Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

No problem[edit]

With the word German, I just wanted some sort of unifying word. Nazi occupied Europe isn't quite right, because it's not just Nazi occupied, its also puppet states, and states with pro-nazi fascist regimes... By the way, you're from the polish-Lithuanian commonwealth? That's pretty awesome. My family is from there too. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Well, technically, I'd count myself as being 'Ukrainian'... whatever that really means. Convoluted histories make 'bitsers' of all of us... and that, essentially, is the problem with finding a unifying word for an extremely complex ideology. 'Nazi' is hardly ideal, but I don't know of any existing terminology that describes the bigger picture in 50 characters or less. Anyway, I've responded on the article's talk page. Perhaps a bright spark amidst other editors might be able to come up with something better. It ain't easy being green NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have family from Ukraine too. They were from Odessa. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They left cause of this --Monochrome_Monitor 11:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I suspected that might be the reason considering that there had been a thriving Jewish community there. The Russian Empire was not a good place to be Jewish. In fact, it was not a good place to be anything other than a well-to-do Russian. Truly horrific stuff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, exactly. Serving in the Russian army was a bitch too, they controlled every aspect of their lives (like who they could marry) and demanded something like 15 years. Many of my ancestors were deserters. :D But I'm glad they left... because of this.

I think it's super cool you're descended from Cossacks though. No hard feelings ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(t/p/s) I don't think there were any in the first place MM :) Irondome (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say that there are monumental moments in history that I'm definitely not a fan of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, that's exactly what I was thinking of. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Debate[edit]

I would not comment on the article talk page because that leads nowhere. But here is the problem as I see it. This is not a democratic country and not an ordinary politician. In fact, the decision to take Crimea (for example) was made by one person. It comes at no surprise that he is held responsible for making these decisions by the vast majority of RS. Therefore, all of that does belong to his BLP page. And his decisions are terrible: they brought Russia in economic and political crisis and isolation, made the crisis in Syria much worse, etc. However, there is a group of contributors who want his BLP page sill look like a panegyric, despite all these recent and extremely important developments. This is obviously against BLP and NPOV. Hence the disputes. Un(fortunately), giving my previous history, I would rather stay out of this. My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What ever can be said against Putin, but it is clear his intervention in Syria did not "make the crisis much worse", but rather managed in what the Western babblers had so miserably failed, i.e. turning the tide against the Islamic State. Dorpater (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is not what sources tell. But whatever. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Dorpater, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It reminds me of some 'left wing' commentators saying things like 'Better a small war now than a big war later' regarding the invasion of Iraq: reactionaries are reactionaries, whatever their purported politics are. I agree with My very best wishes: he's not a generic political head, but a cult figure whose cult status is growing. The vocal majority of the RF are enamoured of him, while the minority live under constant threat and danger. Now Syria has become a world stage on which to gain cult status universally, and it is unabashed opportunism. Make no mistake, I am deeply cynical about Western politics... but I don't fall for the 'opposite of Western' = 'good' for one moment. I believe it to be tragic that the RT generation find it convenient to pigeon-hole everything as being black and white, but I understand that people want to believe that there are easy answers encompassing the mire that is our global economic stage.

