Jump to content

User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Galicia (Eastern Europe)

Hello, Iryna Harpy! Irina why other languages ​​with Cyrillic letters can be translated into Latin script, and the Ukrainian language is not?--(Victor-Sumy) (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Victor-Sumy! I just reviewed where you placed the transliteration and, in the context, it is appropriate. Thanks for pulling me up on my error. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Islam and violence

Hello, about your past edit, seems that you were right to delete the material in the "Domestic violence" section, I can't verify the sources and it seems that these hadiths don't exist. An editor is removing the tags without explanation which rises more questions about it. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. If it should occur again, please let me know. It's on my watchlist, but I have literally hundreds of articles on my watchlist and I can't always stay on top of the notifications. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure I will. Regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just a courtesy note to thank you for the star. I never thought I'd achieve one of those! :) Keep up the good work yourself. Maybe this time next year I'll learn to discern as well as you!!!! So you know, I shall copy it onto the userpage! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Oranges Juicy. Well earned, so display it with pride! I'm sure you'll have more flowing in from other editors soon enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO region of the Moscow Kremlin

According to http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/unesco-regions/ there is no region "Russia", only "Europe and North America" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.2.218 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am 90.191.2.218 and I'm new to editing wikipedia. I should've stated a link to the list of UNSECO regions during the edit. You can do that yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.2.218 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I added the reason to both the edit and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.2.218 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I see. This is in relation to the Moscow Kremlin article. I'll take a look. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've left a response on the talk page of the article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Separatist movements/Latvia

Where specifically in the cited material did you find anything about an active separatist movement? I'm taking a leap of faith here in assuming that you're not a Kremlin stooge and that you honestly believe in what you're saying, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.191.55 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to other editors. WP:AGF works both ways.
I'm completely prepared to accept that the separatist movement is done and over with if there is concrete evidence that any such 'movement' has bitten the dust. Using a standard Google news search, I couldn't find anything to substantiate any current/ongoing movement, but the existing sources cited certainly suggest that there was a resurgence. You're welcome to query its status (particularly its current status - that is 2015 status - which appears to be zilch - on the article's talk page). Under such circumstances, I might even be prepared to back you up on the entire matter as being spurious from the word 'go', but I'm not prepared to take inappropriate edit summaries and WP:BATTLEGROUND approaches to the content as being the be-all and end-all of the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There hasn't been a separatist movement in Latgale. Not now, not a year ago, not 10 years ago and not a 100 years ago. I will ignore the insane amount of wikipedia jargon, as it's completely irrelevant here, and I'll repeat the very simple question that you failed to answer to one more time: *where specifically* (as in - on what page/paragraph) do the sources contain any information about separatist movements in the Latgale region? Can you cite the sources? If you'll fail to substantiate your statements with any evidence, I will assume that you made a mistake and will simply revert the changes that you made to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.191.55 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've temporarily reverted your edit latest here. I beg to differ, but I have checked several sources for this (including the PDF you keep on insisting on deleting) which make it abundantly clear that there has been a movement. As to the integral substance of the so-called 'Latgale' movement, I'm checking as to whether there are contemporary reports as I can't find anything to suggest that the movement is still functioning in any form. The last reference of any merit I've been able to find is from May of this year.
In the meantime, I've tagged the article on For the Native Language! as not meeting general notability guidelines, and being in need of updating. The content appears to have been lifted from Russian Wikipedia (here), and has not been updated in that article either. Rather than simply getting rid of straggly references, once I've established that it is, indeed, more hype than substance, I'll gladly remove the content from the article in question, and will move to have the "For the Native Language!" article to be deleted (and any other dubious articles emanating from the source article). The sourcing for List of active separatist movements in Europe is only an imperative where no properly sourced article exists, or where further details are provided: therefore, you'll find the sourcing in the former article. Sources do not need to be in English, just reliable and verifiable.
As for disliking my use of Wikipedia jargon, too bad. I'm pointing you to policies, guidelines and processes, not trying to conceal any evil motives. "Kremlin stooge"!!!? This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or any other blog or forum for trolling. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Being abusive towards me isn't exactly going to endear you (or anything you're pushing) to me, nor does it substantiate your assertion that it never existed... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You just added a source containing a news article about a political meeting of Russian nationalists in Moscow. What on Earth does that have to do with separatism? You don't seem to be able to differentiate between advocating an expansionist, jingoist foreign policy and the phenomena of a separatist movement, which doesn't exist and has never existed in Latgale.
You failed to quote any of the sources indicating an active separatist movement in the Latgale region for the 3rd time in a row, which is starting to look like a deliberate attempt at falsifying information on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.191.55 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I 'failed' nothing. Read my message again: sources are to be found here and I can easily transfer them from Russian Wikipedia with translations. It demonstrates that such a movement existed and possibly still exists. Read the Russian articles for yourself and work out whether they're reliable or not... and stop leaving messages on my page. The article's talk page is the appropriate venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
→ Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 84.237.191.55 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Big words, but empty. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeesh. It's one of pitfalls of being compelled to assume good faith where I'd rather call a WP:SPADE a spade. Obviously, it takes far too much of a stretch of the imagination to think about whether it's a chance to check on the main articles and remove all associated content if it's not even notable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Help:IPA for Ukrainian

