Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 27 October 2015

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, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Impressed

Iryna, I am really impressed by your patience. Did you read WP:DFTT? My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know. I'm issuing myself a trout-slap and will return to normal interactions as of now. Thanks for the very courteous reminder! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Long time ago I was reading an interview given by a couple of these guys to Novaya gazeta. They worked on social sites/blogs (not wiki) to promote certain products and discredit products by competitors. They said they were doing two very different types of job. One of them was placing certain (dis)information about the products. The second type of job was getting rid of undesirable contributors by making their life on a site unbearable. Real fun began when two "teams" hired by different employers began to fight. In such cases they sometimes had to come to an agreement. Later, the newspaper itself had to close their blogs because of the people posting huge number of inflammatory comments. My very best wishes (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If it weren't funny, it would almost be comical... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

whats wrong with my edition?

in article about russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it infobox clutter, it's WP:POINTy (as per my edit summary). If you haven't noticed, your second content change has been reverted by another editor here. Please read the archived discussions on both the Russia and Ukraine articles surrounding WP:CONSENSUS as to how to handle the disputed territory of Crimea within these broad scope articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

in that case it's better to write (republic of crimea is not included instead of crimea not included) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Trabant1963. Again, for the purposes of the infobox and the lead of a broad scope article like Russia, my opinion is that it's unnecessarily detailed. If we go in that direction, it would be equally as important to include Sevastopol as a city of special status. This is, however, merely my opinion, and my opinion does not constitute consensus. If you believe that WP:ITSIMPORTANT for the purposes of the article, you should start a new section on the article's talk page.

I know that English is not your native language, and that you probably don't feel very confident in expressing yourself in English, so if you'd like me to initiate the discussion, I'm happy to do so on your behalf. Note, however, that I'm going on vacation from Monday (5 October), and won't return until Saturday (10 October), so I'd rather not start a discussion until my return. By the same token, I don't mind whether a consensus decision is made without me, so let me know if you'd like me to start such a discussion before I leave. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ну судя по тому что ты "Ирына", ты и сама нифига не англичанка, but I can express myself in both languages. Mais j'ouvrrai division nouveau de chiffre de la population (and call it "Population") en article de Russie y nosotros decidiremos juntos, not only with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Laert Vasili

Thank you Iryna Harpy! Next time I will be very carefull! But you can also check me in Google and you will find that I am not lying about my works in theatre because this is what I do and how I live from the last 20 years of my life! Anyway thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laertis Vasiliou (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Laertis Vasiliou. I have been watching the article on you for some time, and I don't doubt that your additions to the content are true (i.e., I've run Google checks). My concern is certainly not on a personal level, but over reliable sources demonstrating that you're notable according to WP:AUTOBIOG (specifically WP:YOURSELF). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding Harassment by user Iryna Harpy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance is respectfully requested

There is a real need for your critical eye on https://en.wikipedia.org/2015_Russian_air_raids_in_Syria2015_Russian_air_raids_in_Syria as there is already an attempt to erase history there. AccountInCompliance (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, AccountInCompliance. I've added the article to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report, Montreal to host 2017 Wikimania

• In the media: Irish legislative editing; coffee quarrel; more sports vandalism

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages needs more administrators

• Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Misplaced Pages's search function inferior?

• Tech news: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

About Cossacks

There were Serbian, Slovene, Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, and Slovak cossacks too, so DO NOT re-edit it! -Bennyben1998— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyben1998 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You were asked to provide reliable sources, not your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

why help vatnik user?

harpy, why did you assist vatnik user toddy? he is saboteur on dnipro. many times he claims an position he does not to have, so as to assist putin in his lies. do not into listening to toddy vatnik user. be good 2 ukraine, your mother 138.128.180.226 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Maybe because it's a violation of Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks policy to call someone a "russki saboteur?" Please don't make these remarks. GAB 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, what he said ↑. Outside of that, don't push your nationalist propaganda on my talk page. No WP:POV pushers are welcome on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd better leave, then :) GAB 00:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of the Polish census of 1931

