User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Iryna Harpy. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Hello, I've never loved wars but now I'm going to edit about another one and it was a great priviledge to meet you

I've been invited to edit about ISIL, so this time, I'm really leaving the War in Donbass. I wish the best for all the Ukrainian people (either in the West or the East Ukraine)... I'll still edit about the Ukrainian population in Portugal. I may have been a bit quite too furious towards what I perceived as being a geopolitical game being played in the English Wikipedia about this issue. And from the War in Donbass, you, RGloucester (in spite of different good-faith opinions that we may have) and EkoGraf (for all of his a bit discrete but insisting and accurate presentation of facts), I'm priviledged to have met you (these 3 editors I mentioned). I hope we'll meet again here in Wikipedia! Greetings! Some people may eventually be more disappointed about me than I am about them, but everything I've edited here was in good faith, I was never playing games here. And I'm priviledged to have been invited to edit about ISIL. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wronk. I also support the self-determination of Odessa, Kharviv and other regions in South-Eastern Ukraine. Portoshenko was the only guy that, for instance unified some consensus in Kherson and Milkolaiv, but among of a votation lower than 50% in all Eastern Ukraine and Zakhapatia. Please, Ukraine, make a referendum for each region in Eastern Ukraine (including Kherson) and for Zakharpatia!) This has nothing to do with any anti-Ukrainian sentiment. I just find nationalism purely stupid, apart from eg. Portugal that has had fixed borders for around 900 years (apart from Azores and Madeira, but I'd respect any result there). Not I'm already editing in ISIS and the crimes against humanity they've made (nothing comparable to DNR or LNR)|!. If you wish, I myself, invite you to edit about the nazis in the Middle East!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Mondolkiri1. I have edited articles surrounding issues in the Middle East in the past, and am well acquainted with historical issues including the impact of colonisation and its socio-political and economic aftermath. At the moment, however, I'm still focussed on the POV pushes in Eastern Europe and the surrounding articles which have become an abhorrent mess. I prefer not to spread myself too thin as I have articles right across the board on my watchlist. Please don't take this as an admonishment, but as the best advice I can offer: I think it's important for editors like you and me (and as already practised by RGloucester and EkoGraf) not to become overly obsessed with trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia is not just what is represented in articles today and tomorrow, but is an ongoing project. Nothing can be changed in a day without missing fundamental human rights issues. Knowledge and institutionalised preconceptions of the world order can't be eliminated by shoving other analytical perspectives down people's throats. Certainly there are improvements that can and will be made to adjust bias as Wikipedia develops, but I'm concerned that you are becoming a POV-er to your own detriment. Please, do try to pull back from your personal, emotional perspectives or you Wikipedia will become a terrible and disillusioning experience for you. Wishing you only the best! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Mondolkiri1, will be seeing you since I'm highly active with the Syrian war and thus ISIL as well. EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Free Donbass

No one deletes it. (?) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. It's finally gone! There appears to be a bit of a backlog. It's that time of year again! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting pages

Hello, I really had no idea that I deleted the tags. That was a mistake. Arbustum (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, Arbustum. I know a lot of good faith accidents and policy-based mistakes are common when you're a new user. There's quite a steep learning curve. Welcome aboard! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Minority languages in the EU - Belarusian

Hi, just got your message: "An edit that you recently made to Languages of the European Union seemed to be a test and has been removed." Thanks for being vigilant, but it wasn't a test. I had intentionally added Belarusian to the list of MINORITY languages of the EU (not to the list of EU's OFFICIAL languages). The list in question currently includes, among others, Armenian and Rusyn, but after you have reverted my edit, it makes no refference to Belarusian, which according to Polish law has even higher status than the former two languages (it's a co-official language in several communities in the Podlasie Voivodship). Is there any reason why the list that includes all other officially recognized minority languages of Poland (and dozens of other minority languages of the EU countries) shoud exclude Belarusian? Thanks in advance! Adam 89.66.111.140 (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I've self-reverted in order to include Belarusian. The article, itself, is desperately in need of being updated and needs more verifiable / reliable sources, therefore I've added a reliable sources (citations needed) template to the already existing multiple issues tag at the top of the page. If you're able to assist in finding sources for minority languages, it would be greatly appreciated. We're a volunteer 'workforce' of far too few experienced editors having to spread ourselves very, very thin across the whole of Wikipedia.