I suppose it doesn't count on Wikipedia I'm a Ukrainian native speaker and happen to be a philologist, too. But I AM surprised you're denying the obvious by rolling back my edit containing a quotation from a reliable source that plainly states the Ukrainian sound denoted by the letter В is bilabial and for that simple reason it can't be the labio-dental [v] sound. Futhermore, this table from the fifth form schoolbook of Ukrainian indicates clearly the [ф] sound (i.e. the [f] sound) hasn't got its voiced counterpart in Ukrainian, nor has the [в] sound got its voiceless counterpart. As the [f] sound is the voiceless counterpart of the voiced [v] sound, it's obvious the Ukrainian sound denoted by the letter В can't be the [v] sound. Cl (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're a native Ukrainian speaker, where on earth did you get the labio-velar "wood" and "how" from? Are you trying to claim that "вода" is pronounced "woda"? Actually, having read the text again, it indicates Voiced bilabial fricative... or are you trying to tell me that the English word for "variant" is pronounced "wariant"? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Gregory Skovoroda

The article claims that he was a composer. Not sure what's going on there, as I don't speak Ukrainian and don't have access to the sources. You may want to take a look, though. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've self-reverted as I'm uncertain as to the extent to which he is a 'composer' in the traditional sense. It's one of those "er... um" areas. Yes, he did compose music for some of his poems, but his reputation as a product of the Enlightenment and a "Renaissance man" is slightly exaggerated. It certainly wasn't the field for which he was known. I'll reserve judgement until I've checked a few more sources. If his work in the area isn't notable (as I recall it), I'll remove the cat and let you know. His importance as a composer is certainly very much peripheral at best. Thanks for pulling me up on this! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - there are a couple of other cats in the tree that will want removing as well, then, FYI. Just for full pruning. :-)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, plus some questions re Russell's Teapot

Thanks for your flagging the euro article as in need of an update.

But I was intrigued by an entry on your user page: when you say 'This user believes in Russel's teapot", do you mean that you believe that Russell's Teapot exists, as your statement would normally imply, or that it doesn't exist, which I suspect is probably what you intend to imply, or are you being deliberately ambiguous?

Also, are we talking about his 1952 Teapot or his 1958 Teapot? Regarding his 1958 version "nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice", it seems, at least to my 'stupid' self, that every china teapot on Earth, by virtue of being on Earth, is in a roughly elliptical orbit around the Sun, because the Earth is in such an orbit, and those at the right latitude will tend to be between Earth and Mars about once every 24 hours, so Russell's Teapot will arguably usually exist when land at that latitude is facing Mars, but usually not when ocean at that latitude is facing Mars, unless there is a china teapot on a suitably placed boat, ship, plane or spacecraft. And that's before we consider more complex questions such as the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which seemingly implies an infinite number of china teapots between an infinite number of 'Earths' and 'Marses' in 'parallel worlds', and whether the Teapot question is a valid analogy for questions like "how many gods or advanced extra-terrestrials are out there, and what do 'god' and 'advanced extra-terrestrial' and 'out there' mean?", and other possibilities far too 'weird' to 'take seriously' here, such as that it might amuse some Great Joker In The Sky to bring Russell's Teapot into existence every time somebody denies its existence, and so on, perhaps ad infinitum.

But I guess that just proves I'm very 'stupid', as are all my fellow agnostics and ignostics, and as is everybody who has any doubts on this topic (or, incidentally, on the partly-related topic of Occam's Razor), which is why the 'criticisms' section of the article got deleted, or so it would seem, at least according to my admittedly cursory and biased reading of the article's Talk page. So I should perhaps flag it as POV, but I really don't want to risk getting into another time-wasting and exhausting and not-worth-the-effort ideological dispute on Wikipedia. Also I'm clearly very far from NPOV on this issue myself, so that arguably makes me a very unsuitable person to flag it as POV.

However since your user page suggests you may be rather interested in the article (and seemingly a lot more sympathetic to it than I am, and less likely to be counterproductively provocative through feeling provoked and insulted by the article in its current (allegedly) POV format), I eventually came to think that I should perhaps try mentioning it to you, just in case you might be interested in having a look at my (alleged) POV issue.

