. gotta luv them cats, take it easy Iryna

Govindaharihari (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweeet! Thanks, Govindaharihari. Hope your Wikipedia experience has become a lot more pleasant. Wow, we do get some strange 'fellow editors' out there. I've been meaning to check in on how that's going but keep getting snowed under in other stuff. Do feel free to give me a yell if the problem is persisting, or if a new one arises. It takes a bit of time (and a tough skin) to get through the learning curve! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Malformed and unsigned ANI notification by disruptive IP

Information icon There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding Disruptive editing and further harassment by user Iryna Harpy. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Objection to revert description

Iryna, you do a lot of great things on wikipedia and on contentious articles too, but I object to your somewhat rude remark in reverting my edit at Azov Battalion: "Undid revision 687654327 by Darouet (talk) That's not 'expanding', it's borderline WP:COPYVIO +ripe on loaded language)." It's not the revert that bothers me: you may be correct about the copyvio problem. It's that you claim I didn't expand the telegraph quote, when that's obviously what I did. Also, the loaded language isn't mine: it's from The Telegraph and clearly relates to our discussion about how sources characterize the Azov Battalion. Extremist organizations with "loaded" politics get "loaded" descriptions, and my addition just made it clear, for anyone interested, what The Telegraph said.

I don't plan to revert you - my edit was mostly inconsequential - but I'd just ask that you keep calm, as is your norm. I know that these subjects and their environments get to people. -Darouet (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Darouet. I've had a couple of very rough weeks on Wikipedia and it has made me short tempered... at the wrong people. I'm quite happy to revert with an apology if you'd like. Ultimately, I don't mind whether it stays or goes. Cheers, and throw a whale my way! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for understanding - and I'm sorry about past weeks on Wikipedia - it can be very trying! No need to self revert: there are clearly a few broader issues that need to be resolved at Azov Battalion and we'll get there eventually. In the mean time, thanks for all your hard work, from someone who has sometimes disagreed with you :) -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've already sr'ed with the apology. If anyone else wishes to revert it, I'm not going to argue the point with them. As you note, the broader issues are the first priority. As regards disagreements, I don't think we'd be doing our 'job' if we agreed on everything (i.e., I've disagreed with editors I usually agree with on numerous occasions). In fact, I'd be worried about the health of the project. Somapedia, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, well thank you. I feel guilty trying to edit the article right now since I don't have time to do it properly - sorry I'm not being of more use there. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason for you to feel guilty about it. I've abstained from touching it for a long time, other than superficial changes. I'm going to continue abstaining and just keep my eye on it. There's the smell of a fresh edit war in the wind, and I'm seeing a new supply of POV contributors poised to kill off RS and go GEVAL. I think it's going to take considerably more time for the emotive element to quieten down in order that the article can be cleaned up to meet with encyclopaedic standards. There's no shame in biding our time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled comment

in this article List of Russian military bases abroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page noting that your POV changes over months have been disruptive... plus have been answered by me on a number of articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Hey~

Hello Irnya! How are you doing? Long time no talk. Hope you're doing well. I have a question. My Russian ain't that top notch these days I can self-admit, but I feel like someone is playing with us. I couldn't find it in his given "link", but perhaps you can? According this certain user (who's willing to war about it) this piece of information "should confirm" this content he added in front of it; "Some cession treaties were signed by individual Azeri khans, such as Ibrahim Khalil Khan (Treaty of Kurakchay), Huseyngulu Khan who ceded Baku Khanate and Mustafa Khan who ceded Shirvan Khanate." I think he's frauding with us, as I couldn't find anything in it that stipulated that this happened. Funnily enough (and much to the pain of such nationalists), I did find this information;

"Semenov YI National policy in imperial Russia. Civilised outskirts (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Bessarabia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia - Caucasus as a whole. "The treaty of eternal peace and friendship signed between the Emperor of Russia and the Persian state in the Russian camp in the town of Gulistan in the river Zeyva, through appointed to both sides and of confirmed mutual agreement. (...) The treaty was concluded between His Majesty the Emperor of Russia and His Majesty the Shah of Persia. - For the peace between Russia and Persia. Regarding the policy to revise the Transcaucasian region, orders are given to Senator E.I Mechnikov, to transform the management system in the South Caucasus and the colonization of the region (between 1830 - January 20, 1831)."