I've posted a welcome for you with links to some of the fundamentals of contributing to the project. While it certainly isn't compulsory, creating an account is an excellent way to start if you'd seriously like to involve yourself (even to a limited extent).

Again, thanks for pulling me up on the revert! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for suggestion

Iryna Harpy, could you please take a look at my discussion with User:Sundostund? It is about Ukrainian politics. Could you give me your opinion on the matter? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Link: User talk:Sundostund#List of chairmen of the Verkhovna Rada. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nu, shcho za halymatia? I'll read through and see if I can make sense of it. I've also added the user's page to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for respond. In a brief outlook, the argument is about political affiliation and its depiction in the given article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to delay examining the article and trying to make an assessment of the content being pushed until tomorrow as I have a long day ahead IRL today, but I will get onto it tonight or tomorrow. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The floors.

What should we do about the floors? :P EkoGraf (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We could mop them, or just pretend that the building was flattened and nothing happened... The sourced article doesn't seem to know whether it's using the American English or British English level naming conventions. The only thing that's evident is that there were four levels left (basement and another three levels remaining above ground). Perhaps the best way around it is simply to call them 'levels': basement (an American term), ground level, first level and second level? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm about to leave for the day and won't have access to the internet until tonight. This will give you more time for both of us to think on it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of your article and also your 'evidence'

I have twice tried to correct you page but on both occasions you quoted lack of evidence - despite the whole of your article being based mostly on hearsay and unverifiable 'evidence'.

My main criticism is that the article lacks neutrality. For example you are happy to quote the views of Western commentators as fact but carefully ignore any opposing views that have been put forward by Russia over the past few months. Most of your evidence is Western biased.

As they say the first casualty of war is truth, and so it is very difficult to write an accurate, neutral article about this matter.

Having said that you fail to address the issue of propaganda and in particular the many unsubstantiated claims of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. I previously gave you an example of a Guardian article which was not backed up by photos despite several reporters allegedly seeing Russian forces crossing into Ukraine.

Additionally, there has clearly been an anti Russia campaign run by the media in the UK - I don't know about Australia.

I can see that we cannot agree. Can I therefore suggest that we ask for a third person to have a look at your article with a view to judging its neutrality?

Regards

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertfromscotland (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I realise that you are a new user, therefore I'm assuming good faith on your behalf, but absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policy or how Wikipedia actually works. To that end, I've posted a welcome message with links to salient policies, guidelines and a 'how to' tutorial.

As for a third person... have you actually read the corresponding talk page (including a further 11 archived discussion pages)? I don't WP:OWN the article in any sense, nor are you and I the only people contributing to it. We could probably ask for a 125th person to weigh in for all the good it will do you. Reliable sources count, not your personal position on a subject. Note, also, that the article in question is subject to Eastern European topic sanctions. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Article deletion review