But I've now digressed rather far from my original question, so sorry about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I've made a minor boo-boo there, as I now think at any point in time about half the Earth is 'between Earth and Mars', so there are always a large number of Russell's Teapots (using the 1958 definition). Not that it matters, since such details are not really the point. The point is something like that such assertions regarding the non-existence of orbiting teapots, Santa Clauses (for starters, there's one in every major department store in the West every Christmas, even ignoring things like the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM, and so on), etc, often become rather less self-evident once you bother to think about them, and their validity as anologies answering any particular 'God/gods' question is even less self-evident, let alone their validity as grounds for dismissing every conceivable 'God/gods' question with a resounding 'Nonsense', and then dismissing anybody who doubts this as 'stupid', or a 'cowardly compromiser', or any of the other insults that doubters trying to think for themselves tend to find hurled in their direction. But I'm repeating myself, so sorry about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tlhslobus. It didn't occur to me that using Bert's teapot could get me caught up in working myself up over superstring theory or dividing by zero... Well, we're not quite there yet, but heading in those directions. Put me down as being a 1952-er. Ultimately, my userpage is used to define a few salient points about my perception of the world without carrying too much information, or bearing any malice towards anyone else. I did use one of the plain atheist userboxes for a while, but it occurred to me that it's non-informative and could be understood to reflect that I am intolerant towards religion and people who are religious. There are times that I'm politically hostile towards what I understand to be 'superstition', but this is always modified by my comprehension of social evolution as being codified at any given point in history. Without entering into a metaphysical diatribe here, as a signifier, Russell's Teapot (in it's singular form) serves as being representative of the malleability of my personal perspective. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, as far as your user page is concerned I originally just wanted to mention the rather amusing strangeness of saying 'I believe in Russell's Teapot' when you seem to mean 'I believe in the non-existence of Russell's Teapot'. Then I perhaps unwisely decided to mention the other stuff because I got annoyed by the way the criticism section of the article had been suppressed, but didn't feel I was a suitable person to try to fix it, but thought that perhaps you might be. Sorry for wasting your time. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No, no, you weren't wasting my time at all! I was bemused by this userbox due to what it implied, and thought it appropriately obtuse for my own use in an amusing way. In fact, I do take your point that it implies something else altogether and am considering taking it down. That said, I've taken a look at the article and have cleaned up some OR. It's under ongoing ARB restrictions and, after checking the history, I understand why considering the edit warring it's undergone. While there's certainly room for improvement regarding the creation of a criticism section, it's seen a lot of criticism POV-pushed rather than based on RS. I'd imagine that it's become undesirable to expand the article simply because it's quickly turned into a COATRACK.
As it's now on my watchlist, I have it earmarked as something to be put on the backburner for potential development. As it stands, the majority of my editing work revolves around Eastern Europe and other politico-economic hotspots meaning that I'm constantly caught up in deliberating over issues of NPOV, translating sources and cite checking for verification, etc. Thank you for raising the issue as it provides me with another option for research and development when I need to take a break from the insanity of those Wikipedia areas for a while. I haven't spent any time just reading and mulling over philosophy and philosophical questions of this ilk for many, many years. In fact, I don't think I've even read Russell again since my mid-20s(?). Well, whenever it was, it was (erhem) a decade or two (or three) ago. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Iryna. The userbox is fine, if you don't mind the risk of people like me starting amused and/or perplexed conversations about it. But as for taking a break from the insanities of Wikiwars over Eastern Europe by engaging in the insanities of Wikiwars over atheism v various kinds of non-atheism, that might well be a very bad case of out of the frying pan into the fire :) Thanks for your time, and wishing you all the best. Regards.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that, for those of us who are regulars, there is more than an element of masochism involved in editing once we've actually wrapped our heads around policies and guidelines. I think it takes a genuinely 'logistician' mindset to approach any area and content employing an NPOV approach. While I'd never be so arrogant as to consider myself to be objective enough to be a perfect fit for such an aspiration, it isn't for lack of trying. My career demanded that I exercise my research skills to the nth degree, and Wikipedia has provided an outlet for proscribing original research with secondary research other than my own, and that of CHERRY picking directions in order to elaborate on my own set of theories. I enjoy it as a test of my personal ability to remove 'self' from the possibilities. As strange as it may sound, a different area 'change' is as good as a holiday despite the warring nature of Wikipedia's content. I'm as much at home in the fire as in the frying pan. What is life if one doesn't allow oneself to stretch the bounds of one's own mythologised ontology in order to express the transgressive nature of existence? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's great if you can enjoy being in the frying pan and the fire - I've had to semi-retire, partly because I'm not enough of a masochist to keep going (though also partly because I can't really afford the distraction from more important stuff). Thanks, and all the best.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Marinka

