Iryna Harpy

Katrina Kaif

Dear Ms. Harpy, I would like to apologise for any inconveniences we had earlier. Could you please help me with a page which is continually being changed. The page is Katrina Kaif, and I would like to change where it says her personal life section. Could you please contact an administrator as I do not know how and ask him to stop any further vandalism on the page. On the page itself, it claims that katrina kaif's father is an Indian-kashmiri, however, I have proof showing that he is 'Pakistani-kashmiri'. My proof being, he is a British-Muslim kashmiri, and statistics show that 94% of Muslim-Kashmiris within the UK consider themselves to be pakistani. Please could you contact an administrator to change it, as there are constant changes to it. Here is my source 'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_diaspora#United_Kingdom' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article and see what I can make of sourced information. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've actually checked the sources, and there is no reference to her father being anything other than Kashmiri: not Indian-Kashmiri or Pakinstani-Kashmiri. Because the article is a biography of a living person, there can be no speculation as to how he self-identifies, nor how Katrina Kaif identifies his ethnicity. I've removed the 'Indian' and left only the Kashmiri for the article.

I've left a comment on the talk page of the article regarding the matter. I know this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but at least it's going to put a stop to POV pushing of any particular ethnic group where there is no reliably sourced information on the subject. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much, and I once again apologize for my inexcusable behavious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologise for. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention. The use of Indian-Kashmiri was not supported by the sources, so you've made a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

• Editorial: Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition

• In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia

• Special report: Revision scoring as a service

• Gallery: Darwin Day

• Traffic report: February is for lovers

• Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish

• Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just telling

Comments like this do not require any answer because they are utterly off topic and repeat the same argument over and over again. No discussion is frequently a very good thing because it allows a faster closing or self-archiving of a thread, especially on the ANI. Unfortunately, I frequently do not follow this advice myself. Here is an interesting essay [1]... Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, I know. That's the same advice I'd give, but haven't practised what I preach. I could kick myself over this one (or you're welcome to throw a whale my way). I usually try to avoid taking the bait, but kept letting my irritation override my sense of good judgement in holding my tongue.

Ultimately, if he wants to try to introduce the sources under discussion into any article, it's best to start a section on the RSN. I'd rather avoid the RSN as it's always a popular place for a few editors to start on POV pushing. I am not going to push it any further at the ANI so that the incident can just be closed off and archived. If there are any such attempts on articles that may not be on my watchlist, please ping me or drop me a line here as you know it's one of my areas of interest.

On another subject, I'm very pleased to see that you've decided not to retire entirely for the moment. I understand what a difficult decision it is to make despite the fact that of the project taking over ones life, the frustration, and the levels of animosity one has to deal with here. While I have no doubt that there would be editors jumping for joy to see the back of you, you would certainly be deeply missed by those who respect integrity, knowledge and the occasional nudge to remind us that we're doing the wrong thing. Even where we disagree, you're one of the tiny handful I will go the extra mile to listen out their arguments for as I know you always have good grounds on which to argue a point. You know you're always welcome to just drop by to vent your frustrations or discuss any dilemmas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! No, actually, I should not participate for a number of reasons and probably will stop tomorrow. I became a worse person after editing here. Same with many others. Therefore, I would not encourage anyone to stay. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As about WP:RSNB, I did started a discussion about one of the sources related to this case and used by YMB29 long time ago [2]. This is a typical historical pseudoscience produced by a modern-day propagandist, but is is interesting to see how and why the results of this discussion are very far from certain and should probably be summarized as "no consensus". Some participants simply have little idea about the subject or the book... My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can fully empathise with your reasons for leaving the project as I know I've been taxing ex-colleagues from uni and in the Australian parliamentary system in my 'social life' in order to pick their brains regarding university syllabus standard texts, as well as political theory positions for some time (i.e., it's become disruptive to my personal life on far more levels than simply taking up my own time and energy). Wikipedia is project that 'anyone can edit', therefore there's no true deference to scholarly sources and opinion: if it's online, it's fair game for inclusion. Finding that an 'academic'/'expert' has been quoted/cited by a few publications and 'respected' authorities in any given area of studies/research is used as enough 'proof' of the significance of their hobby-horse or politically driven and subsidised work to push it through.