That said, I know that my reading of what is and isn't appropriate for the bio is going to be understood as my railing against consensus. I also know that battleground editors would have no problem in cherry picking diffs to 'prove' that I'm a Russophobe, despite the fact that I've also been accused of being a Russophile and Kremlin troll... and that, like MVBW, I'm not short of 'enemies'. Consequently, I'm not going to insinuate myself on the article or discussions any longer. The great thing about history is that his bio will be written based on academic sources long after we're dead, so there's no point in investing my time in aggravation I don't need. I simply don't have that kind of emotional investment in any articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Iryna, I do agree that his personality cult exists, however just to be objective, these users are not his fans. I know it because most of them did not edit his BLP page before (that is what all fans usually do). There should be other reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, that was probably something of a sweeping generalisation on my behalf. What they do have in common is possibly an AGF WP:POINT to make which isn't necessarily to do with being fans of Putin, rather that of striking a false balance as to Putin's role as head of state in comparison with other heads of state (that is, they're seeing parity in the role that Western heads of state - who get voted in and out, and are pretty much interchangeable - play in governance that does not manifest in the same way). Nevertheless, I do think that there's a pronounced confusion between an understandable cynicism about Western governments and sources and that which is significant about Putin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think these users stated very clearly what they actually wanted in their arbitration request, and this is not improvement of the BLP page. But that's fine. I do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: They have the physical numbers to form consensus, and the tenacity not to allow anything they don't like past them, therefore there's nothing to be done (whatever their motives are). I may not like it, but it's not worth losing sleep over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I guess it came to the point when I really should not edit anything political (or probaly should not edit anything at all) because my account is no longer anonymous. But perhaps I occasionally will edit something. Good bye, My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I, for one, would be sorry to see you stop editing. If your anonymity has been blown, would it be worth considering WP:CLEANSTART? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be probably #2 (privacy concerns) of legitimate uses, rather than fresh start account (#8). Since I do not have any editing restrictions or bans on my current account, that might be an option. Interestingly, #2 tells not about switching to another account, but about using an "alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions" in certain subject area(s). And the overall idea behind all these rules is pretty simple: to contribute positively to content and do not disrupt the project. As long as someone does just that, no one suppose to complain. But here is the problem: if I start editing something in EE or other subject areas under discretionary sanctions, someone is going to complain. On the other hand, if I edit something else, this could work just fine. Thanks, I will think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, legitimate concerns was the rationale I was thinking of... Well, when it comes to editing EE areas, it's always going to be precarious. I do understand your concerns given the fact that we have a number of tendentious editors who have 'embedded' themselves in a manner that WP:CRUSH is the only way to describe their editing behaviour. It's impossible to even start a case against any one of them because any ARB submissions are automatically hijacked by those editors with the objective of turning them into yet another HUNT. Honestly, if I have to look at the same assortment of diffs and accusations again, I'm going to scream. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even a whiff of something they could construe as being impropriety could raise a posse of pitchfork-shakers. But, then again, it might not.

I guess I just find it morally repugnant that the same names (that is, including ours) are constantly being brought up as being linked to a cabal and OWN. How can (literally) a handful of editors OWN articles that, at their lowest traffic rate, have dozens of editors watching and contributing to them? The only thing that comes close to resembling a cabal is the same groups of editors who suddenly pop out of the woodwork to rail against RS and consensus because their only objective has only ever been POV, and to 'win'. Oh, well, I doubt that this is making it any easier for you to make a decision. I'm just tired of having to fight for NPOV articles, but I'll keep at it because that's how I'm wired. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I can provide an advice, but consider this as example. I made a minor and non-controversial edit: removal of small segment of text that is simply not about subject of the page. Suddenly, two people appear, one of them from Moscow [1], to strongly object the obvious change, with walls of text and personal insults [2] that are simply not true (I started the argument from stating that content is irrelevant for the page). What should I do? My reaction is to simply stay away of the page and of at least one of these contributors. Same reaction as with the page about P. If he/she/they follow your edits on other pages, that could make them a subject for sanctions. Would it work for you? Anyway, thank you for discussion and good bye! My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know there's no advice you can give to help out, just as I can only act a moral support for you. The fact is that there must be hundreds of people following these articles who are well aware of who has a profile on Wikipedia, and who they consider to be their personal enemies. We're all 'followed' around: which is attested to by the number of IP editors and throw-away accounts who'll suddenly start trying to change content and write tirades against the 'enemies' of THE TRUTH as they see it. Unfortunately, that's par for the course when it comes to being an active editor who works on controversial topics. It is what it is, and there's no getting around the fact that people will try to cause as much grief as possible.

Ultimately, I started editing here as an academic exercise. Most of my life has been dedicated to research, so I thought it would be an excellent challenge to discard the dictates of OR. Usually, I'm not bothered by those who have an emotional investment in subject areas, but sometimes it gets to me: we are, of course, humans, not machines. On those occasions that it gets to me, I step away until I'm prepared to enter the arena again. If I get any more philosophical about it, I'll probably bore us both to death. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should simply never comment about other contributors on article talk pages. I know, that was well-intended, but it will be used against you. Comment first on their talk pages, and then report on WP:AE if you think their problems were serious enough. But unfortunately, some of them are intentionally keeping low profile to avoid being reported at WP:AE, but create a lot of disputes on article talk pages and conduct slow-motion edit wars against consensus. This battleground is one of the reasons I never recommended anyone editing on-wiki and should never edit myself. Another is lack of privacy.My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I guess that was boring. Here is something more interesting. I am reading news about the possible exchange of Savchenko [3] and think how history repeats itself, over and over again:

But at very least, the release of Luis Corvalán was a good development. Can't tell the same about Viktor Bout aka Lord of War. But this is not all. Just like Savchenko, Vladimir Bukovsky tried a hunger strike and was subjected to forced feeding. That was actually a torture he described in his letter with criticism of Guantanamo Bay [4]. And this is not all. The "hore" for exchange to Brezhnev in the verse was meant Augusto Pinochet. That also brings some analogies. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, My very best wishes, it wasn't boring: you made a valid point. I was just so caught up in disputes all over the place that I didn't have the energy to respond. And, yes, I see all of the historical links and wonder at how we're destined to keep repeating them... yet I am also unsurprised because I understand the machinations of the global economic order. It's a merciless beast that subjugates us all, and I cannot see any economic/political system ever being able to turn it into a rational animal that serves the majority over the minority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeh, I need a wikibreak. This is Pandora box. For example, not sure if journalists already dug out why Navka had that account two years before...My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: What's the biblical quote again: "The love of money is the root of all evil"? I think that the love of scandal, and the latent love of fear itself (catastrophising) are equal partners in the equation. Editors are smitten with jumping on every extreme event because they're convinced that they have a crystal ball and know that the end is nigh. If not that, the rich and powerful making themselves richer and more powerful getting caught with their hand in the honey pot serves as a simplistic way to define the problems of the global social order and reassure themselves that it is only a handful of corrupt individuals who spoil it for everyone else. I prefer to wait for some real information and intelligent analysis of what is going on. I guess we'll find out when we find out after the hysteria dies down. Sigh. Wikipedia is a paradise for those who are sure that they know what the truth is. What a pity I've never managed to convince myself that I know what the truth is. It must be nice to feel absolutely assured of how life is and should be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

GfK poll[edit]

In this edit summary you said "Rv It has been discussed thoroughly on this and surrounding articles." Can you point me out to the discussion, as I cannot see any on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Thanks. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Bakharev. You'll have to allow me a little time to find the various discussions. Articles were being moved, merged, and overlapped on information at such breakneck speed that I'm going to have to dig around. Thanks for bearing with me while I pull a couple of years of diffs together. Sigh! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, I may have to wait until tomorrow to start casting the net around. I'm about to log off for today (although I might find time this evening to start on it). My apologies if my reaction seemed blunt. It was most certainly not aimed at you, but I just want to make that clear in case it was misunderstood. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, take your time. I have seen mention of this poll somewhere in a Crimea-related article, but I do not remember which one, nor what were the arguments for and against inclusion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue with user[edit]

You seem to have handled a Neutral Point of View issue recently. I stumbled over the same user because of some really biased edits. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[5]] and [[6]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). This is all in line with the critizism mentioned in this Neutral Point of View notice board issue which you seem to have closed. Did you consider all these edits or just the ones about the Washington Post issue? What is the appropriate way to act here? I have notified the user and his discussion page seems to indicate more of these issues. Shall I "reopen" this neutral point of view notice (if this is possible) or discuss this somewhere else? I am pretty new to the English wikipedia (I actually just opened an account to track these issues) so any help would be appreciated. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Yes, I retained the user's talk page on my watchlist due to a feeling that there's something not quite right about their editing habits, and noticed your warnings. Having checked through the diffs, I'm feeling fairly confident that, even if the editor is not a POV pusher, there's either a WP:COMPENTENCE problem, or that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Most of his/her contributions appear to be minor, yet there are significant changes lurking in these minor changes in as much as there are instances of the removal of legitimately placed tags for citations... coupled with the fact that the editor doesn't provide edit summaries for such significant changes.