Could you way in at the article's talk page? Volunteer Marek is making a POV edit in my opinion and starting an edit war over the issue. He is constantly removing the sentence Eventually the rebels captured Marinka, or at least 70 percent of it. along with its reference, which is the New York Times. He's reasoning was first that it is not supported by sources. I than told him, in the edit summary, that he is incorrect and quoted the source: rebel spokesman said the Ukrainian military had withdrawn...Mr. Deydey wrote on Facebook that Maryinka had been “70 percent” captured by separatists...military authorities said a cease-fire restored government control. After this he totally ignored the part where the rebel spokesman claimed it and that the Ukrainian military acknowledged they lost control at one point and called Mr. Deydey's statement as a claim by some dude. After he removed it (2nd time) I told him again, at the article's talk page, about both the military and separatist assertions and that Deydey was not just some dude but a Ukrainian member of parliament and a former military battalion commander. He than again removed it (3rd time) and continued saying it was a single facebook post by one person while continuing to ignore:
1. we were citing the New York Times (not Facebook);
2. that the person is a Ukrainian MP and a former commander;
3. and that it was also reported by the Ukrainian military and the separatists.
Note, he ignored for the third time, without any comment, the assertions by the military and separatists. He simply continues saying its a claim by one person. I did not know three sources constitute as one person (an MP, the military and a separatist). I acknowledge the claim by the separatist should not be taken as reliable. But when two pro-Kiev sources confirm it than I don't understand what's the problem. EkoGraf (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

He is still insisting on removing it (while ignoring for the fourth time the military report) which is at this point POV-pushing. I have now even tried some compromise wording by removing the part that it was potentially fully captured, leaving only the 70 percent report, with attribution to the MP. But I think he won't be satisfied. EkoGraf (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't, he ignored the other sources in the New York times article for the fifth time. Added even more compromise wording. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, EkoGraf. I'll take a look ASAP. I'm caught up in a couple of heated 'debates' myself, but it looks as if some form of 'intervention' is needed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you. As a compromise I removed from the sentence the part about the rebels totally capturing the village (even though that's what the military implied and the separatists claimed) and left only the part about the 70 percent from the MP and used the wording such as reportedly (not making it factual) and attributed it to the MP. I think that's pretty fair. EkoGraf (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
He removed it, for the fifth time. He simply refuses to compromise and is dead-set on removing the sentence all-together simply because in his opinion it was some random dude on facebook and is ignoring the fact it was reported by the New York Times and that he is a Ukrainian MP/former commander. I don't know what to do anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, EkoGraf. I intended to chime in last night but got caught up in other issues. I'll review the content you're trying to introduce and arguments against it now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears to have resolved itself without my being obtrusive by 'tidying' a number of ref updates and with the interim addition of content. Nevertheless, I'll still be keeping my eye on it, EG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, so far he hasn't made any comments or resistance in the last 12 hours or so about my latest version of the sentence. We will see. And thank you in any case! EkoGraf (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:P-NUK

Were you aware of this "guideline"? Apparently it was written by only two editors and they are claiming it represents a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "guideline", but an information page. It says right at the top. It was not written by "two editors", but by a group of editors at WP:WikiProject Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Er... where, exactly, did this transpire? I can't find any obvious links to discussion of this 'information page' there... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
See the talk page, which links to the original discussion. In fact, it is still at WT:WikiProject Ukraine#Districts (raions) of Donetsk city. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I still have difficulties in attributing "consensus" to a discussion that's essentially flown under the radar (other than 3 admins constantly working in these areas, plus two non-admins) in an all but abandoned WikiProject. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY works both ways. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read the top of the page: "This is an information page that describes a communal consensus on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is intended to supplement and/or clarify the Wikipedia general conventions on place names. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this essay, please defer to those". It is simply a cataloguing of practices. You'll find that everything included in the page matched the already existing conventions established by the creators of most Ukrainian local government pages, with only a few tweaks. Nothing about the page proscribes using Russian names, as Taivo suggested. The page, being a naming conventions page, only refers to article titles, and specifies that the most common English name should be used. In cases where there is no such common name, Ukrainian National is used as a default. Infoboxes, the matter that Taivo is concerned with, are not covered by naming conventions pages. The discussion took place in a public forum. RGloucester — ☎ 05:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, my main quibble is that all of the links to guidelines being referenced in this 'supplement' point to utter messes with old merge tags and no definitive indicators that BGN/PGN is the recommended transliteration system for general transliteration, and that geographical locations follow another system where no COMMONNAME exists. I have no idea of how contributors fumble their way through this mess... and fumble they do. These guidelines are as clear as mud. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I can understand that, Iryna. However, there isn't much to be done about it. The naming conventions only deal with place names, so general romanisation isn't covered by them. I understand that the national romanisation page is a bit rubbish, but I haven't got the knowledge to fix it. If you can assist, such assistance would surely be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Months of work on the correct transliteration system for geographical locations in Belarus acted as the perfect aversion therapy for worrying about either Ukrainian geographical names or the standard BGN/PGN transliteration system. There a bits and pieces sprinkled all over the place. One day... when it no longer sets of an involuntary gagging reflex... Oooh, I don't feel so good. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your issue with the IP