I'd still feel deeply saddened by your simply retiring, and would be cheered up if you were to consider semi-retirement as an option... but that is your option, my friend. If you know that you're incapable of popping in from time to time, then detaching yourself again, you must do what is best for you. POV-ers who are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause have far more energy and determination than those of us who seriously analyse the area of studies and our own positions at every step.

I've bookmarked the RSN discussion in question for future reference. As an aside, if you don't intend to keep posting your poetry to your user page, do get a Wordpress or Blogger account. I've truly enjoyed (if that's the right description) reading your work. Sending you 'my very best wishes' in your future endeavours. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Speaking about RSN discussion (link above), it helps to understand who is doing what in the project. User A: "It [the book by Dyukov] says nothing about "mainstream Western historians.". No, the entire purpose of the book was to disprove the "majority view" by "Western" science, as authors openly stated in the introduction (the direct citation of the introduction was provided in the beginning of the thread). That is what Senyavskaya also openly said in the beginning of her article. User B: "[The book by Dyukov] is defending Western scholarship". I can't believe this comment was made in a good faith, but the person who makes this comment behaves like an "expert". Same person tells below that "The link you provided says that it was published by Penguin Books", which is simply not true: the book was published in Russia by EKSMO, famous for publishing Stalinist pseudohistory [3]. So it goes, and these guys are protected by WP administrators until one of them becomes too disruptive. Strictly speaking, taking part in a project where some participants are engaged in intentional disinformation amounts to a scientific misconduct. However, this is not the most important reason for me to leave. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Yes, I've had the time to go over the link you've provided and, yes, I understand (and empathise) with your position. I've encountered less obvious variants of the same misconduct. Again, I reiterate that it will be a loss to Wikipedia and to myself, on a personal level, to see an editor of your integrity and knowledge of Eastern European history and politically motivated revisionism leave the project. I don't think that a lot of Wikipedians (admin or regular editors) are entirely honest about knowing that 'revisionism' may be a modern term, but that this fact plagues 'historical' interpretations from the first documented form of purportedly documenting history 'subjectively' (i.e., Thucydides through his History of the Peloponnesian War). Personally, I've spent my working life deciphering - not Linear B - but what Dylan Thomas so eloquently brought to the fore in his The hand that signed the paper.

I've seen propaganda being pushed at all levels in my research work and thought that Wikipedia was an opportunity for me to detach myself from my own original research habits of decades. I was ill-prepared for the learning curve, but I've always been reasonably proficient at approaching subject matter from entirely different stances... but I've not been able to prepare myself enough for the fact that so much is institutionalised here. Again, I will deeply feel the absence of your good sense, but you must get on with your life in a manner productive to you. You must get the priorities in your life in order of their importance. I wish you all the best or, as I can't help myself when it comes to bad puns, 'My very best wishes'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian Federation & Russia

There's no 2 seperate articles called Russian Federation & Russia. Follow the link. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies! Yes, you're quite right. I ought to know better, having been working on articles surrounding ex-Soviet and current CIS nation-states for so long. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please rate

Здрастуйте Ірина. Прошу оцінити рисунок: дотримання авторських прав, ліцензія, мову... [4]. Дякую. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaila vnuk (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Debaltseve

Hey Irina..Indeed I removed content from "The Battle of Debaltseve" but I did leave an explanation.The said content cited a report by the Kiyv Post that alleged an attack to refugees leaving the town of Debaltseve by the rebels-or separatists if you like-was not verified by any other source and based on hearsay.Moreover it was likely put there to steer sympathies to one side.Similar "accounts" of Ukrainian soldiers firing on fleeing refugees exist as well.. TonyArzenta (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, you should take it to the article's talk page and express your reservations as to the use of the content, per Bold → Revert → Discuss. Please bear in mind that this (and other articles surrounding events in Ukraine) are extremely high traffic and attract a lot of problematic contributors, therefore sourced material being eliminated without discussion tends to get reverted due to the pace of editing. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian help!