Given the overall behavioural patterns, this is really something to be taken to the WP:ANI, not the NPOVN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall I report this? Or do I have to wait for some time and see whether my notification does provoke any response or change in behaviour? LucLeTruc (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: I'd actually like to see some form of discussion between editors regarding content. As it currently stands, the editor has never involved themselves in any discussions: per this talk page summary, you'll note that talk pages have only been 'visited' twice since creating their account, and then only to change the project class template, plus to remove vandalism. To that end, I've started a talk page section regarding content for the Poggenburg article. Let's see what happens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your constructive and communication focussed approach. The censorship behaviour, however, does not seem to stop. I have send some more escalating warnings but I doubt that they are actually read. At least there is no response. I have written warnings directly in the revert comments so there is no way the user does not see this. If there are some more edits like this without interaction I will report this to the board that you mentioned, correct? LucLeTruc (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: You're welcome. Given that the editor has actually responded with an attack from the outset of his/her communications with anyone, I'd say that another one or two exchanges without a change in attitude would clinch it for an ANI. Should you open a section there, please feel free to ping me from there — i.e., use {{ping|Iryna Harpy}}. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Volkstod did not change his behaviour but engaged in the next edit war straight again. I have opened a section on the ANI noticeboard. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Okay. I'll take a look. Cheers for notifying me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha. I see that the ANI returned a quick response, and that Volkstod has been indeffed. All's well that ends well! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Little green men (Ukrainian crisis)=[edit]

Oh, come on Iryna — don't tell me you didn't laugh when you saw the "soldier with cat" monument! Something like that should be preserved for the future generations! Cloud200 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cloud200: The Russian Defence Ministry's weird-pride laser beam show is pretty high on the mirth scale, too... but I'm not here for the laffs. If there's an argument for inclusion, take it to the article's talk page. Talk about a good argument for not letting someone anywhere near your pets or livestock. "May I fit for your sheep for gumboots, ma'am?" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan War[edit]

So I added the citation using the prove it box, but its by itself at the bottom of the page. Also I can't seem to get it to move up with the references and cite in the infobox at the top of the article. Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Wikieditor101, I think I've worked it out. Is the Max Boot book you introduced here the reference for the 'dissolution'? If so, do you have a page number/page numbers for it so I can set up the reference to the statement in the infobox? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Russian.[edit]

I stumbled on this page that needs some translation love. Can you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army

Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikieditor101. I've added it to my 'hopeful' list. Unfortunately, I've given up on 'to do' lists as I'm far too interested in so many areas of Wikipedia to even dream of improving the content of every article I'd like to get my teeth into in one lifetime. Sigh. Too many pies, not enough fingers.

You have, however, inadvertently reminded me that I have a stub for the Great Patriotic War I'd promised Buckshot06 I'd pull out of my sandbox and set up (including templating it for expansion from Russian Wiki). Given that I'm likely to be developing the article and getting drawn into other articles surrounding this area, I'd say that the Soviet Army article stands a good chance of going from 'hopeful' to 'so enthusiastic that I have to try to get it up to par'. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help[edit]

Hello Iryna, I noticed you are a heavy 8 hours a day, editor. I was looking for a paid wiki editor possition and I assumed you may be able to help. I live in Sankt-Peterburg and my friend told me about the place on ul. Savushkina may be looking for English editors. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about you, maybe you can send me other users you know about. Regards Gladstonemoscow (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

Ivan Kozhedub[edit]

Dear User:Iryna Harpy, there is a discussion about Ivan Kozhedub's place of birth on the talk page [7], the matter concerns the problem of status of Ukrainian SSR. I would be very glad to hear your opinion! Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna. Do you know anything about this dispute? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: ). Neither side comes out looking good, but I'm unsure if there is an admin action I could take that would help anything. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I took a brief look at it yesterday and was going to try to intervene with a compromise. I'll take a look at a couple of tertiary sources and weigh in at the ANE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Okay, I've left my 2¢ on the article's talk page. Ушкуйник can dig his heels in on aspects of articles, but he certainly does discuss content and work collaboratively. It's really an issue of the prominence of a technically, so I don't think any admin action is going to help to resolve this. Hopefully, we'll be able to work out a consensus solution. Maybe a warning to Viggen is in order. I am, however, concerned about another editor having crawled out of the woodwork after two years. Ah, well. We shall see. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dugin[edit]

I'd be inclined to keep that info. It really speaks for itself, regardless of Dorpater's intentions.--Galassi (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi: I'm fine with the added content as it currently stands. I was not fine with this piece of WP:COATRACK malarkey. I've had it up to my eyeballs with WP:JUNTA JUNTA. Talk about editing to make a WP:POINT! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Crimea talk page[edit]

To: Iryna Harpy

Cc: Tobby72, Haberstr, Moscow Connection

Iryna, your recent posting on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation contains personal attacks on WP users Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection. You accused these WP users of "POV pushing", "disruptive editing", and presenting arguments with "no good faith".