Hi Iryna. I got a bit confused reading your passages at User talk:Oranges Juicy. It initially addresses me but if I am not mistaken, the last three paragraphs are spoken to your antagonist. Am I right? If so then I don't mind but I cannot be sure he is watching that space. I'm sure that cannot have been said to me though, doesn't seem right somehow!! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Oranges Juicy. You were correct in your reading. My apologies if it wasn't clear that the 'diatribe' was aimed at the IP. I've left a talk-back message on the IP's user page directing them to my follow-up response to their behaviour should they bother to check their talk page again. I really don't like such antagonistic approaches to editing and other editors particularly as the user has been invited to take their queries to the article's talk page rather than attack individual editors on their own talk pages. Editing Wikipedia tends to be confrontational enough without the blatant hostility the IP has adopted. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right there. Just as well Kosovo is protected from zealous IPs if you care to look at the latest debate at Talk:Kosovo between me and an IP, though in my case I am sure it is a registered user who logs out to conceal his identity - slightly different from sockpuppetry I know. Concerning yours, I cannot be sure whether it is an anonymous registered user, or simply a non-registered individual. Either way, we always have to option to request page protection in cases such as yours and then either someone "registered" will have to appear to take the place of the IP, or the IP can find himself banging his head against the wall while he jumps up and down unable to go beyond the talk page. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's difficult to establish any one particular user's editing MO when there's so much traffic... and, yes, should it get out of hand, I'm know there are plenty of sysops ready to step in to reintroduce pp. My IP is a WP:SPA (if you take a look at his/her edit history and this.
Your IP, however, it of a different calibre, Oranges Juicy. Compare: this, this, this, this, this, this, with the not-so-obvious IP here with regards to being a a known sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
WoW, you guys seem so convinced to own "a complete monopoly of truth', to the extend that you feel being threatened by "dirty unlawful creatures" who disagrees to your pan-Slavic views. So pathetic ... 95.90.184.134 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL! We've been found out! This is getting too funny for words. Thank you for giving me more material for my user page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with your Reductio ad absurdum sense of humor! I hope you are as much POV as you're funny. 95.90.184.171 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm as much NPOV as I am funny... and I am funny. It's difficult to deal with 'contributors' like yourself without it turning into an exercise in absurdism. Good luck with going on and on and on with your WP:ASPERSIONS! Suggestion: actually read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you continue editing, plus get an account instead of IP hopping.
Incidentally, consider this my final interaction with you. I'm not interested in lame flame wars, and neither is Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! It appears our friend is not even making an effort to conceal his identity. Then again, how do you stop a human being editing Wikipedia? When you ban someone for abusing multiple accounts all you really do is disable the account itself. The anonymity of Wiki projects (all of them) means that a real-life person just cannot be physically prevented from contributing. What a man does in his own home with his own PC on the package for which he pays out of his own pocket is truly his own choice. But like you, I could never blow the whistle on a suspected banned individual if he and I are engaged in debate. That is the coward's way out. I'd far rather defeat the shallow arguments hands down. :) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri (1)

Hello,

Hope you're doing well. I am currently engaged in a lengthy dispute resolution process over at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.

Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [1][2][3][4][5] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sockpuppeteer: [6]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least.

For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. While the situation is not urgent, I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category.

Thanks very much,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GeneralizationsAreBad! As per usual, I'm bogged down in other issues at this particular moment in time. I have, however, added the article to my watchlist and will take a good look at both the issues and contributors ASAP. If I don't chime in within the next two days, please remind me to do so here, or ping me from the article's talk page. Cheers!
P.S. I've taken a look at the ongoing animosity between the two editors and am already in "ouch" mode. There's no love lost there. How it impacts on the integrity of the article and sources used is the main issue to be addressed in this instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I was very glad to see that you commented on the NGR talk page. I appreciate it. My thoughts are as follows:
  • The last ANI we went to turned into a battleground, and I would rather not revisit that venue, especially since it was inconclusive. Nevertheless, I'm happy to go back if you think it is a good idea, provided the issue is not one contributor, although the problems are likely content disputes anyway. The litany of issues to address (sourcing, POV, COI, OWN, etc.) probably mean that DRN is better.
  • Trusted, experienced editors need to be brought in to deal with the situation. The more eyes on the page, the less likely a flame war will be; even if it does degenerate, the mediators can try and restore a semblance of order.
  • DRN is a real possibility to keep on the table. Since I'm a naïve maniac, I'm hoping for closure of the problems or at least a firm "handshake" and a roadmap for the future. That being said, I have no idea what this resolution would entail, which is why I would love input from reliable mediators.
Anyway, thanks very much for your help. I hope we can turn the page in this WP saga. GAB (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Russkaya Pravda

@Iryna Harpy: Hello! You have returned old version of Russkaya Pravda. If you think that my editing is unsourced, I can ask, what exactly? On what grounds have you returned mistakes in old version? (in the picture, VAST edition (version) of Russkaya Pravda is) (See: Правда Русская / Под общ. ред. акад. Б.Д. Грекова. М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР. Т. III: Факсимильное воспроизведение текстов. 1963). On what grounds have you deleted connections with other articles on this subject, which I have adjusted? On what grounds have you deleted Infobox for this article, which can help for readers?