Hi Iryna, do you think you could help me translate this? "ваше редагування было видалення патрульним"? I'm not quite sure what the exact English equivalent would be.... your edits have been reverted? your privileges revoked? It's from the handwriting on this file which I want to make sure has a good caption on Ihor Kostenko's page. I would really appreciate if you could take a minute to look at it. Thank you so much! Wikimandia (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you've started transposing the handwritten version using the Russian alphabet. I've just got a few thing I have to get on with IRL for a day or so, but will type out and translated the placard ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I speak Russian but I think this is Ukrainian, and I remember seeing you spoke both? I could make a guess but I want to make sure it's right. Thank you! Wikimandia (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Coups d'état lists

There is a lot of commotion on List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country and List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010 by a biased User:Endukiejunta who is continually pushing pro-Russian POV edits, while regarding the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as that of a "coup." Please visit the talk pages here and here to set the article straight and neutral. § DDima 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just about to log off until tomorrow due to IRL commitments, DDima. I'll take a look ASAP (I'll try to get to it on my return in the evening). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi, Iryna Harpy, long time no see. Would you please make that report at WP:AN/I or do you intend to wait for someone like me to go ahead with it [5] ? Look again at his contributions. He did not stop after your last warning, just the opposite; he intensified the removal of See also sections and blocks of images [6] from every WP:ARBEE sensitive article he can find, without a word of summary. All this would have to be reverted by an admin in a coordinated move. Poeticbent talk 05:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Poeticbent. You must have posted this at the very moment I was logging off for the afternoon. Yesterday, I was editing on the hoof and was engaged in some 'disputes' over current affairs articles. When I logged in this morning, I picked up from where I was and didn't get a chance to catch up with a plethora of notifications. I've only just logged in to start a catch-up, but have to go out in a few minutes. I'll be out most of the day tomorrow... so, I'd be much obliged if you could report him/her. If not, it will have to wait until tomorrow evening or Monday. My goodness, what committed 'contributor'! Aside from a few bizarre edit summaries (a couple of which are misleading in terms of the changes actually made), the only ES the user has ever left has been a couple of instances of "ottoman is not colonial empire"(?!!).

After a mass revert, I think earlier edits will need to be picked through as other contributors often don't bother checking the history of an article and salient, sourced information may be lost in earlier versions. Thanks for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I took the liberty of using your direct quote from above in filing my report. I hope you don't mind. Best regards, Poeticbent talk 14:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. The thread was archived without being addressed. It is now at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#User:Qordnlrns vandalizing the WP:ARBEE topics. Possible backlog at AN/I ... We would have to fix it manually somehow, on a one-to-one basis. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 07:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway, Poeticbent. I'm just going through the changes carefully, little by little. I've left an ARBEE sanctions notification on his/her talk page. There's only been one change made to an article since you issued the notification on their talk page, and it looks legitimate. I suppose the only thing to be done is to wait and see whether the user tries to revert or reintroduce these POV changes. If so, I have the neglected and archived version to refer to for another ANI... and this time there's been a discretionary sanctions warning issue, so there's no excuse.

I'm much obliged for your effort! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Translation project

If you're looking for something to do, I think you might be interested in the new article South-East Ukrainian Autonomous Republic. I'd like to help building it, but English sources are sparse. It seems that the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have decent articles on the subject, if you'd like to consider doing some translation work. It is nice to see these gaps in the narrative filled. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. I've been falling in Wikipedia rabbit holes while being late for very important dates IRL. Yes, of course I'll take a look at it... provided I don't get waylaid by eating mushrooms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Just something I thought I'd throw out, in case anyone was interested. Be wary of wild juntas. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How did you know I was nearly swallowed by one a couple of days ago? It's still lurking around somewhere with some of its dejected compatriots and rabidly chewing the non-existent fat with them, but that's their nature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few, now. They come and go with ease. Better to just ignore them. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please could you add an article to your watch list

Please could you add an article to your watch list. Edits like this suggest another Kremlin sockpuppet.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for picking up on that, Toddy1! It's already on my watchlist... I just hadn't gotten to the alert as yet. There are rejects from the current affairs articles trying to create messes of any articles to do with Ukraine (as well as all the articles that have anything to do with Russia). I can hardly keep up with them any more. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

Please stop your violation of NPOV writing that the RF had "annexed" Crimea. It is an accusation of crime against the international law and can't be stated without international court decesion of guiltiness. It is also a direct insult against all who stand for freedom of Crimea, the quistion is is it done purposely or under influence of regime in Kiev's propoganda. I have a feeling we need a seriuos NPOV discussion involving users living in Crimea. Viktor Š 22:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