Wikipedia article talk pages are for constructive discussion of article content, not for accusations against individuals. Are you trying to discourage comments about content from people whose views differ from your own? If you are not trying to discourage comments, please make this clear as soon as possible, by withdrawing the personal attacks you have made. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: What kind of bizarre message is this meant to be? Is it a 'warning'? I've never seen a "cc" used in this way... and it looks like WP:HARASS having posted it here and to the other three editors' talk pages alone. Firstly, I did not accuse Moscow Connection of being disruptive, but of POV pushing. In his case, it's good faith, but misjudged.

As regards Tobby72 and Haberstr, I'm not 'retracting' legitimate criticism of their editing. It's called WP:SPADE. I don't particularly like to call a spade and spade, but the history of their editing practices on multiple ARBEE sanctioned articles (including this one) warrants such criticism (i.e., read the archived talk pages and read WP:BLUDGEON). Now, stop trying to use my talk page to bully me, and a springboard for trying to initiate a WP:HUNT. Do not post here again unless it's to notify me of a formal complaint. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin).  Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No-neutral[edit]

On the article about human rights in Russia, your point of view was not neutral. There were no sources cited about the UIA fighting the Nazis, and I don't think there were any real battles, not to mention that they were collaborators. 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your removals were WP:POV in both (here) of the articles (and here). Wikipedia is not concerned with your personal opinion or my personal opinion, but that of reliably sourced opinions by experts. What 'I think' is that you've been getting your information from blogs, forums, and other hysterical op-ed sources. Suggestion: do some serious reading by serious academics and experts before you edit based on "I think". In fact, read the article properly for well cited information on the fact that they fought the Nazis before you try to push the "I don't think there were any real battles" with German forces line because you are absolutely wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Enjoy! CounterTime (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Thank you, old friend! Just the thing to have with my cup of tea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

A little help[edit]

Hello Iryna, I noticed you are a heavy 8 hours a day, editor. I was looking for a paid wiki editor possition and I assumed you may be able to help. I live in Sankt-Peterburg and my friend told me about the place on ul. Savushkina may be looking for English editors. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about you, maybe you can send me other users you know about. Regards Gladstonemoscow (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 2 April 2016.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking whether you should be indefblocked on the spot for trolling, but you have made marginal contributions which, with some effort, can be considered useful. But you may be sure next time you get blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenia[edit]

I don't have a good command of English, therefore I would be grateful for your help. But the sense of the sentece should be that "Ruthenia" and "Russia" are in some other slavish languages absolutely separate meanings. And during the history, very often they have been even deadly enemies. While in Russian language the word "Ruthenia" means the old form of "Russia", so it means the same. --Grb16 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I.e. in Polish langage, the Duchy od Moscow, or the Tsarship of Moscow would never be called "Rus", always "Moscow", and only after many ages "Russia". While todays Ukraine and todays Belarus have been always called "Rus" - in Polish. Belarus was the "White Rus" (wchich until today means the same) and Ukraine has been called "Red Rus", with the name Ukraine as a geographical name. And never "Moscow" has been called a "Rus" - in Polish. And Poland has been (then, once) the most populated slavish country. --Grb16 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Grb16: Thank you for your comment. Yes, I know the differentiation of the historical use of Rus'/Ruthenia amongst Slavic groups. The sentence I fixed up was virtually impossible for English speakers who, frankly, don't know much about Eastern Slavs, to understand. I know that it needs to be better clarified, but such an elaboration requires that I find reliable sources to elaborate on the historical distinctions. I'm capable of describing it more clearly and in more detail in my own words, but that would contravene WP:NOR, so I'm going to have to leave that section as it stands until I find more sources for an NPOV explanation. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! As you understand most of Polish (Russian + Ukrainian = 90% of Polish), you can read [8] that until 1764 Polish refused to use the name Rus/Russia connected with Moscow State, wchich has been called Wielkie Księstwo Moskiewskie (Great Duky of Moscow). Therefore in short "the Moscow". And as late as in 1764 the Commonwealth of Poland has been forced by Catherine the Great to recognize the name of Russian Empire. Which however still does not mean Rus' in Polish. The source given in Polish Wiki, is a very well known in Poland book of Norman Davies "Boże Igrzysko". --Grb16 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

your reverting of my last edit[edit]

Dear editor. Apparently, you insist on keeping the statement that the Russian Government is "using a court system as a means of political oppression". You seem to have no qualms about the total lack of corroboration by reliable sources. Yet, the accusation is very serious and cannot be made casually. True, you provided sources after reverting me twice. However, the sources you give do not support the allegation that the verdict of the court was influenced by the government. Unless you find sources that support your claim, I believe that these unfounded accusations are in violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and verifiability. Let me know if I am wrong. I look forward to answering any questions you may have concerning this issue. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ardhanarishvara: Check the references I have added: they are reliable secondary sources stating exactly what you are refuting. I'm more than happy to add more... and there is nothing casual about these reliably sourced rebuttals.