Your recent reversion of population summaries reported in the 1931 Census is disruptive to the page. It is not OR to accurately report what was published in a national census, on a WP page about the same. If you seriously think this a violation of OR, I suggest that you make your point on a relevant noticeboard since accurately reporting what was published in a census is standard procedure here on WP. (Please see the most recent U.S. Census for examples of this 2010 United States Census.) I looked, but didn't see where you objected or complained that accurately reporting on the U.S. Census was OR. Perhaps you can explain your reasons for not doing so? In any event, you have ample opportunity to find RS for criticisms, reasonable or not, of the published results of that census which might be addressed on the page. It is impossible to do that if the actual published results are not accurately reported such that the criticisms can be understood. However, I am concerned that your comments on the talk page and recent reversions, which deleted much data without any claim that the data was not accurately reporting what the census published, or mathematically proven from the same, was motivated by some desire to censor what had been published by the Polish government in 1931. I suspect that you just don't like what it published. You also made no further comments on the talk page, and it is clear that you lack a consensus to edit your changes to the page.

Lastly, your tone, in editing a warning on my talk page and similar comments on other talk pages, is decidedly WP:Uncivil. It is also uncool. I note that you have recently been admonished on the admin board. I suggest that you comport your conduct here to something more conducive to constructive discussion.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest, for a second time, that you open a section on the relevant talk page to discuss these WP:OR changes only just introduced a day ago where the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce WP:RS for this 'breakup' (where does 'breakup' come from?) of figures from a WP:PRIMARY source. Why are you writing a WP:WALLOFTEXT on my talk page when the place to reach consensus is on the salient talk page? Take it there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Accurately reporting a published national census is not OR. I am not old enough to have worked for the Polish Statistical Office in 1931. I can't take credit for something that I didn't do. That would be plagiarism. The census is the best source for what it reported. I note that you aren't disputing the accuracy of what was reported from the published census. You haven't left a comment on the talk page about that census in over a year. The census asked what it asked, reported it what it reported, and published what it published. ("Breakout" is British phrasal verb which in North American English translates as "breakdown". That conversation should go on the talk page and it was not a reason to delete the entire table, but a convenient excuse.) I have answered your question, but you have not answered mine about why you only wish to object to citing the Polish census of 1931 to report its published contents, but not other national censuses (which is standard practice here in WP). You appear to be engaging in discrimination here. That is unacceptable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I may, WP:SYNTH may be valuable reading here. It's all well and good to report exactly what the sources say, but making inferences and coming to conclusions that the sources don't explicitly come to is problematic and needs some discussion. WP:BRD comes into play here as well. Since your changes have been challenged, you should discuss their merits on the article talk page instead of edit warring, which is unproductive and will lead to a block. Hope that helps. clpo13_(talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You certainly may, but the issue here is translating one page in a national census which was published in Polish and French, which is perfectly acceptable to do and not OR (See below). It appears some just doesn't like what the national census reported and is looking for alternate interpretations more to her liking. I am not the one looking for WP:SYNTH. There appears to be another issue here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It is not an English language document, and is written using Polish and French nomenclature. Your translations are WP:OR simply because, in the document, the Polish nomenclature and the French nomenclature used by the Polish census office for Ruthenes and Ruski, etc., needs to be qualified by WP:RS, not by you. As it stood after the last round of POV pushing the original research translation by you into the content, the simple table should not have been allowed to stand... And don't worry yourself about my introducing this to the discussion on the talk page: I'll be doing so ASAP. I've been working on issues higher on my list of priorities for the last couple of hours and am about to log off for the day. More on the matter to come on the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant and incorrect: Translations and transcriptions: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions I have given you the rule and the link. If you continue this course of behavior, I will conclude that you are being disruptive, contentious, and demonstrating ethnic animus.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Assume what you wish. The only ethnic animosity apparent here is yours. The discussion is not to be conducted with me alone on my talk page. My response is on the article's talk page, therefore take your objections and your interpretations of guidelines there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

I invite you to the latest discussion about ledes in general. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Norn-notice. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian National Committee

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

What was their purpose? To serve the Germans, or to represent Ukrainian interests before the German authorities? If a hospital or clinic were set up under the Germans, would its staff or organizers be collaborators? How about schools? Organizations to feed people? Etc. I don't know enough about the Ukrainian National Committee to determine if they were or were not collaborators; there is not enough info in the article right now to support the idea that they were. Please add that information before placing them in that category.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Polish wikipedia page is much more detailed and contradicts the opinion that this was a collaborationist organization: .Faustian (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Славянский патриот: Per Faustian's response, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find RS to in order to expand content, categories, etc. As it stands, the stub is unreferenced, and you've just made it clear that your own additions to the content are based on your assumptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