We follow WP:RS. WP:NPOV means that we follow what the reliable sources say presenting the information in as neutral a tone as possible, and global consensus (NATO, etc.) is that the annexation is illegal. No one is interested in further prolonged discussions as to this status. Read the talk page of the relevant article, including the archives. The Wikipedia community has had enough of the type of WP:POV-pushing you're engaging in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Iryna,hope you are doing well! I have been accused of being a sock puppet here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34. I am confused and very surprised and don't even know how to respond. I haven't even heard of that user. I don't appreciate of being accused for something like this after I have put so much effort into the Cuman article and brought it to where it is today - I have put countless hours into research and typing the information. There is also no evidence, naturally. I am very angry at this. What should I do? How should I handle this? I would really, really appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks! Smart Nomad (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, Smart Nomad. My only advice is that you write a WP:CIVIL comment on the investigations page pleading the same confusion as you have here. I'll take a careful look at the evidence mounted against you (including the use of language and any other obvious differences between you and others under suspicion) and will make a statement/comment on the investigations page for your case. Above all, don't panic. Mistakes have been made in these investigations before and the cleric's check my clear you without any dramas. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I apologize for the late reply - I was away for a while. I appreciate your advice, thank you. Ok, I won't worry :-). I haven't written a comment on the investigations page - the accusation against me seems to have gone nowhere anyway, thank goodness. At least now i am aware that such mistakes happen. Until next time :-)... Smart Nomad (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. I kept my eye on the investigation in case you ended up being one of the users who ended up on the short list to be checked into (in which case I would have spoken up on your behalf). As it was, you were dropped as a 'suspect' to be followed up on after a couple of days. Yeah, stuff happens here, and it's not necessarily pleasant. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

• From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish reports, indicate operating changes

• Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report

• Traffic report: Attack of the movies

• Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes

• Interview: Meet a paid editor

• In the media: Kanye West rebranded; Wikipedia in court; editors for hire

• Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Blog: Black History Month edit-a-thons tackle Wikipedia’s multicultural gaps

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 March

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 Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation page, your edit caused an unnamed 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) 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Well, i tried to help pointing out a WRONG information in Wikipedia. If people who helps is regarded as "uncostructive" and "unhelpful" so i will never ever help Wikipedia anymore. As you said, it is not a reliable source, it is a piece of s. where people who contribute are treated like garbage while vandals reign. Shame of Wikipedia.Farewell.I will be happy to leave the millions wrong information i see in Wikipedia without contributing from now. 180.183.46.110 (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Sandbox ? Discussion ? This is bulls... It had happened in the past I have tried to draw attention to bad and false information in Wiki articles by discussion and sandbox and after YEARS nobody cared to change them. That's why i have added that tag and the error was corrected. So it was helpful indeed, otherwise the false information in that Comoros article would have stayed there for years and years. Anyway, I will not do it anymore, I swear, I will leave Wikipedia as bad as it is with its horrible reputation which it fully deserves. Cheers and Farewell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.46.110 (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you take polite, generic templates so personally, particularly as I genuinely thanked you for drawing my attention to the discrepancy between the two pages. These are no intended as methods to put you off editing, but to provide you with an insight into policies and guidelines. I certainly hope you don't give up on contributing, but please try to refrain from singling me out for abuse because you've had bad experiences with Wikipedia in the past. You expect to be treated respectfully, as do I. Hopefully, you've gotten that complaint off your chest and are willing to let bygones be bygones. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Hi Iryna, You changed my edit on Kyrgyzstan and asked me to cite my reference. I actually changed the content of the article to properly represent the quoted source. Please change your edit back to the way I had fixed it. Check the source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risbek Hewitt (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responded to on contributor's talk page where same query brought up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to five year plan

Hi you must have missed it up above so i hope you don't mind me reposting. Thanks for the message to my talk page. Firstly that wasn't a test edit that was an actual edit. The edits goal was to flesh out that section which was a single sentence long and according to the well sourced 9th 5 year plan article, didn't even cover the main aspect of the plan, that of increasing consumer goods. As for the link between the plan and computer tech. i fail to see what is confusing. The plan caused the development of computer tech in the Soviet Union. Sorry if any of this sounded aggressive but i simply wished to improve Wikipedia Awnman (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for missing your previous post, Awnman. Yes, I've reviewed the revert and have self-reverted. It does need a little fleshing out, but the entire article needs a good copy-edit in order to get it up to par. I think I must have interpreted in at getting WP:OFFTOPIC, but in retrospect it was bad call on my behalf. Cheers for pulling me up on my error, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Asking for mediation in our conflict

