User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support in the past 24 hours. This barnstar comes, conveniently, with a coffee to wake you up this morning. Breakfast is on the way... Greenmaven (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack! It's the first thing I found on booting up for the day. I was wearing my scrunchy face in anticipation of unhappy doings being done, but now I'm wearing a smile (and ready to chomp down my baklava). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I already know you like this. With a coffee, it's the breakfast of champions. Greenmaven (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Having regained my appetite, it's gone down a treat. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Name of Ukraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]'', ''[[the Bronx]]'', ''[[Republic of the Congo|the Congo]]'', ''[[the Sudan]]'', ''the West''). [{{According to whom|This usage implies the borderland etymology (see above), or more precisely, a
• an often-seen Latin-alphabet transliteration of ''Україна'' that is an alternative to ''Ukrayina''). This version most closely resembles the vowel quality of the Ukrainian version of the word.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work, especially over the last year! Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Nickola Shreli?

Why are you going to delete it ? I wrote it,i didnt copy the text this time ! He is a real person,he is not fictive actor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AlbertBikaj. The issue isn't that of whether he exists or not. He would have to qualify as being notable by means of verifiable independent secondary sources (not IMDB or the blog zine you've referenced). As it stands, it appears that he has had a couple of small roles and has worked as an extra in a few roles. A Wikipedia biography is not warranted, particularly when it seems evident that it is being used as promotional material/publicity. Please see the following policies and guidelines: Basic criteria for notability, general notability guideline, self published sources,sources that are usually not reliable. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Intervening here, in order to keep all the talk in one place. Although I contested the PROD, I think that Shreli may very well fail the AfD. However, if you, Albert, think you can properly source the article you started with sources that are not in the article (or in its talk page, where I brought some), please feel free to do so. Best! --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I also prefer to use the relevant talk pages as this is not a personal matter or being debased to an edit war. I'll make some more suggestions on the Nickola Shreli talk page as to how to build up a case for notability. Please bear in mind,

AlbertBikaj, that no one is disputing anything other than Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the matter. It can get a little heated and contributors can get a little robust in their arguments (as demonstrated in some toe-tweaking between myself and Perkohesisht ai i vjetri today), but it doesn't actually amount to genuine personal animosity or conflicts. Thanks for your time! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Everything that i wrote about him i is based on his biography,which i found on his Official Website,and "IMDB" also he got's main role in Landlord (Post production) and in Low Winter Sun (Post Production). I don't see a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's evident that you don't understand why it was nominated for deletion (and not by me in the first instance). Fortunately for you, a couple of Wikipedians intervened on your behalf and it is now probably okay, although it may still go up for an AfD. IMDB is simply not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Once other sources are introduced which do demonstrate verifiable notability, both his personal site and IMDB can be referenced for selective information.

Please note that I have had to nominate the image you're using for deletion. It is not okay to cut the watermark off a copyrighted image and claim it to be your own work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A toast to our common wikiaddiction.

Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sweeet! May we never back down when we know we're doing the right thing. Good to meet a fellow addict... er, Wikipedian who actually thinks things out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry

Holy shit that was my friend I just looked at that message and I would never edit that me and my friend made the account together so he knows the password to it and I'm about to change that

I'll take it on good faith that you were editing with a nincompoop in the room. Please keep him/her locked in a closet (where he he/she belongs) in future. I think it would be polite to extend an apology the the editor concerned. It it also preferable NOT to preface an apology with, "Holy shit" (sic). Wikipedia is not a casual forum or blog, therefore making assumptions about the casual use of expletives is inappropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

imnumberw0n

Ok I will I promise it won't ever happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnumberw0n (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

imnumberw0n

Ok I will I promise it won't ever happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnumberw0n (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Bošnjak (surname)

Hi! It doesn't matter that the text is "long-standing" if it is factually wrong. Uncited material may be challenged at any time. And actually, this is a "common knowledge" issue for anyone even remotely familiar with the region. The term cannot be considered archaic if it is used by a plurality of Bosnians (Bosniaks) belonging to that constituent nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For that reason, Bosniak ("Bosnjak") is most part of the colloquial discourse in the region. This is really WP:BLUE and I should urge you to refrain from shouting "POV" when you apparently know little of the issue at hand. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I can't accept your account without sources. Being Ukrainian, and dealing with East Slavic, Polish, as well as Balkan articles, there is no such thing as taking someone's word at common knowledge. The entry was obviously made on behalf of a contributor with a particular POV which would indicate that their common knowledge is other than yours. The only way to deal with this is to add a tag for citation needed. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, but do you care to elaborate by what scenario this could possibly be an anachronism? Do you mean the Bosniaks are possibly guilty of anachronism? I'm confused. The term is obviously used very much so today. By definition, it cannot be considered archaic if in use? Right? Simply put, term is maybe archaic as a non-ethnic demonym but certainly active as an ethnonym. Also, nice to see ladies editing. Keep up the good work. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My greater concern is that it is possibly considered a pejorative term by sectors of the regional community (which would explain why someone had gone to such lengths to drive home the notion that it is an historical rather than contemporary term). An example of this would be the use of White Russian (for Belarusian) as a contemporary term (which is how it was being portrayed in Wikipedia) until a few of us cleared this up as being Russified misrepresentation. It simply needed a few WP:V and WP:RS citations.