You've blanked the article No1 Model of the World, with the edit summary writing that 'Article review outcome was delete.' You are probably aware of only administrators being able to delete pages, as well as the fact that blanking is not tantamount to a deletion. So, the article has been restored for now. Please send a message if the edits were intentional. Regards. KJ^Discuss? 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ymblanter. Just thought I'd get rid of the advertising until you (or another admin) could delete it again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kkj11210: The edits were by no means unintentional. You were well aware of the article having already been deleted after a deletion review, therefore your restoration of the content was purely for the sake of tendentious editing... and I don't appreciate WP:ARTSPAM being restored for even a couple of hours. You would be well aware of the fact that the protocol is to appeal a deletion if you consider that the outcome was wrong. Perhaps you'd care to explain to me how I could 'blank' something that no longer existed? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that the article has been deleted following a deletion review. Even then, per WP:BLANK, the article should not have been blanked, but rather tagged with the appropriate WP:CSD tag, in this case WP:G4. This would apply regardless of the content of the article, unless it was a blatant copyright violation or attack page (which neither applied). In any case, I'm glad it was cleared up. KJ^Discuss? 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, I should have tagged it per G4. My apologies for assuming bad faith. Being tired and irritated is not an excuse for being sloppy and uncivil. I overstepped the line on both counts, so my thanks for pulling me up on my own bad behaviour. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just glad that the misunderstandings have been cleared up on both sides. Regards. KJ^Discuss? 07:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in case, it was not a deletion review, it was an AfD discussion. The deletion review could have been the next step, when a user is unhappy with the outcome of the AfD discussion, they can open a deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that I should just have tagged it as a db-repost. I've just allowed myself to get unnecessarily cranky over the new wave of newbies pulled in over current affairs who've been creating chaos (intentionally and unintentionally). Thanks for taking care of it, Ymlanter! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

why did you object to the osce report of no tanks crossing from Russia into Ukraine?Y

You claimed this was not neutral, but the way you reject any point of view other than the Western point of view is certainly not neutral.

In this particular case I included a link to the article - and there are others just Google.

It seems that you remove all of my posts no matter what because you object to anyone having a different point of view from your Westerncentric view.

Would it be better for me to start a new wikipedia article entitled 'the war in Ukraine from a neutral point of view' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertfromscotland (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I simply informed you that it had been removed via a generic template. It was a courtesy missive to inform you that your contribution had been removed. If you care to look at the history of the article, you'll see that it was removed by another editor and, given how badly structured and presented it was, I had no objection to its removal. I've already pointed you in the direction of the article's talk page. Follow the WP:BRD protocol and bring up the discussion on that talk page, not on mine.

Again, I would urge you to read WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE... in fact, all of the policies and guidelines pertinent to contributing to Wikipedia, not you original research rendition of how you imagine Wikipedia works. You've made the error of trying to become an editor by jumping straight into the deep end on a highly controversial article. I'm simply trying to give you a fighting chance not to end up by being blocked or sanctioned per WP:ARBEE. Read ARBEE carefully, because the article you're trying to push your POV into happens to be one of those articles.

Try talking to other editors on the article's talk page (← click here: I've provided the link a second time for you) and understand that articles in Wikipedia are not based on my POV or your POV but the mainstream information from reliable sources. Evidently, you haven't even bothered to read the response I left for you above. Take it to the correct talk page and stop making assumptions as to what my POV is, and stop throwing your toys out of your pram.

Finally, I suggest you read this essay about The Truth, take a deep breath, understand that you've come here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cool down and approach the matter as if you might be dealing with intelligent human beings who don't perceive the world as simplistically as you seem to think they do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Szymonn04

Thanks for your proposal on helping out with the language barrier between us and User:Szymonn04. I think it might help if [one of] your friends would translate the messages I left on Szymonn04's talk page to Polish. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, Poeticbent, and Kpalion. A new user, Szymonn04, has started editing the "2015 Formula One season" (see user contributions here), and was reported for edit warring here.

S/he has only left one ES which is in Polish. Per discussions on the 3RR page, it's understood that this person is editing AGF but probably doesn't know any English. Their global account info indicates Polish Wikipedia as being their home wiki, but only one edit has been made there on the corresponding article in Polish.

I think it would be a shame to scare off a potential good faith contributor (most particularly for Polish Wikipedia) simply because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. Would any of you be willing to quickly inform the user of what is going on and, most particularly, translate the information required by Tvx1 at the end of this section, being:
"In particular in this case we would need a source by FOM or FIA announcing the venue."
Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:09, 5 December 2014 (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.

RGloucester — ☎ 05:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:21, 6 December 2014 (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.

RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014, unreferenced in Henryk Zieliński

I have added some citations into the article, inline.
I hope it would be enough referenced now; evaluate yourself.