And on what grounds have you deleted reference (section "Some editions") to Daniel H. Kaiser, qualified specialist in the field of Old Russian law, who translated Short and Vast versions of Russkaya Pravda, what undoubtedly will be of interest to people who is interested all this subject?

Are you specialist in this subject, if you have returned old mistaken version of this article?

If you think that my editing is unsourced, you can note "citation needed" or even spend a little bit time for finding this citation.

If you think that my editing is grammatically incorrect, you can correct this grammatically incorrectness, but on what grounds you have deleted all my short editing?

And I repeat once more, quoting Lokisis

"Every user on wikipedia has the right to ask for a reference, but DO NOT delete articles of other users on a whim. Should you want me to provide a reference for the article, please see the guide on Wikipedia:Citing sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolay Omonov (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nikolay Omonov (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For the moment, Nikolay Omonov, I'm sticking to editing other tricky areas of Wikipedia and cooling my heels before I respond to you. Firstly, however, I will ask you to politely take your points to the correct venue (being the article's talk page) and bring the issues up there following WP:BRD, rather than rant at me (taking 7 edits to rework your response here).
I will also advise you not to reiterate what is asserted by another new user who has mistaken me for being an inexperienced editor (as, apparently, have you). Note: WP:DTTR. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to discussing your additions at the correct venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Maybe I'm not so good at editing of Wikipedia as you, but in the subject of Old Rus' you clearly do not understand anything. However I'm not sure that you are so good in Wikipedia if you do so inadequate things as removal of Infobox, references to scientific literature or reference to other Wikipedia articles on this subject.

Also, I believe that I have the right to quote anyone if I do it on my own behalf.

However, you rightly decided to postpone the discussion on the Talk:Russkaya Pravda. On this page you can say why don't you like infoboxes and references to scholar literature.

I hope you will write in Talk page or note "citation needed" or EVEN edit the article, and I don't have to write on your page.

I have added the necessary links on the page of Russkaya Pravda and described on Talk:Russkaya Pravda why I returned my version of this article.

Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding to you sooner, Nikolay Omonov. Thanks for the work you've been putting into the article. Having compared essays at Litopys alone, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the copy replicated on the page (and the photostat you've uploaded, being the same version of the text in question) are most certainly not the short version, therefore I have absolutely no major objections to any of the cited content you've added... but what is in place now most certainly needs copyediting. It's on my "to do" list for when I have time to translate relevant passages, etc. into English for the benefit of readers and other editors.
I've also noted that you've started a few more articles which need copyediting. I'll put them on my watchlist and start tidying them as soon as I find some time for this task. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Ok, I'm already afraid. Very likely you will delete everything without a detailed explanation. I hope it will be otherwise.Nikolay Omonov (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. We have gotten off to a bad start! I'm sorry that I came across as some sort of "баба-яга", but I'm not really. I'll be working with you, not against you. English Wikipedia is very short on historical information regarding the Eastern Slavs, and it would be good to have these articles developed. Hopefully, some form of understanding that we're not just mad, vodka-swilling barbarians will help to counter the terrible prejudice the Anglophone world has held for centuries! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Sure, I shall be glad to help English Wikipedia. I try to write only on those issues in which I understand. I'm not Russian (by ethnicity) ))) but Russia is a big part of the world (mainly geographically)...Nikolay Omonov (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the situation is, I'm more than happy to work collaboratively with you and discuss any issues or problems that might need to be resolved (that is, when or if they arise). If I make any changes to any content you add that you don't understand, or a dubious about, please feel free to ask me to explain in detail so that we both know what the issues are. Looking forward to a positive collaborative working relationship! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Nikolay Omonov's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Religion in Albania