Hi, since you keep refusing to explain yourself and just keep throwing stuff in my face I have asked others to help you explain yourself and help me explain myself to you. You can provide your side of the story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

They feel we should try to talk more between ourselves before contacting admins. So please talk...78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, FYI the DRN complaint at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk has been closed. See this edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston, for informing me of the outcome. My thanks, also, to TransporterMan. I'm fully aware of having allowed myself to be baited and, resultantly, am admonishing myself for my sheer stupidity and distinctly un-Wikipedian behaviour. It was one of those days where months of AGF explanations of the same things over and over tipped me into a knee-jerk reaction. I apologise for feeding the trolls and, resultantly, wasting your time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You infuriate me with your dismissive yet pervasive comments. The outcome was that we should discuss it more with each other. I am not baiting you. You are baiting me. You are not sorry for anything, you are an empty shell of a human being that enjoys pushing others over, and throwing your reality into their face by provoking them as you say in your profile. I will report you for the character assasination that your constant, continous and still unexplained use of patronizing represents. Every action and position I have taken I have explained in detail while your attacks on me, calling me a troll and baiter, a crusader, calling my posts forumposts and so on have had no reason behind them. So consider yourself reported. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been reported to the admin noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerning_my_dispute_with_Iryna_Harpy 78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea as to what time zone you live in, as you've already admitted to the fact that you mask your IP. I, however, do have an account and a user page you could have checked... and noted that I live in Australia. Whatever your gripe is against me, before accusing me of 'refusing' to participate in any form of discussion with you, try to keep your temper in check and don't make demands of editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about them while they're asleep.

You started a DRN during my 'overnight' then, that having been rejected, you opened an ANI into my "dismissive yet pervasive comments", adamant of my "continous and still unexplained use of patronizing " during my next 'overnight and asleep'. Please bring the diffs demonstrating this apparently "continuous" behaviour. Actually, allow me to save you the trouble:

09:28, 12 March 2015 - first communication with you at "Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" after I'd read your personal attack on RGloucester's own talk page where I told you not to use article talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX and advocating personal views in no uncertain terms;
09:30, 12 March 2015 - second communication on "User talk: RGloucester" immediately and simply invoked WP:NPA;
09:31, 12 March 2015 - third communication on "Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" simply invoking WP:NPA over your attack on RGloucester there;
09:32, 12 March 2015 - fourth communication leaving a "General note: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk" template on your talk in case you missed the comments on the relevant talk page;
09:33, 12 March 2015 - fifth communication leaving a "Caution: Not assuming good faith on User talk:RGloucester" template on your talk in case you missed the comments on the relevant talk page.

Check my contributions page: that was my final activity for the evening. I did not log back on until 21:09, 12 March 2015, by which time the DRN had been closed. I was not interested in engaging with you personally as you'd already had other editors communicating with you whom you'd been abusive and dismissive towards. I did, however, join in on the thread you started on the RSN out of courtesy.

As I did not revert anything by you, I saw no point in further engaging with you as the DRN was already closed/rejected (all this taking place before I'd even logged in that morning).

Now, after your lack of presence during the hours in which I edit on Wikipedia, I've logged in for the day to find you have started an ANI about my purported devious actions and attitude (started at 20:44, 13 March 2015, whereas I had logged out at 05:48, 13 March 2015 and have only just logged in again) characterising it as being your 'dispute'(?!) with me. I will leave a brief comment on that thread, but suggest that you desist from this very, very personal WP:HARASSment you're in the process of WP:FORUMSHOPPING for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

• Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey

• News and notes: WikiWomen's History Month—meetups, blog posts, and "Inspire" grant-making campaign

• In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West

• In focus: WMF to NSA: "stop spying on Wikipedia users"

• Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time

• Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –

• Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Demographics of Kyrgyztan, Vital statistics 1960-1980

Hello! I've noticed you removed added info regarding natural movement during 1960-1980. It's been taken from demographic yearbook of USSR The full name is "Население СССР. 1987." and it does not exists anywhere in the electronic form. Please restore the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.16.125.65 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You remove. What is the problem?