Regards Julo (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely better than it was, although a few more citations would be of value. It's in need of a little copy editing, but I'll get to that ASAP. If I find anything that looks as if it needs a citation, I'll just add an inline tag. Thanks for putting in the work! Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning

126.59.95.146 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

... and don't template the regulars! Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverts, warnings

Hi, the string of "warnings" you posted on my wall were completely uncalled for, as were the reverts of every single edit I've done to Wikipedia, all based on me writing "too many god damn languages" when I removed some of the totally unnecessary language info from the first paragraph of Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Currently there's 5 languages represented and on my screen, that's nearly a third of the opening paragraph, rendering the article hard to read. Would you please mind telling me how I report your behavior to a moderator? 126.59.95.146 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I am sorry for biting but your edits were not constructive - most particularly in view of the edit summaries you did provide. Making WP:POV edits in order to remove content you personally object to is not compliant with WP:NPOV, it's simply WP:DONTLIKEIT behaviour.

Secondly, per WP:BRD (that is Bold → Revert → Discuss), if you feel that your edits were justified, and my reverts unjustified, take it to the talk page of the article in question in order to discuss the matter where other contributors/editors can comment on the decision, as well a leaving a record of a consensus decision.

You're certainly welcome to "report my behaviour" at WP:ANI, but be certain that you feel confident with the process in order that it doesn't meet with a WP:BOOMERANG. I would suggest that it would be more productive for you to use the welcome links I've left on your page in order to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than what you assume the protocols to be. If you need assistance, by all means feel free to ask me. I should have extended you the courtesy of assuming good faith, but that is predicated on your willingness to work through a steep learning curve. Happy editing whichever way you wish to approach it: reporting me and/or trying to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community and myself! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to drag you into a stupid dispute

I don't mean to drag you into a stupid dispute, but a certain editor is disputing the meaning of the word "government" as used in Australia and a wide variety of places. No amount of sources on my part seem to placate him, so I was wondering if a bona fide Australian like yourself might be able to confirm that "government" is used to refer the ruling executive, composed by ministers (e.g. "Abbot Government"). Please see Talk:Government if you're interested in chiming in. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the elucidation. I asked some people from the Australian politics project to check-in as well, and they seem to have provided more evidence, along with the Macquarie Dictionary. Little things can be quite annoying, sometimes. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya

You may be interested in the conversation here: Talk:Novorossiya.--Bogu Slav 04:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Long Overdue.....

		Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise.
		Thanks for all your hard work and so many edits on Ukrainian related articles the past years. Hence you deserve the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise.
		_{This WikiAward was given to Iryna Harpy by Yulia Romero on 23:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)'}

Thank you so much. As RGloucester noted, each of us brings a skill set to the table, but it's the process of collaboration and adherence to policy that enhance the quality of the project. I suspect I'm best versed in the art of acting as a variant on Cerberus. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Three cheers for a watchdog who somehow manages to combine ferocity with wisdom and gentleness! Jim.henderson (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim.henderson. I'm touched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines

Malaysia Airlines is back to square one. See the recent "DRN" case, which is evidence of how useless that process seems to be. I think we should think about going back to that ArbCom idea, otherwise this nonsense is never going to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon, who has taken the DRN, has already posted to the NPOVN out of frustration. You might want to offer some advice here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Needing help again!

Sorry for bothering you for (possibly) the third time. This time it's none of that eastern/central stuff though. It's nowhere near as controversial, but it is much more complicated from a technical point of view. Basically, a user has somehow split the article about kvass into two pages (with no prior discussion and seemingly no valid reason) - renaming the original page to "Bread kvass" and calling the new one "Kvass". I tried to move the original page back to its name and pasted the content he cut from the first page to the new one back in its place, but I only managed to rename the new page to "Kvass (duplicate)" and it would not let me rename the original back to its name. I thought this was due to redirect pages, so I moved those as well but that didn't help and I just complicated things further. I know that this isn't every Wikipedian's area of expertise, so if you are just as clueless about how to fix this as I am then please pass this on to somehow who can because I have absolutely no idea. What was that guy thinking in the first place?! And now I just feel guilty, since I only made things worse by trying to fix them. :(