Thank you for the courtesy of reinstating the statement requesting a citation as I'd asked of you, but I have a problem with the fact that you started removing these sources when I'd only just begun to add them - here - while I had my lunch. A request for citations is not one editor giving another editor half an hour, an hour, or two hours in which to add references. Please read WP:NORUSH.

The most important thing to remember is that, if you still have concerns about content, the article's talk page is the best venue in which to discuss them. This allows for other editors involved in the article, and transparency as to how WP:CONSENSUS was reached, or whether it was a policy issue (which trumps consensus0.

Again, my thanks to you for approaching the matter assuming good faith on my behalf, as I believe you to be a good faith editor. I fully comprehend that you are a new editor, and that the policies and guidelines are a steep learning curve. Happy editing, and welcome aboard! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of encouragement and the large quantity of useful information you provided to me on my talk page. You appear to be a very experienced editor, while I am almost completely ignorant.

However, I hope that you won't think this is presumptuous of me, but I cannot agree with your describing my edit as not being "constructive". What I did was merely to remove a very serious allegation that was not supported by any source. It is my understanding that any editor is allowed to do this, but I may be wrong. You seem to implicitly acknowledge that my edit was not completely worthless, since you subsequently provided four sources. Still, the same problem remains. The allegation that "the Government (is) using the court system as a means of political oppression" should not be endorsed by Wikipedia and stated as a fact.

The assertion that the legal system is merely a tool of the Government is very serious. Even if it were true, it should be clearly attributed to its author. Moreover, the sources you have provided do not make this claim. No one denies that the group "Pussy Riot" has been sentenced by a Russian court, but the allegation that this was done at the behest of the Government is, at best, contentious.

Obviously, we are both good faith editors, and we should be able to resolve this issue swiftly and in a friendly manner. Again, thank you for your warm welcome. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ardhanarishvara: I wholeheartedly agree with that theHuman rights in Russia article is in need of a good clean up. I've started by cleaning up the WP:LINKROT and ensuring that the references actually support the corresponding content, but there is certainly a lot of problematic presentation of content to be addressed. Ultimately, the best place to express concerns is on the article's talk page (which has been underused). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, I am sorry, but I must insist. The allegation that "the Government (is) using the court system as a means of political oppression" cannot remain. It is unsubstantiated and the sources you provided seem to have been added ex post facto to justify the claim, even though they do not make it themselves. It is true that I am a new editor, but I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should contain only incontrovertible facts and not speculations, even if they seem true. Therefore, I beg you to consider deleting the unsubstantiated claim. I know that you will understand my point. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ardhanarishvara: Yes, I agree that it needs to be toned down, but could you please start a new section on the article's talk page citing your objections so that we can find a neutral compromise that other editors can discuss should they wish to join in. This isn't something for the two of us to slog out on my own user page: it is something for 'public' record on the article's talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your advice is sound, and I will follow it. Cheers! Ardhanarishvara (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear iryna, please do not take offence, but I feel that a single incontrovertible reference would be better than seven which do not support the claim and seem to be there only to obfuscate. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Responding on the article's talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and disturbances on Ukrainian culture, Belarussians and Ukrainians[edit]

Hello User: Iryna Harpy. I would like to draw your attention to this report and to this report. This probably also involves User: 67.81.5.244. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this, Hebel. I'll keep my eyes open for any similar activity. We can pinpoint where the user is IP hopping from, so they won't be difficult to pick out given their SPA activities. No "Szapiro" in Polish? This person either doesn't have a clue about Polish and Eastern European Slavic history and culture, or is on a course of blatant POV editing. Well, I've now added their favourite articles that weren't on my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Only now I see that one of these IP's was involved in the Shapiro thing as well.... One of the IP's seems to belong to a New York school and has been blocked in the past. I will treat any more infractions as a case of sockpuppetry. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Hmm. I smell a related SPA at work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello, see my comment below on your talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit on the Ukraine war page.[edit]