Ukrainian popilation

−

• Ukrainian. Not registered any large-scale protest actions in Ukraine. A small group attacked the Russian Embassy in Ukraine

−

• Crimea. After accession markups below no protest actions in the Crimea. Crimean Tatars protested against the refusal of entry former the leader (1 time).

− −

Army on the territory of Crimea

− The reaction of the Ukrainian army soldiers who served in the Crimea. According to Ukrainian data 78% remained in the Crimea after accession. Under Russian 75% continued their military service stepping down in the Russian army.

−

• An absolute majority of police officers were to serve in the Crimea.

References

Anti-Polish attitude?

Hello Iryna. Lately I see you are very fierce in deleting all the information that I put on Wikipedia to improve it. I see that you wish Wikipedia to view the Poles as the worst people as possible, and you deny the Polish sufferings. Are you a fan of the UPA murderers? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to make a revenge on me? I didnt do nothing wrong. Since when an Ukrainian person decides about the article about Polish people, making some antipolish statements pass on Wikipedia? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you've been persisting in overwriting a correctly used term for anti-Polish sentiment (which happens to be the WP:TITLE of the article) and replaced it with a term one that isn't used in the English language (that is, blanking content and overwriting it with original research). The fact that "among the Poles in the UK there is a term 'rasizm antypolski'", therefore your translation of it into English as being meaningful to you has no bearing on the English WP:COMMONNAME. Had I found that your rendition, being "anti-Polish racism", was commonly used in the English language, I would have been prepared to add it to the list of terminology without eradicating the term that reflects the article title. When googling the term, however, I only found a couple of instances. If you wish to discuss it further on the talk page of the relevant article, I've started a section there for that purpose. This allows other editors to consider the issue and make consensus decisions as to whether the term should be added or not.

The greater issue is that of your casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me based on my ethnicity. WP:NPA is a Wikipedia cornerstone for editing practices. You've made badly judged assumptions as to my character due to your myopic reading of the article and appear to have completely misunderstood the reason why the anti-Polish Soviet propaganda poster appears with commentary on the article. I'll address the parsing of the poster on the relevant talk page rather than on my own talk page. Again, this is an issue for the community of editors involved in that article to make decisions about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

iryna harpy why is the new year chear not working i know it is kind of late but i need to know thank you and was that to much information true. please answer as soon as possible thanks by the way are 9 year olds aloud on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtubelover116 (talk • contribs)

I moved this here from your user page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RGloucester. I spotted this a few days ago, but other editors had been contacted by this user and bizarre interactions ensued on their owntalk page. There hasn't been any form of activity for a few days so, on the assumption that the new user in genuinely a 9 yo, I'm going leave a recommendation that they create an account on simple.wikipedia.org. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting bogus warning templates

Please stop it with that! It can seen as a way of harassment. My edit to Novorossiya was NOT unconstructive, as you wrongly allege [7]. Rather, I removed bias as explained at talk.

As for Holodomor, this is a case of legitimate dispute - whether to include the information or not. I shall be waiting for 3rd opinions at talk. NO WAY was my edit worth a ″Warning″ [8] due to supposedly ″not adhering to neutral point of view". This is patent nonsense. Which Point-of-View was my edit pushing then according to your logic? Russian? Ukrainian? Both? Bottom line: it is a question of whether this adequately sourced information is due/suitable. That's what should be discussed at talk there. My article edit itself was 100% legitimate from the point-of-view of WP guidelines.

Take care, Phil. --Phil070707 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Phil070707, I realise you're a new user here, and that your edits are in good faith. I haven't had time to start a discourse with you as to being cautious about articles subject to WP:ARBEE. There is nothing 'bogus' about my warning templates: they're standard practice.