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Albania&oldid=670475300&diff=prev -- Pray tell, what's "PoV" in the statement that the Museum of Atheism existed in Shkoder, and that it served for anti-religious propaganda? There are plenty of references to this effect both in modern research papers (and Mustafa's, incidentally is a professional researcher: http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/graduate/students/m-mustafa/ ), and in contemporary travel reports (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZY-2BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=atheism+museum+shkoder ), as well as in news pieces. Luan Starova's book (it's really a mix of a 1979 travelogue and a novel) may not be a proper "source", but mentioning it attests to the object's notability). -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Vmenkov. I've self-reverted (with apologies to you) and am simply going to copyedit the info. Thanks for pulling me up on error! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've read the entire article/chapter and there is no references to the museum in that article. You're welcome to reinstate the information using a WP:RS. I have serious doubts as to whether the Peter K. Wehrli collection qualifies as being RS in this context. You're welcome to query its use in context at the WP:RSN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the actual page. I went through the entire article a few times, and this seems to be the one reference I didn't spot. Identifying the exact page with the information makes life a lot easier for those of us who copyedit and cite check. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sluzhba Bezpeky

I have corrected two language errors, please check my edits.
I have read somewhere that the SB forced common Ukrainians to commit crimes, eg. to kill family members in mixed families. I don't have the source, but the story seems to me logical that killings in mixed families were sometimes controlled from outside.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember any sources offhand, but I've certainly encountered anecdotal information from people who'd actually lived in a village where this took place (and I know and trust them, and certainly have never questioned it as being anything less than the truth): i.e., an event in which the Ukrainian father killed his son while defending his wife who the son came to kill because she was Polish. It's horrifying to even contemplate that any level of socio-political circumstance and indoctrination that could nurture such a ruthless, fanatical act unless there was some serious form of external pressure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've started on a quick copyedit, but have to log off for the night. I'll get on with it when I next log in. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria

Dear Iryna! Where do you see nonneutrality in this edit? New Galicia or West Galicia was an administrative region of the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy and was part of Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. This administrative region existed in 1795–1803 years. Category:Galicia (Eastern Europe) is broad category which should include as subcategory Category:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, Category:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and other formations that existed in this region. May be I misunderstand somthing, then please I ask you to explain it to me. Yours faithfully, --Glovacki (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Напишу вам українською, може так буде зрозуміліше. У чому проблема, чому ви відкочуєте мої редагування? Category:Galicia (Eastern Europe) - це загальна категорія про історичний регіон, а Category:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria - це конкретне державне утворення. У чому тут може бути ненейтральність, я просто не розумію? Чи ви вважаєте що королівство меньш українське ніж історичний регіон? Чи що? Я український історик за освітою та фахом. --Glovacki (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem in adding it as it was merged with the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. My issue was with the fact that you'd overwritten the "Galicia (Eastern Europe)" category instead of adding it as an additional category. For the sake of readers searching for historical regions, it also pertains to the development of the territory you'd overwritten. I've now simply added Category:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria to the article. Apologies for the tardy response, but I've been caught up in working on problem articles. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The main point that this lands are not part of historical region Galicia! It was not part of Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, and thus it was called New Galicia. Do you have sources that it belongs to region Galicia? --Glovacki (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Glovacki: Ultimately, my query doesn't lie with any forms of absolutes, but with the fact that you've set up a new category without discussion and are populating it while clearing previous categories associated with the relevant articles without seeking consensus. The manner in which you're tackling it is extremely convoluted as higher-level categories are now listed as being sub-categories of Category:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. I don't actually see it as being justified as an intuitive system for readers to find related articles/information. Instead, it is the new cat you've created that needs to be identified as being a higher level category. The only way in which this can be fairly established is via discussions with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Where is the best place to discuss it? --Glovacki (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Considering the scope of changes that would need to be implemented for categories applying to other articles, I'd suggest that opening a new section at the WP:CFD would be the best way forward. Just state your arguments for the category and outline the context in which it should be used. Please let me know when you've done so as I can ping a few interested editors who work on articles surrounding Polish history in order to let them know that there is a discussion under way. It's best to deal with it up front and establish why it's relevant and appropriate. There are a lot of editors who specialise in categories who wouldn't think twice about nominating your category for deletion because it wouldn't make sense to them (i.e., they work on principles of logic without necessarily knowing much about the specific field of studies, therefore would need to be made aware of what the issues and complexities are before the application of the category). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Untitled

That was not vandalism. It was to remove information which was irrelevant to the main topic of the page, which was about the polish state that existed from 1953-1989, not the Polish state that existed between 1945-1953. A seperate page should be created if you wish to provide information on 1945-1953 Polish state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordMathe2 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop just trying to edit war your position into the article, even if you believe that you are right. If you have a serious issue with the content in any article, take it to the talk page of that article. You should also read the talk page (and archives) in order to make certain that the issue hasn't been discussed before, and that consensus hasn't been established. You've been engaging in disruptive editing on a couple of articles without actually engaging with other editors, just reverting back. Establishing such a pattern of behaviour is considered 'vandalism'... so, please, do use article talk pages for all of our sakes. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent disruptive editings