More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bread_kvass#Article_rename.3F

--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the POV splitting of the article a couple of days ago when it occurred. I haven't had a chance to look it over properly, but it is undoubtedly an unwarranted and unjustifiable split into two articles dealing with precisely the same subject. Don't feel guilty: I just played into the hands of a POV-er a couple of days ago without realising what I'd done until after the fact. I'll look it over ASAP. Cheers for the reminder! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How it is a "precisely same subject"? We have Vodka, and we have Khortytsya horilka, right? We have bread kvass and apple kvass and birch kvass, and wild pear kvass and raspberry kvass and whats not. And how this Samotnyy Mandryvnik decided the article "duplicate", when I wrote completely new content. Probably he drank too much Monopolowa instead of kwas chlebowy. -M.Altenmann >t 06:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. google search shows Mandrivnik/Mandrivnyk/Mandryvnik/Mandryvnyk in comparable amounts. Which transliteration is accepted in wikipedia? -M.Altenmann >t 06:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

2013

By the way, last year you wrote there: Perhaps I should be pro-active (read as ludicrous) by adding a Ukrainian section to the article. Nu? I bet Volodymyr Svyatoslavych drank lots of honey kvass in his time, not only medovukha. -M.Altenmann >t 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) How about writing about суровец ? Or about beetroot kvass? Or in modern Ukraine everybody drinks only pepsi and cola? -M.Altenmann >t 07:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Harpy, I would appreciate some help. User Roamingeditor222226 persistently attempts to whitewash the article on Sageworks. Specifically, this company engages in a questionable practice of offering software services and at the same time repackaging and reselling its customer private data. User Roamingeditor222226, based on its edits, keeps trying to distort this fact. This user account seems to have been created only for the purpose of manipulating the Sageworks article. Just as BizEquity, this article seems to have been created for thinly veiled self-promotional purposes. What should be done about this? Thanks.--Slowestonian (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Havryshivka Vinnytsia International Airport logo.png

Hi, I have re-uploaded the logo to File:Havryshivka Vinnytsia International Airport logo.png. It's use on the article is valid under the NFCC. If you wish to dispute this, please do so at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#How_to_nominate, but I can tell that identifying corporate identity of companies, etc is valid usage on English Wikipedia. Airenthusiast (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Thank you, Paine Ellsworth. Wishing you and yours a wonderful festive season! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine (and thank you, too!)

I wish you the same, Iryna. I'm glad I'm not down in the southern hemisphere heat. I quite like having a proper winter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, RGloucester. I feel quite the same about our weather, particularly as winters have become very mild and the warm weather extends over a far more protracted period than it did when I was younger. Happy Christmas! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bilui/White

Dear Iryna, First of all, Merry Christmas! All the best to you in upcoming 2015 year. And, secondly, as I understand, it is uncommon to translate one part of the geographic name: Cabo Verde, not Green Cabo; Bila Tserkva, not White Tserkva; Bilyi Cheremosh, not White Cheremosh. You can find name White and Black Cheremosh on some rafting sites, but not in the serious sources. For example, in Kubijovyc`s Encyclopedia of Ukraine, UofT Press, vol.1, p.415 is written "... the river is formed by the confluence of Chornyi Cheremosh (87 km long with a basin of 856 sq km) and the Bilyi Cheremosh (61 km long..." etc. Thus I assume in the Cheremosh article have to be as I edited yesterday. With best wishes, Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Christmas greetings, and wishing you the same. Considering the lack of English language reliable sources using the convention of Black Cheremosh, rather than Chornyi Cheremosh, I would agree with you, particularly given that the translation is in the body of the article. I'll revert myself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've done it already. Good to see you developing the article further. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

RT Talk

I'm confused by your last post. I made no comment on the quality of Al Jazeera. After re-reading the other recent relevant posts I'm not sure if you meant it for someone else or if my wording has caused a misunderstanding. Hope you're having a great Christmas! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

--Bogu Slav 05:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Hafspajen. Wishing you the same... and adding a big thank you for all of your hard work over the years, particularly for your work in the field of images for articles! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to join the greetings and wish you the best New Year. З Новим Роком і Різдвом Христовим! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Greenmaven (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poeticbent talk 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Wish You a Great, Prosperous, Blissful, Healthy, Bright, Delightful, Energetic and Extremely Happy, HAPPY NEW YEAR 2015. --Peace world 09:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

З новим роком !!