I'll offer the same advice to you as I do for any new users who start their editing learning curve by jumping in at the deep end (being articles that are controversial/identifiable as being contentious): read the talk pages carefully (including the archives). The boxes at the top of the page will inform you as to whether the article has been subject to serious scrutiny (i.e., the Holodomor talk page carries the WP:ARB warning template informing editors that the "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless." You've approached this in a WP:CIVIL manner, per WP:BRD on the article's talk page, for which I commend you. On the other hand, this missive you've left on my "own talk" is unnecessarily aggressive. I apologise that I've made you feel that I was targeting you individually for your good faith efforts, but that was certainly not my intention. I should have engaged with you in more detail sooner. Unfortunately, as a regular editor, I have my finger in too many pies across many areas of Wikipedia and don't always have time to communicate with users immediately due to being engaged elsewhere at any given moment.

I'll respond to the new section you've started on the Holodomor talk page ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

• From the editor: A salute to Pine

• News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

• In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

• Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

• Featured content: A woman who loved kings

• Traffic report: It's not cricket

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Crimea maps

Hi Iryna! There is currently a discussion on Talk:Kherson Oblast regarding maps including Crimea. A user started removing the NPOV maps with Crimea depicted as a disputed region stating that those are "nationalist POV". I mentioned that there was a consensus and a number of discussions a long time ago on Talk:Ukraine right after Crimea's annexation to depict Crimea as a disputed region on maps and articles as that was the NPOV option. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that you were one of the users participating in the discussions going on at the time which is why I would greatly appreciate if you stopped by and provided links to some of the most relevant discussions as I am sure that you would know better than I do which ones are worth reading since I was not a part of those discussions. You are also a user who always tries to seek NPOV which is why it would be great if you joined the discussion. Thank you! --Leftcry (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Leftcry. I've just responded on that page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Leftcry (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to please ask you to return to the discussion as some users only show disruptive behavior. One user went as far as changing the maps back to the ones with Crimea shown as an integral part of Ukraine despite the fact that most of the users who commented on the discussion did not agree with that change. --Leftcry (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Laotian coups

Hello,

Thank you for your kind words concerning the above. I regret being unable to supply cites; I don't understand the citation system in the List of coups article. However, all dates I supply link to 100% reliably cited articles that give details of the coups and attempts—1960 Laotian coups, 1964 Laotian coups, 1965 Laotian coups, 1966 Laotian coups, and 1973 Laotian coup.

So obviously there's more to come—coup via air strike, a mutiny or two, another coup via air strike, and a barefoot fighter jock. And a plethora of conniving politics/politicians who make it all possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Georgejdorner. A pleasure to make your acquaintance. The WP:ANCHORs to section headers within the relevant articles seem to be working now. I did notice you'd had some trouble with them yesterday. If there is a problem with them at a later date (sometimes this happens with hash tag anchors for no obvious reason), sometimes a more pronounced invisible anchor needs to be added to the relevant WP:TARGET. For information on how to create such anchors, see Template:Anchor.

Hope this helps! If you have any problems, however, please feel free to drop me a line here, or ping or mention me in from the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just realised that I didn't respond to your second query/concern: being the need for citations within what is, essentially, a list article which is mainly supported by the main articles wikilinked. The reason that the 'needs further citations' tag is still in place is predominantly due to generic entries in the alphabetised list. There are still a large number of entries simply pointing to the main article on any given nation-state, but there are no sections or content discussing coups in those articles. Those are the problem entries which need some form of elaboration on the when, the where, and the who needs reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just that I am used to citing any info I add to articles. I was unaware that I was creating any problems with hashtags. I do generally have to fiddle my way into such in linkages, as I am not too ept with the wikicoding.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of hash tags is fine by me, and is WC3 compliant. I don't recall encountered any policy or guideline that states, categorically, that linking to sections is unacceptable practice. The only problem that can occur is, of course, if someone renames the section header, or if a spin-off article is created. That being the case, those editors should check the 'What links here' and update any affected articles themselves (although it does provide incentive to create an anchor independent of the absolute section title).

As regards citations, I have the same problem. Most of my time is spent on contentious articles, meaning that I end up having to occasionally clean up citekill! I do understand why list articles of this ilk shouldn't have to reiterate citations. Just as a comparison, List of coups d'état and coup attempts only includes a few additional references where specifics aren't to be found in the wikilinked articles. I find it problematic as keeping on top of new additions requires a great deal of time and energy ensuring that the articles, in themselves, are well cited. Ah, well, Wikipedia never seems to cease being a learning curve. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)