Don't vandalise Wikipedia!You changed the citation at the reference only because you don't like it. See here what the reference says:https://books.google.al/books?id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&pg=PA10&dq=The+Early+Medieval+Balkans+dacians+and+illyrians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rdugVb7gEYGO7AaYurjACg&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Early%20Medieval%20Balkans%20dacians%20and%20illyrians&f=false Undo the warning you sent to me or I will report you.I don't accept false warnings. Rolandi+ (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said,undo the warning or I will report you.I edited only what the reference said. Rolandi+ (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means, you a free to report me. Do not persist with your personal attacks, nor demand that I undo the warning template I posted on your talk page as it was not a mistake on my behalf, nor do I feel that I owe you any form of apology. You're welcome to check my own talk page comments, as well as article talk page comments, over the years as you'll find that I never shy away from an apology if I understand that I was in the wrong.
If you don't want my warning on your talk page, you know perfectly well that you can remove it yourself, just as you did with your block a week ago because you didn't appeal it. My purpose WP:HERE is to build an encyclopaedic resource, not to bolster my own ego or accommodate other user's egos, but to engage with Wikipedia content and other Wikipedians as best I can do as a normal, fallible human being testing my abilities to disregard my POV as well as I am able. Such asks of self are a huge challenge, but I do my utmost to rise to them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Pro-russian bias

Hello Iryna Harpy I am TURTLOS. I noticed that you removed my edit on the opposition bloc and left a message on my talk page. While it is good that you put up this message to notify me I am confused by what was biased about my post, if you had atleast told me about what was so biased about my edit on the talk page preferably I would have accepted your edit and agreed with your position or debated u untill we can find a fair solution. I like am also interested in keeping wikipedia neutral and unbiased so i think we could probably find an easy compromise or agreement. I dont c what biased u found in my edits not even slightly but if if u explain my errors to me i will not renew my edits. i will not repost my edits for now because I am the one changed the article not u and as a matter of goodwill. I hope we can come to an agreement.kind regards TURTLOS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello TURTLOS. Thank you for getting in touch. It appears that your edit, while well-intentioned was actually imparting a personal opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such we try to provide unbiased facts that are verifiable through reliable references. Your edit was neither unbiased nor referenced. Furthermore, it appears you've made a string of rather unproductive edits, judging from your talk page interactions. I strongly suggest you go over some of our most basic guidelines so that you may develop into a resourceful and good editor, which we urgently need. A good place to start is WP:TUTORIAL. Hoping this helps, kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, TURTLOS. Please check the article's talk page. You'll find that I left my explanation there prior your leaving your query/comment here. Please read up on the WP:NPOV policy as 'neutrality' isn't as straight forward as it may sound. Thank you for following WP:BRD. Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve, but I wish you well in your endeavours at improving your editing skills! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

National Emblem

Hi! Watch official emblem on the official site of the Repuplic of Belarus. It changed in 2012, but this image don't have svg version. --Einimi (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri

I just remembered this: I filed a DRN request quite some time ago. Just thought you might want to know, sorry if it's not helpful. GAB (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem and, again, apologies for not involving myself in a high profile manner sooner, GAB. I truly have had some "big stuff, important stuff" happening IRL. I'm not surprised that TransporterMan understood it as being a conduct problem. What this means is putting together a terse, but well illustrated, ANI. Essentially, it's a protracted edit war with WP:OWN and POV-pushing at the heart of it.
It'll be a few days before I can put something together for the ANI, but considering the length of time it's been going on for, a week or so isn't going to make much difference at this point. Let me wrap my head around it properly and get back to you. If I have an epiphany and start a section before discussing it with you further, I'll ping you from there. Cheers for keeping me abreast of the need for intervention! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for getting in the way of your real life. If at any point you want me to leave you be, just say the word. (I'm not just being passive-aggressive, I fully understand you have higher priorities.) GAB (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, GeneralizationsAreBad. If I didn't think that the POV-pushing was a serious problem needing to be addressed, I'd tell you so. It's merely a matter of collating diffs and presenting it well for the ANI. I think you've now acquired enough experience to be aware of the fact that ANI posts get overlooked unless they catch admin's eyes and get to the point from the outset (before they have a chance to turn into WALLOFTEXT battles no one wants to wade through)... so my priority has to be feeling confident that I have the summary of the problems spot-on from the outset. There's always going to be other "stuff" going on, but I'm going tackle this ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If it helps, I have a lot of diffs that I presented myself in the most recent ANI case. Once again, thanks so much.GAB (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I followed the links you presented in the earlier section yesterday, and am drawing up a fairly clear picture of how deep-seated the problems go. Once I've put the ANI posting together, I'll run it past you in case there are details you might feel need to be elaborated on, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, and once again, thanks for your work. You might want to speak to Wikimedes, Irondome, and Timothyjosephwood, who all have been involved at some point or another. If I am too "involved," they may be more neutral. GAB (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy/Archive_19&oldid=1077728682"