Have a happy and prosperous New Year my friend. And peace. I can't say that enough. --Taivo (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A sentiment I thoroughly commend and second. Best wishes, and enjoy that warmth over there! (And thanks for your close work on those contentious articles like Ukraine et al) Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:HNY

Thanks, same to you. Żyrafał (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Iryna Harpy!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:Happy New Year Anupam!

Dear User:Iryna Harpy, I really appreciate your new year's wishes! I hope that you had an enjoyable night to bring in 2015! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NY2015

Thanks Iryna, happy new year to you too! Cheers, --Therexbanner (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Thanks for the greetings and apologies for the late reply - you too have yourself a wonderful new year!
-Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

new year greeting

happynewyear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.222.162.160 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy New Year to you, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:35, 5 January 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.

RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi Iryna, so sorry for the late reply, I didn't see the message until now as I wasn't on Wikipedia. Thank you so much and Happy New Year to you too! I wish you a lot of success! Thank you for the discussions and I hope we can collaborate and discuss in future edits. Smart Nomad (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, Smart Nomad. Wishing you a wonderful New Year and, yes, by all means it would be chuffed to work in collaboration with you again! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fairies

"My brain is away with the fairies" diff - what a nice phrase! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Wikipedia's more prolific waterway contributors

Featured content: Kock up

Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

Caboclo

The part altered had no source nor does reflect reality. I'm altering again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junipher2189 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please leave a comment on the talk page of the article stating that you've removed it, as well as your rationale. In that way, should anyone try to restore it, there is a record of the removal and a point from which to discuss the issue with other editors. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Wikipedia community

In the media: Wikipedia's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

Featured content: Citations are needed

Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

Wolfsangel in modern Ukraine

Hi. You reverted my edit "In Ukraine it (wolfsangel) was used by SNPU (Social-National Party of Ukraine)^[1] till 2004 and is currently used by Neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly^[2] and Azov Battalion^[3]" speaking about some Shestakov. As you can see there is no such persons in that source. Please be more attentive. Also you wrote on my talk page "If you wish to portray Ukrainians as fanatical nationalists who'd cut your throat as soon as look at you". It is unappropriate, i am Ukrainian myself so it is disgusting to me to read such things (to see Nazi in my country also, naturally). Cathry (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Cathry, Shestakov is what New Yorker Jews call a putz. He is a student who reads too much useless paper and come up with his own pseudo-ideas for the purpose to completely discredit history of Ukraine depicting Ukrainians practically identical with Nazis. There was a reason why Ukrainians never were acknowledged as a side at the Nuremberg Trial. The sign that you referred is known as Idea of Nation (I/N), not Wolfsangel as Shestakov tries to depict, first of all. Second of all, since Oleh Tyahnybok became a head of party he introduced a lot of changes and the party's program oscillated away from a radical nationalism to moderate with elements of socialism. Svoboda is less radical than the Right Sector and has some disagreements with the current Social National Assembly society in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not use any "Shestakov"'s materials. OUN is described as fascist organization by many historians, so is Iron Guard for example. Interesting similarity http://www.adl.org/mobilehatesymbols/symbol-20.html with sign i referred to Cathry (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"since Oleh Tyahnybok became a head of party" - lol Cathry (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I used "Shestakov" as an abbreviation for Shekhovtsov because I couldn't even be bothered double-checking the spelling of an unknown PhD student (i.e., doesn't even have his doctorate yet) who likes to opine and present the same WP:OR you're so fond of. His op-ed articles are found exclusively at openDemocracy.net, and carries the same validity as any other blog-come-forum: zero, unless it's by a recognised authority and, even then, must be weighed carefully as to whether the 'authority' is a known Ukrainophobe, in which case the use of this authority in context needs to be discussed per WP:CON according to how reliable they actually have been in their career, and whether they are seen as being contentious by well established peers. Would you like to publish your own op-ed based on your POV analysis at openDemocracy? Here's the link. It's that simple.