Naturally, I know it isn't an easy call as the Western world is still highly uninformed when it comes to Slavic ethnic groups and culture. It becomes even more of a challenge when nuances are built into the languages. Nevertheless, as trivial as some of these issues appear to be, I prefer to err on the side of caution: citation, citation, citation when it comes to location, location, location! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, in one sense it is a historic term when corresponding to non-ethnic "Bosnian". The term Bosnjak is not used in that way anymore as it has been replaced with "Bosanac" (Bosnian). However, Bosnjak is also the national appellation of the Bosniaks (Muslims Bosnians) - while Catholic Bosnians declare "Croats" and Orthodox Bosnians as "Serbs". This ethnic division along religious lines has its roots in the 19th century (whereas until then the population as a whole identified as Bosnjak). So, yes I guess, calling a Christian Bosnian "Bosnjak" today would be considered offensive because it means a member of the Bosniak people. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope to have resolved the need for a citation tag by recognizing the (previous) fact that the term is archaic when used as a (non-ethnic) local demonym. 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounded unnecessarily convoluted for the qualification of a surname. Cheers for the elaboration on the 'politics' behind the term. I think your latest edit to the item is a good compromise and doesn't merit a request for citations. Nice work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The ethnic structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina is pretty much a twist of faith shaped by the nationalisms of its neighbors. For example, the surname Bosnjak is common in Croatia among those descended from Bosnian Catholics who left Bosnia in the 19th century and earlier. There is even a village in Croatia named after these Catholic "Bosnjak" immigrants. Apparently, they received the surname Bosnjak to reflect their origin. Later, with the rise of Croatian nationalism in the second part of the 19th century, it followed that all Yugoslav-speaking Catholics in the region were roped in as "Croats" (in the same way Yugoslav-speaking Orthodox Christians were claimed as "Serbs"). This clustered the Bosnians three-ways leaving the Muslim Bosnians as sole carriers of Bosnian nationhood under the Bosnjak name (which now ironically also was a Croat surname). 90.230.57.190 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't so tragic it would be ridiculous. Patriotism is fine; nationalism is a state of xenophobia. Small wonder non-Slavic editors don't want to come near our articles. I hope you decide to create an official account. We need all of the balanced editors we can get. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna. I know I'm probably breaking the Wikipedia etiquette now by using it casually, but I hope you are having a great day (: 90.230.57.190 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

By no means do I consider it breaking wiki etiquette popping by to say hello! Hope you're having a great day, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A WikiCake for you!

K6ka (talk | contrib) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Seeing how incredible civil and kind you are to other editors, I've decided to give you a fine WikiCake for your excellent work. Cheers!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

K6ka (talk | contrib) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, my friend! What a good thought. It's cheered me up after having to unravel seriously botched pages on my watchlist today. I'll pass it on to someone else who's always on the alert & probably doesn't get enough recognition for their invaluable work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

I'm new to this and in need of help. How do I report user 67.181.10.235 ? he/she vandalized dozens of pages( as you can see if you check his/her history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.181.10.235) in the last few days and it would take a long time to correct all his/her meddling. Regards Armynut15 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Just stepped away for an hour to have lunch & found this message. Thanks for letting me know. I'll just revert the vandalism and report the IP. I'll give you directions for your future reference when I'm done. No need to panic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted all of this IP user's vandalism. Fortunately, Materialscientist (who you'll grow to love for being ever vigilant and five steps ahead of everyone) had already blocked the IP by the time I'd found your message.

As you're still just learning the ropes, it's probably best and easiest for you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia by going through the Welcome info I've added to your page. I've also left an invitation for you to visit the Teahouse where you'll get assistance quickly. Alternatively, you can just type (or cut and paste) {{Help me}} on your own talk page by creating a new section and popping it into the editing box. Someone will be along pronto to help you out. I'll keep an eye on your talk page in case you run into troubles with other editors, etc.

The simple way to undo something you've identified as being vandalism is to be found here. If there are several edits vandalising the content, use the latter method (selecting the version you wish to revert to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello, fellow vandal fighter. Coffee might perk you up. :-) I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! A dose of caffeine wouldn't go astray. Keep up the good fight! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind (although I'm not quite sure of what I've done to warrant it)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

US

Raised issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Dougweller (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. OK, if I encounter changes of this nature in the future, I'll simply revert citing "Unwarranted WP:POV push". Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mongol invasions of Rus'

Hi, you reverted an edit by a user with IP adress 68.67.52.194 who gave a citation on a quote in the article. I have the same translation of the Chronicles of Novgorod and that quote is present in several chapters in one form or the other. " We know not whence they came, nor where they hid themselves again. God knows whence he fetched them against us, for our sins."; "The same year, for our sins, unknown tribes came, whom no one exactly knows, who they are, nor whence they came out, nor what their language is, nor of what race they are, nor what their faith is; but the}' call them Tartars, and others say Taurmen, and others Pecheneg people, and others say that they are those of whom Bishop Mefodi of Patmos bore witness, that they came out from the Etrian desert which is between East and North."; "And the Tartars turned back from the river Dnieper, and we know not whence they came, nor where they hid themselves again; God knows whence he fetched them against us for our sins." "God alone knows who they are and whence they came out. Very wise men know them exactly, who understand books; but we do not know who they are, but have written of them here for the sake of the memory of the Russian Knyazes and of the misfortune which came to them from them."

These are all quotes from the book. I think that citation should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.211.180 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)