They were Ukrainians working with Germans (in other words, collaborators), that's what it already says on the article, and the sources are listed. For example, on Russian Misplaced Pages, the page is in the category "Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany" and on French Misplaced Pages it is in "Collaboration during World War II." Even on Polish Misplaced Pages article you posted a link to, it is in the category "Organizations collaborating with the Third Reich during World War II". I think my point here is made. Славянский патриот (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:WINARS. Secondly, yes, it is becoming abundantly clear that you are making a WP:POINT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford definition of "collaborator" is : "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector." There is no information in the article that clearly demonstrates that the Ukrainian National Committee meets that definition.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

... And that is exactly the definition applied to any individual or group who 'collaborated' with the Nazis in WWII, although I don't think we actually needed to qualify this for Славянский патриот as he is very much aware of what his priorities are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I know since you are part or full Ukrainians with a pro-Ukraine POV, you have an obvious interest here in not having the Collaboration during World War II category on there (even though on Polish, Russian, and French Misplaced Pages, that article is in collaboration-related categories, a fact that you seem to be ignoring). I am part Ukrainian myself. But the fact of the matter is that, as the the Ukrainian National Committee included Soviet citizens and was collaborating Germans, they are by definition collaborators. It says that they controlled Ukrainian Nazi-sponsored units, which were mostly Soviet citizens working with the enemy, and Pavlo Shandruk, a former officer of the Polish army and a Polish citizen, had overall command of it as one of the leading members of the committee. "A person who cooperates traitorously with the enemy" definitely describes them, there isn't any way around it. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is one POV. Another POV, taken from the sources, is that it was involved with removing/transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command. Polish wiki paints a picture that it stood for its community in talks with Germans, refusing to subordinate it to Vlasov's collaborators. And whether or not cooperation was "treason" depends on POV. Shandruk was involved here after the Polish state had ceased to exist. He was awarded Poland's highest military award after the war - hardly an indicator of his having been a "traitor." Basically, whether or not this organization can be considered "collaborators" does not seem clear-cut, depends on POV, and simple categorization does not seem to be appropriate.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's strange, since Polish, Russian, and French Misplaced Pages seem to disagree with you. That Polish article? It has the category "Organizacje kolaborujące z III Rzeszą podczas II wojny światowej" (Organizations that collaborated with the Third Reich during World War II). It was transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command because the war was lost by then, and they were attempting to get favor from the Western Allies. It was founded with permission from the Germans, included non-German citizens (most of the forces it commanded consisted of Soviet POWs), and worked with the Germans. In other words, collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat: read WP:WINARS. I genuinely don't care what part of the world this took place in, so stop trying to read some sort of nationalist agendas into it. I don't care whether you are part Ukrainian, part Danish, or part Moroccan... this is English language Misplaced Pages, meaning that we follow policy. The only arguments for being "collaborators" you've brought to the table are WP:OR. You're welcome to speculate and draw your own conclusions on any subject you wish, but you are not welcome to add content, append categories, or change article content based on your own WP:PPOV. You may think it's cut and dried, but that's something for you to take to blogs or forums and dispute there. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedic resource, not a repository for content based on your original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Original research" that is on three other language Wikipedias (Polish, Russian, and French)? I've seen a lot of articles that use other language Wikipedias as a source. It even says in the article that it was established with Germans, and if you look at the pages for the units it commanded, they were mostly collaborators from the USSR. By definition, collaborators. Again, it seems you are letting your pro-Ukraine POV get in the way of the fact that it was collaborator organization. It's not my opinion, it's a fact based on the information that is on the article and on other articles related to it. You are also free to write your opinion on why an organization including Soviet citizens working with the Germans is not a collaborationist group, despite also being identified as such on three other language Wikipedias, in a blog. Славянский патриот (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Review the definition of collaborator and be specific about the focus of that article. A Soviet citizen who betrayed his country and fought for the Germans would certainly meet the definition of a collaborator. But this article isn't about such individuals. It's about an organization that represented Ukrainian interests (many different Ukrainians, including those who meet the definition of collaborators, as well as those who don't) when dealing with the Germans. Since their focus was on serving Ukrainian rather German interests, they don't seem to be collaborators. Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, might I add that Faustian is wrong about Shandruk, who did affiliate with Vlasov eventually: "Meanwhile, an agreement had been reached between Vlasov and General Shandruk, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian National Committee, who came to approve of Vlasov's views and programme." (Against Stalin and Hitler: Memoirs of the Russian Liberation Movement, 1941-1945, pp. 226-227) Славянский патриот (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Approving views and programme is not concrete. Reaching an "agreement" can mean many things. USA and Iran just made an agreement, for example. Details matter.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're still simply WP:CHERRY picking in order to shoehorn your own POV. Pulling threads of this and that together in order to create a piece of WP:SYNTH is still just that: your own WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And that's simply nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the Ukrainian National Committee acted in interest of the Germans. Their forces continued fighting the Red Army as before, the majority of them even still being under German command, and at the time the Ukrainian "nation" consisted of mostly the Soviet citizens fighting in German-organized and -armed formations (which, might I add, played a far greater role in the German war effort than Vlasovites or units of other Soviet ethnic groups). Shandruk himself was a foreign citizen fighting in the Wehrmacht (he was obviously not a German citizen; they only considered a select few "Germanized" Slavs to be so), and therefore a collaborator by definition. He even became Vlasov's ally. The Committee functioned no more than an instrument of the Germans as they fought alongside them westwards to surrender to the Western Allies so they would not be repatriated to the Soviet Union. The majority of those in the Committee forces were from the Soviet Union. And again, you ignore the fact that three other Wikipedias have it labelled as a collaborationist organization, which alone is enough to add the category onto this article. The only one shoehorning your POV is you, I am simply stating the facts while your pro-Ukrainian nationalist bias is causing both of you to try to get a collaborationist group of Ukrainians that just served the Germans not be labelled for what they were--collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A foreign language wikipedia article is not a reliable source (not that it matters, but neither the Ukrainian nor the Italian wiki pages categorize it as collaborationist). If the purpose of the Ukrainian National Committee was to serve the Germans in the war effort then I agree the categorization of collaborators would be appropriate. Find a reliable source stating this, please. If, on the other hand, this organization's purpose was to help Ukrainians (including even Ukrainian collaborators) by, for example, disengaging them from German command, or providing relief, etc. then it doesn't meet the definition of "collaborator" just as, for example, someone having to meet with German administrators for the purpose of running a school or clinic for his people is not a collaborator. Please, find reliable sources for evidence of activities clearly meeting the definition of collaboration and I will not object to that categorization. As a reminder, here's the Oxford dictionary definition : "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector."Faustian (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, why do many articles list different language Wikipedias as a source and often times there are tags on different articles saying that the corresponding article on a different language Misplaced Pages should be translated onto the English article? But anyway, the Ukrainian National Committee was the reorganized Ukrainian Central Committee, a group of Ukrainian collaborators organized by the Germans on the territory of occupied Poland in 1939. The only difference was that the National Committee helped group all Ukrainians in the German armed forces into one unit, and brought several smaller organizations into its fold, with that unit remaining under German command. Славянский патриот (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Translating with sources is acceptable. Speaking of which, please find the source for info that meets the definition of collaborator I provided, so the category can be applied.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just gave you one. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You what!! Where?!! You just linked to the ru wiki article which is, itself, not cited. The could list a hundred books as general references surrounding the subject, but it matters not a hoot if there are no specific references that can be verified. We can't even verify that these publications indeed do, or ever did, exist. Well, actually, I can verify their existence because they've simply been taken from the uk wikipedia article here. Have you read them? Do they actually substantiate the ru wikipedia article's contentions?

Seriously, I'm really tired of this circular argument. Which part of WP:WINARS are you having such difficulties in understanding? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Alright, I'll stop posting here -- I'll list the sources I found on the talk page. But "personal battle"? I replied to the message you sent me with legitimate concerns about the contents of your edit, as you seemed to have done it for personal reasons rather than the available information. But, like I said, I'll list the sources on the talk page from this point. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Славянский патриот and Faustian: Actually, considering the amount of discussion that's taken place here already, would either of you object if I were to move this section across to the article/stub's talk page so as not to end up starting from scratch again? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revert concerning references made in Putin's speech of 2005