While we're on the subject of pushing your personal analysis (AKA WP:OR), the parallels you're drawing between Wolfsangel are your own: "Oooh, I can see it! It must be true." Also, keep your 'LOL's to yourself on my talk page. I'm not even vaguely interested in engaging with you on your level yet again, and I have even less interest in your trying to engage in this manner with other editors discussing what is encyclopaedic and what is scraping the bottom of the barrel of cyberspace's blogs and forums in order to cherry pick material that you want to shoehorn. Enough of your WP:COATRACKing articles.

Oh, and incidentally, Umland's credentials are lay bare by his being a member of Valdai International Discussion Club: a Ukrainophobe right wing think tank posturing as being left-of-centre, funded and maintained by the RF. They do try to look credible by allowing a certain level of Russophobic sentiment, but it's all under control and guaranteed not to poke more than a couple of tiny holes into Putin's administration. Good luck with getting his extremist views accepted at the RSN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the population of Russia?

There are two opinions, see eg. the Demographics of Russia or List of countries and dependencies by population.Xx234 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

With the May 2014 annexation of Crimea, the population of Russia has increased to over 146 million. Demographics of Russia;

The population of Russia includes Crimea and Sevastopol. List of countries and dependencies by population Xx234 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner regarding this matter. A lot of these articles have fallen behind, or have been usurped by POV contributors. I think the balanced way in which to address this is as it has been done on the Russia article where the demographics show the population with and without Crimea in order not to breach WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but still acknowledge facts on the ground.

Please feel free to ping me from the talk pages of any of the articles you think need to be discussed. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Buhas bus attack

Iryno, could you please check the article? Some people refuse acknowledge that event as a terrorist act for some bizarre reason. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, there's been at least one 3RR report about this article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Leftcry reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Warned). It appears that you commented on the report. I'm unclear if there has been any consensus on using the term 'terrorism' in this area. Leftcry is one of the people reverting the 'terrorism' allegation about certain groups. Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's another one of those murky situations in which I'd be reticent to use 'terrorism' unless it's attributed to both sides using the term regarding the incident, EdJohnston. I'm happy to elaborate here. If you'd prefer, I'll take my observations about the reports to the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article talk page would be best. If you can add any links to prior discussions, that would be useful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother getting mixed up in this nonsense, Iryna. That IP is most likely Nickst. See this SPI I filed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Laganas

Thanks for template-izing the dab note in laganas. Unfortunately, you changed its content as well as its form, so it no longer made sense, and another editor deleted it.... I have corrected it. --Macrakis (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you were trying to accomplish. I've now hatnoted the appropriate pages at Tracta and Tracta (dough), and LaganasI hope that's what you were trying to accomplish. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a few more tweaks to those. In particular, in general, articles entitled X (Y) don't need a dabnote to X. See WP:D : "There is not always a need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. " --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, I now made Lagana a dab page – there's no evidence that the resort is the primary topic, and I've never heard it referred to without 's', so the issue is now moot. I removed the hatnote consequently. Regards, No such user (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for that, No such user. Commendations on simple and rational solution! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

I think this is generally a very bad idea to report someone to 3RRNB when each of you made 3 reverts. I do understand, however, that editing by this user is highly problematic. Here is just a random example [1]. What "German police in 1941" he refers to? Schutzstaffel? My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, I realise that now. Issuing myself a trout slap. I was so busy trying to keep up with all the alerts on articles on my watchlist that I ended up confusing myself as to where I was up to on reverts with the user in point, and on which articles. Getting him to engage in BRD on the talk pages is a lost cause until after the fact when he leaves inarticulate, off the point comments and accusations simultaneously and expects that I should respond instantly doesn't help with the confusion.