Hello, I have edited the page due the fact there is no proof that any of those men had any affiliation with Russia or its armed forces. As a soldier in the Russia's army, I personally know that that their gear and weapons are not used by us, and the uniform they wear which resembles that of those used in our armed forces, is not only sold at many sporting and general stores across the world, but are also used in the Ukrainian military. As you may know several soldiers in the People's Militia are former Ukrainian soldiers, and several Ukrainian military bases have been raised showing how these outfits may have been acquired. So due to lack of counter evidence, and educated assumptions, I believe it should just say 'rebels' or 'people's militia' since they are almost certainly not part of the Russian forces. ))))) -"Vlad" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetsnazvdv (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Spetsnazvdv: Actually, the content is reliably sourced, therefore your contention is incorrect. We don't write encyclopaedic articles based on what your personal point of view or my personal point of view may be: articles are written according to what reliable secondary sources say on the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for Ilirida page[edit]

Hi Iryna

For some while now, a series of anonymous IP's have continuously been placing copyrighted images and pushing POV related imagery of "state symbols" on the article: Republic of Ilirida (see talkpage of article and page history log for more). This has made editors such as my self, but especially other to constantly revert these additions for where those pushing of it have made no attempt to explain in the talkpage. Instead those anonymous IP's have even resorted to offensive language to those doing the reverts. As i am not familiar with the process of how to go about this, as an Administrator would you be able to place a autoconfirmed user thing on the page, so only those with a Wiki account can make edits and limit what has become a farce on that page. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Resnjari. Just to clarify, I'm not an administrator, just an ordinary editor like yourself.

I've taken a look at the article history, as well as the talk page, and can see that it's problematic. Fortunately, someone has already applied for semi-protection which will last until 7 May. You can apply for page protection at WP:RPP if you encounter similar disruption on any articles. I've added the article to my watchlist as a 'the more eyes on the article, the better' measure. Keep up the good work you're doing, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and i look forward to working with on topics if our paths cross. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My revert on Ukrainians[edit]

Thanks for thanking. I am sick and tired of all the haplogroup mumbo jumbo. It's cutting edge science but mostly nitpicked to make points that are basically WP:OR on ethnicity pages. It's a field that can just affirm everything you want it to if used in the wrong way. Which mostly is the case. I'm thinking of starting and RfC about them on the group page about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, Hebel. It's been the bane of editors who work on ethnic group articles for years. The test groups are minimal, and will remain so for years to come. The field is complex and specialised, and I've encountered enough specialists talking about interpretation as being precarious and not for the lay-person to be convinced that the average editor is not in a position to understand what they're presenting other than what they've extracted: i.e., OR as you've suggested. At best, WP:ITSINTERESTING is the only argument for inclusion. At worst, it isn't edifying for reader to wallow through technical jargon about mitochondrial DNA, rNA, autosomal DNA, etc. as reinterpreted by someone no more proficient in the science than they are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh god, please do! All I've seen on this on Wikipedia has been obnoxious borderline racist crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It reminds of a bad "a funny thing happened to me at the pathology department" joke. What's the punchline? I thought I was Dutch American, but my DNA revealed that I'm Jewish on my maternal side, Spanish-tending-to-Moor on my paternal side, and predominantly Hungarian around the earlobes. What does it mean (other than having to reconsider my KKK membership)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I'm gonna look into this in the coming days. If you don't mind I'll first make a suggestion here.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's make sure we get the wording right. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this be the right venue in your opinion Iryna Harpy? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

That is very bizarre. It says Wikipedia is in English format but it is actually American/Canadian . Thank you anyway (I am slightly confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiffRaff1950 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of help, please[edit]

Hello Irina Harpy,

I saw your message on the talk page of Cminard. I place a similar one there, and wrote what I meant as a helpful additional message, only to be admonished on my talk page about our harassment policy. Since Cminard just reverted my AGF-revert of one her unsourced changes, I feel frustrated myself and unsure about how to react. Since your long list of contributions include dealing with editor-conflicts, I was wondering if you could state your opinion on this? Obviously, if you have anything to criticize about my behaviour, I will only appreciate this and take it as an opportunity to improve my contributions. Thanks (whether or not this may interest you), Lklundin (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)