I answered in the article's talk page your statement that you made in my talk page. In short, I just don't see where you might see “lack of neutrality”: i.e. which authorities make my contribution empty, in your opinion. I merely followed the text that was quoted in the paragraph, nothing else. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

An update in the talk page: I just have seen your commentary for your revert and replied to it. In short: from your commentary it appears that your revert has been mostly reflex-based, so that did not make any good… - Evgeniy E. (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My response can be found on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ответил. Если вы возражаете против дискуссии на английском, могу отвечать здесь. (Там русский язык был бы не к месту). Разумеется, речь идёт только о языке моих комментариев: если точные оттенки выражения для вас так важны, то могу продолжать по-русски. Тратить слишком много времени на дискуссию я не хочу, так что если увижу, что обсуждение упирается в стену (кажется, многое это предвещает), настаивать, конечно, не буду. Есть очень много областей, в которых Википедия далека от совершенства, невозможно исправить их все, да и ни к чему. ;) Всё это в порядке вещей… - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Try actually reading my response carefully (including the links to policy). If you wish to discuss this with other editors, please keep the discussion on the article's talk page as you and I are not the only editors involved in the article's development, and it would be far more productive to draw more editors into a discussion on how to improve it as it is currently a POV mess. Best of luck in improving the content, but I'm only involved in the capacity of observing in order that it be developed according to policy and WP:COMMONSENSE. In that sense, any reverts on my behalf are 'reflex-based'. Best of luck in improving the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. While I appreciate that it slows you down expressing yourself in English, that's essentially policy for article talk pages and user talk pages. I am, as I just noted, in agreement that the article is a biased mess (and I would certainly like to see it improved). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that I slow down (I can exit whenever I like, so my time is not a problem), the problem is that you seem to take offence at my English. I cannot use English in any other way, so either please don't take offence over implications I did not have (I did not mean to render you ignorant, I meant to convey my points, that was all), or we need to stop the discussion. Anyway, I gave the relevant excerpt of the speech in the talk page, you probably overlooked it somehow when you first answered. If you oppose strongly over the point of Putin's references (whether he referred to revival of the Soviet Union or to the economic and social disasters) and don't have the time to be persuaded, then I won't try to jump over a wall. I think that in this case I'll just correct "the biggest" for "a major" and let the future decide itself, for I stated my view well enough. Really, you cannot explain me anything by giving loads of links without saying what you mean in the particular case. I am sorry, if I make you tired. Do you oppose the limited proposal? - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change... and I don't have any problems with copyediting awkward grammar, syntax, or other issues if such changes need to be made in order to bring the content up to par. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Спасибо за ваше «спасибо»! Не поверите, когда не «встречают по одёжке», становится намного приятнее: от забрасывания ссылками польза сомнительна, потому что, если нет разъяснений насчёт их конкретного применения, они больше всего напоминают метод психологического устрашения… Во всяком случае, для меня. За английскую грамматику, как вы понимаете, я не специалист — просто скопировал фрагмент из официального перевода. (Почему-то меня опять в сторону сербского языка потянуло… ;) ). - Evgeniy E. (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you do encounter problems with simple text that you can't just copy and paste for articles, I'm happy to 'fix' it as long as it's fairly clear as to what you're expressing. There are also plenty of other editors who will do the same if the content additions/changes are good. As for being 'pulled' towards another language, I know the problem all too well! For me, it's all dependent on who I'm having a conversing with in my mind (if that makes sense). Nice to have you on board, and feel free to ask me for assistance (including pinging me from article talk pages). Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

• Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption

• Traffic report: Reality is for losers

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Gallery: Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Pakistan

• Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hello!

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your support Iryna Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Govindaharihari. My pleasure! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Kanye West in Kazakhstan

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

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

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

@Vesuvius Dogg: Hi. As you're already aware of the existence of the Human Rights article, it may be appropriate for that article per WP:TITLE (i.e., the article deals specifically with such issues, therefore it would not be misplaced so long as other editors believe it to be DUE). It is not, however, DUE for the broad scope article for the reasons I outlined.