As regards the "German police in 1941", your guess is as good as mine. Much of his information is gleaned from forums, blogs and extremist sites. He, then, searches out supporting evidence for his POV in more reliable (albeit BIASED sources) in order to shoehorn content. Again, the fact that his English is poor only adds to the frustration in trying to decipher what the content involves.

Here is something to read. But I will not be around here, at least for a while. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, My very best wishes. I hadn't encountered that excellent essay before. Bookmarked! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd question: floor numbering

This might seem odd. Do you know what style of floor numbering Ukraine uses? In working on the Donetsk airport article, there is some confusion over which scheme to use. At the moment, it is mixed. We have some "second floors", and some "first floors", both referring to the same floor. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester:No, it's not a strange question. Ekograf and I were trying to work it out a couple of months ago as the article used as the main reference was written by a Ukrainian who, I suspect, was confusing 'logical' floor numbering system with the US system. I tried to find some form of floor plans to confirm my suspicions, but was unable to find anything at that time.

Ground floor would be the equivalent of 'low floor', unlike the US 1st floor, so I feel fairly confident that the author has confused it with 'basement'. What that would mean is that there was a ground floor, a first floor, a second floor, and a third floor (parallel to UK and Australian convention). The 'cyborgs' would have been holding down the first and second floors, while the separatists infiltrated the top remaining floor (3rd floor) and the ground floor.

I'll run a search again in Ukrainian for the floorplans as they may have been released. Wish me luck. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, Iryna. I will await your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Nope: no joy. All I've been able to come up with is the same info as before, being articles about Yanukovich opening the terminal (here + here + here, etc.), as well as various ministerial planning meetings. All of this material simply confirms is that the building had 7 floors.

It did remind me, however, that the dispute with Ekograf was actually over the fact that there were only 3 floors remaining. In other words, the cyborgs were only holding down 1 floor (being the first floor), while the separatists had infiltrated the top remaining floor (the second floor) and the ground floor (which tallies with photos of the separatists lurking around pillars where the glass had been blown out of the windows taken at the time). In keeping with other international airports, there would have been no basement. The carpark was located near the terminal as is the standard. Ah, well, that's my opinion. Again, all of the sources certainly suggested that the Ukrainian special forces were holding down one remaining area. Sorry, but that's the best I can do as I have to log off for the day. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. My understanding is that the cyborgs were on the 1st floor (UK-style), and that the ground floor, basement, and second floor were under separatist control. There definitely is a basement, or some kind of subterranean complex. There are tunnels under the terminal building that lead to various other airport buildings. Separatists used these to infiltrate the basement. Cyborgs said that they threw burning tyres in to smoke them out... RGloucester — ☎ 05:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt, best to write as the source says. EkoGraf (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources conflict, because British sources use British-style numbering, and American sources use American-style numbering. English-language Ukrainian sources vary in what system they use, which is what causes the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And when in double doubt, quote them. EkoGraf (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to go to the original Ukrainian sources, and see what they say. I've already done that, now, and I understand that the Ukrainians were on the UK-style first floor. RGloucester — ☎ 06:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any doubt that the Ukrainians were only defending the one floor (in fact, it would make no sense for them to try and cover more than one floor when on the defensive, particularly as they didn't know how many of the enemy would be coming). Getting serious military training from childhood (in Plast - I kid you not) provided me with good grounding. Don't believe that Ukrainian Plast was always as sweet and wholesome as the article makes it sound: it wasn't an Anglophone world scout programme. If you think Baden-Powell's original programme was a tad gruesome, you'd probably pass out if you knew the kind of survival (and attack) techniques we earned our badges in.

Back on topic, I can see where the basement would come into it. Reading the budgetary and other planning stages materials, the terminal was planned to have 6 floors. I'd have to assume that the basement wasn't counted as being one of the floors at that phase if it served another function. Good work in figuring it out that the separatists were had the basement, ground and second floors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)