Am I correct with both my findings here? Regarding the unsourced addition of that material an this quote I added here above? I instantly thought about you as I believed your Russian is (atm at least for sure, haha) better than mines. I hope this wasn't too much asked from you, btw. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Ukrainian conflict arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the status, L235. I see that it hasn't been hatted 'officially' as yet... but the outcome was predictable. Another Wikipedia day . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: 96.24.75.223

I've chastised User:96.24.75.223 on Talk:Sabra (company), as you did; their attitude clearly needs a change. That said, it might be a good idea for you to step back from interactions with said user. I don't think you've done anything wrong per se, and I apologize if I'm interfering where I'm not welcome, but it seems you've been a significant presence on their talk page, and personal resentments on all sides may be complicating an already tense subject of discussion. If their behavior continues to be as poor as it has been, there will be no shortage of editors to bring censure and admins to impose blocks; it doesn't have to fall on you. —Swpbtalk 22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, swpb. Good advice: I'll take it! I have enough work to get on with without antagonising the IP further. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I just wanted to say, I've only recently made edits to the Sabra article, and I wasn't aware of the history of the IP user forum shopping on ANI and elsewhere. Thanks for your contributions, and thanks for your levelheadedness during fractious content disputes. -- Callinus (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind works, Callinus. I'm very much at home with articles that fall under sanctions areas: ARBEE, ARBMAC, ARBAA, ARBPIA, ARBIND (ugh! I'd better stop the extensive list before I realise what a masochist I truly am)... It's the articles on the periphery that I really keep my eyes on as they're the first port of call for problem editors who've been shooed away from the high traffic articles. It seems that their favourite hangouts are any articles they can turn into coatracks. Normally, I wouldn't leave comments on an article's talk page that aren't purely content related but, while the IP has received a lot of attention via noticeboards, it didn't appear to be reflected in the number of editors actually watching the article. Thanks to you and swpb for staying on top of the problem. It's a relief to be able to extract myself from having to justify the obvious!
If either of you ever need another set of eyes on an article, or a third opinion (humble as it may be), please feel free to ping me. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

A cup of tea for you!

I hope you've been well while I was away. Given your continued good work, I thought that the least I could do is provide a cup of tea. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, RGloucester... and 'yay' to welcoming you back! You've been sorely missed. You were blocked so quickly and dramatically that I literally didn't know what had happened from logging off one day, then logging back in the next. My apologies for not speaking up for you, but I thought/knew that any input by me would complicate matters rather than ameliorate them. Please use me as a port of call if you need to vent without undesirable repercussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It was all a bit of a mess, but I'm responsible for my own actions. I hardly want to drag anyone else in (or down). I'm not quite fond of the sycophancy that goes on around here, anyway. I appreciate the baklava, as it is truly one of my favourites. Pistachio nuts, rosewater, honey...quite lovely. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with this Ukranian-Russian bias in the Cossack articles.

And stop throwing false accusation. If you want the page number, ask nicely. The full document of Bogdan asking for vassalage and protectorate is submitted to the page now which exists in the Ottoman archives and translated by historians, I hope you are happy, but I'm sure you will find a way to find something wrong Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Again please stop writing false accusation about me and stop writing petty threats on my talk page to scare me, it is not working, I have already added my reference, or do you want me to wake up Bogdan Khmelnytsky from his grave??? 02:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs)

And I am saying that neither your addition, nor the pre-existing uncited one are WP:DUE in the status parameter of the infobox (aside from the fact that just the name of a publication and a reference to someone's tweet are in any shape of form WP:RS). Nevertheless, I am assuming good faith on your behalf, so please take this to the talk page of the relevant article where I created a section to discuss the content in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will take it to any talk page except my talk page which you have used to threaten me. I was just making sure you know the guy's name in case you come back reverting my edit and asking for more stuff. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Do I know who the 'guy' is? Try reading this section and this RfC... and stop assuming bad faith on my behalf. You're edit warring, and I'm trying to give you an opportunity not to keep sticking your neck out because you're not an experienced editor as yet. Setting up relationships as a WP:BATTLEGROUND is not a good way to start. I have simply issued standard template warnings: they are not threats. Could we now take it to the article's talk page and discuss this in order that we both understand each other's rationales for inclusion or exclusion. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