Please read the COIN discussion carefully. The Kazakhstan article has become a magnet for WP:ADVOCACY surrounding an article dealing with the history, culture, ethnic groups, etc. it should be about. Again, I'll invoke WP:RECENTISM. I understand you're approaching this in good faith, but you're actually trying to pull the article towards what the socks and meat are trying to accomplish. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not married to the edit, and I appreciate your arguments and suggestions. Googling around, I couldn't really find support for the notion that there's a wider cultural boycott in place which might give this story the weight it would need to merit inclusion on Kazakhstan. (That said, the West/Nazarbayev wedding singer flap did get an unusual degree of domestic coverage here in 2013, all the more surprising because Kazakhstan human rights issues usually fly so far below US media radar.) In any event, the last thing I want to do is spark some meat 'n socks edit war, particularly over an entertainer whose talent and cultural import I would otherwise scarcely champion. Thanks again Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, sometimes there more good PR for a 'celebrity' factoring into high level reportage than any genuine concern for the reality of the issue (Kanye West's agent suggested it'd lift his profile as a caring, PC kinda guy??!!). I'm neutral as to whether it belongs in the "Human Rights" article, but I tend to feel that it's more along the lines of WP:EVERYTHING/Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. That's only my position on the matter. You could always test the waters by following WP:BRD for that article if you wish. Happy editing, either way! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

List of state mergers

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

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

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

• Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith

• WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States

• Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence

• News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate

• Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death

• Featured content: A fistful of dollars

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 October

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

• On the Ukraine page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

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

Re: changes made to Ukraine post

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

As suggested by me already, read the talk page archives. This is not a matter of consensus between you and I, nor is it a matter of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which is WP:POV). Please read WP:NPOV as it's unlikely to mean what most new contributors think it means. We are an encyclopaedic resource, therefore reflect what reliable sources say on any matter.

If you still wish to challenge the consensus and reliable sources, please start a new section on the talk page of the article. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You failed to answer my question, which indicates you found nothing that contradicts any policy. Your stated reason for removing changes was "Your recent edit to Ukraine seemed less than neutral to me". It SEEMED something to YOU, which means it is clearly your personal opinion of my changes that influenced your action. Now you are using a vague general excuse about a wikipedia policy that hardly applies here, instead of answering my question. You are effectively censoring what you personally disagree with. Speaking of "reliable" sources, frankly, any source is considered unreliable if it is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But that's a topic for the talk page. What I'll do for now is I'll go through the NPOV and redo my changes if they don't agree with it, however, I fill also scrutinize everything that's on the page already so that it also complies with those rules, as I believe it currently does not. Then we'll talk some more. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.200.103 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you will not bring it to my talk page. You can take it up on the article's talk page. I have no interest in a one on one discussion with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN to what an experienced editor tries to explain to them. No more comments on my talk page about policies and guidelines you don't understand. The only thing I am trying to avoid is this escalating to becoming WP:UNCIVIL. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"You will not", "No more", Wow...So far, you, the experienced editor, have explained zero as to what's wrong with my edits. But as I said, I might be wrong about policies and I will do the due diligence in making any necessary corrections. I will then edit the article in strict accordance with the rules and at least up to the already existing standard and WILL post on your talk page only if you try to prevent properly written changes from reflecting. After all, we don't want any system-gaming in Misplaced Pages, do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.200.103 (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iryna Harpy:ANI-notice

Template:Iryna Harpy:ANI-notice

You are being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_of_page_tags_by_nationalist_tag-team.2C_Iryna_Harpy_and_Faustian

Hinduism in Iceland

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

Hi, JimRenge. I'm just logging off for the day, but I'll take a look first thing in the morning (should there be no other editors or, more importantly, sysops involving themselves by that point). If the sock relationship isn't self-evident, I'll eat my hat. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@JimRenge: It seems that NeilN has blocked the dynamic IP range temporarily. In the meantime, I'm checking through all of the sock changes and reverting them unless there's something of merit. Should the activities begin again after the block has expired, it's definitely time for an SPI. I'll be keeping an eye on all of the articles affected. There really don't seem to be too many sets of eyes on the various religion by country articles... which is strange considering that they're a prime target for POV pushers to turn them into fiascos rather than encyclopaedic resources. Sigh. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The range block seems to be effective. Thanks again for the cleanup. :) JimRenge (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

• Editorial: Women and Misplaced Pages: the world is watching

• News and notes: Wikimedia lawsuit against NSA dismissed; Affiliates mailing list launched

• In the media: "Misplaced Pages's hostility to women"

• Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus

• Featured content: A more balanced week

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages is significantly amplifying the impact of Open Access publications

• Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing

• Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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