Where was the edit war? I have fixed, I didn't not resume the same edit for more than three times and you are assuming bad faith, I don't need to look anywhere when I have the Harvard Ukrainian Studies, so can I go back and use my edit? or are you going to threaten me again with a block, you are hindering the article unless people please what you say. How is that a good faith?

>Could we now take it to the article's talk page and discuss this in order that we both understand each other's rationales for inclusion or exclusion.

The rationale is simple and it is from the Journal of the Harvard Ukrainian studies. Please refrain from threatening people with a block and show them respect. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So what does Ukrainian Cossack killing innocent Polish people savagely have to do with Cossack Hetmanate being an Ottoman Vassal? I'm educating myself in Wikipedia guidelines and I may have to use the WP:IGNORE, I see no reason my FIXED edit being not viable, every edit I was doing was built upon and fixed, so it wasn't mindless edit war as you perceived. I'm trying to improve and maintain Wikipedia article to it's highest standard and you are preventing me from doing it and using petty threatening tactics which for your information are not working ? So I'm going to ask again as I asked in the talk age of the cossacks, is there a reason or is it just Ukranian/Russian nationalistic bias? I'm going to assume WP:GOODFAITH now Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask one more time, can I move with my edit with you trying to bully me, is it not enough that you caused other people problem? Why you have to annoy the crap about me with this mindless games? I do not understand your reasoning and your excuses are drying up very quick, once I edit the page you will cry that there is an edit war when in fact I was fixing upon the same edit you told to me to fix and I have acquainted myself with the rules, the burden of proof here lies on you to tell me what is wrong with the references, I'm sure you are the top historian on the Cossack history and the guys at Harvard have nothing on you Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Iryna, I hope you are doing well. There is a discussion at ANI that may interest you, in which the exchange above was mentioned. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Laszlo Panaflex. I'm well, thanks. I hope all is well with you, too. Thank you for the heads up. I had a feeling that we might cross paths again over this new user. It appears that he's systematically working through historical articles and giving them a slanted Ottoman Empire spin. I had to postpone discussions regarding the unbalanced structure of the article in question as I had my hands full in other sanctions areas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, it's a lovely day right?
>I had a feeling that we might cross paths again over this new user.
This is Wikipedia and we share a common Cossack interest.
>It appears that he's systematically working through historical articles and giving them a slanted Ottoman Empire spin.
Iryna, please stop lying about me, how can I make Ali article and give it "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin"? how can I make Mughal article and give it "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin"? How can I make thousands of article and give them "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin" ?????? I thought we setteled this issue already, you gave me advice and instruction from the guidelines but as usual I gave you my hand and you throw dirt at me?
>I had to postpone discussions regarding the unbalanced structure of the article in question as I had my hands full in other sanctions areas.
And as usual I will be there providing my references. How can you make a balanced article more balanced? Let me guess by adding more biased content, Iryna, please wake up and let's have a serious discussion, leave the insults at home., with your logic if I read about the Mongol Empire and edit the Kiev page on the date of the battles they lost, I must be giving "a slanted Mongol Empire spin", anyone who isn't pro-Ukranian must be against you, I don't abide by these false dichotomy claims you write about me. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Proof on me not being "virtual newbie"

I hope we can settle this rumor created by User:Medeis Who was quick to tarnish my image and accuse of sock puppetry. I made this just for you, in your own talk page, so you don't fall for what I call misinformation, here is my narutopedia user page and notice my new edit and your name, also you can check the history of the page here, it is almost a year since I edited my Narutopedia user page, also here is my contributions page.

So in conclusion:

  • I'm not "virtual newbie"
  • I have previous simple knowledge of editing, my knwoeldge increased exponentily in Wikipedia mother of all Wikis
  • fun fact: I was just using the Virutal editor in Narutopedia, it wasn't a rocket Science in the sens all I did was add word here and there and never had to edit the source manually ever except in Wikipedia.

Hopefully you will reach a positive conclusion and abandon this rumor or you can continue spreading misinformation about me with User:Medeis, your choice Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


When is your next birthday? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Latin alphabet

Hi, for some reason you have reverted my modification of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_Latin_alphabet&oldid=prev&diff=689254714 The sentence ″It is currently promoted as a way of facilitating the Ukrainian integration within the European Union.″ is deeply misleading and has not been confirmed by any sources for a very long time. I am Ukrainian myself and never found anything remotely related to confirm what this sentence is saying. I believe it is fair to remove this unsubstantiated claim from Wikipedia. Askold (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling me up on this, Askold. The request for a citation is relatively recent, but the actual inclusion of the WP:OR content has stood without a citation for far longer. The article, in itself, has gone through a lot of POV pushing. It could do with a thorough clean up. I do tend to be overly cautious about removing content because much referenced content has been lost over the years by the time editors get around to going over changes. If you're willing to do some more work on it, please do so! Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

hatting at ANI

I read your comment and agree with the sentiment, since the section you requested hatting seems to be taking up 1/5th of the page. Normally I would hat, but given my late involvement I don't want to have any reason for conflict when the user is unblocked. If no one comments further on that thread it will be archived soon enough, hence my sympathy here, but also my advice that nothing further be done in the matter. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. I let it stand for normal archiving for a few days, and I do think that I should have followed my gut instinct. I don't have any confidence in the user actually coming away from the block having learnt anything. I'm going to strike my request and ask that the thread be left as is. Cheers for the good advice, Medeis! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A zachem tvojo imen "Harpy"? Ty znash, ty bars (ochen') dobra zhena! μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha! You haven't seen me in action when Zeus calls! Let's just say that, when it comes to righteous, humanitarian concerns, I can be a 'bojova' opponent... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, one last interruption. Does 'bojova' mean in your dialect what хелова means in mine? I have to confess, I got broken Rusyn at home and had only a semester of "Pomoskowski" (jak skazala moja baba) at university (I never got as far as plurals or the dative or instrumental case endings). So I am not sure if you are punning me there or not. Добраноч!μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

CounterTime edits

Thank you for your comment here. I have been too busy in real life to contribute any time to wikipedia, or address edits by @CounterTime for last few weeks on Jizya and Apostasy in Islam. I will try to keep an eye on these articles on a daily basis and devote more time to help improve the article. I like your suggestion that DRN may be the next step. Please do keep an eye on those articles, and correct my edits where I err. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, RLoutfy. I'll do my best, but a DRN really seems to be the only way to go. I simply don't have the expertise in the area to be able to counter CounterTime (if you'll pardon the pun) even though I don't have any faith in his contributions. I hope you don't feel too much under pressure to dedicate time you don't have at the moment. Remember that problems with content don't have to be addressed immediately. It may be unpleasant to see flawed content in articles, but these can be addressed once a DRN have appraised sources and perspectives. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Wow, I'm shocked, did you really state: "to be able to counter CounterTime (if you'll pardon the pun)"? Do you realize that it's a direct attack and accusation against the WP of good faith? So you're just assuming that I'm wrong... I'm speechless... --CounterTime (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, you have an uncanny ability to read personal attacks where they don't exist. I am, in fact, still assuming good faith on your behalf, but the speed and gusto with which you've been expanding content, deleting sourced content, and reverting without stopping to discuss your changes properly is worrying. More on that, and assuming bad faith on my behalf or RLoutfy's behalf is addressed below in the #Reeves.ca section. I don't think you've even allowed yourself enough time to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Sorry but you explicitly stated "I simply don't have the expertise in the area to be able to counter CounterTime." That's quiet shocking to me as it assumes that I'm basically all wrong. --CounterTime (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: That would also explain why RLoutfy always choses the easy way of blatantly canvassing other editors whom he feels would support his views (such as you, since you stated quiet explicitly "I simply don't have the expertise in the area to be able to counter CounterTime.") --CounterTime (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy/Archive_22&oldid=695990492"