Wikipedia

User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 18

< User talk:Iryna Harpy
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Iryna Harpy in topic Comoros religion page
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Reference errors on 28 April

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WT:THE#RfC Proposal that the best way to present superlative based context specific lists is to use the article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should you be interested... GregKaye 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, GregKaye. I've finally found a moment to respond there. While I'm something of a pedant myself, I simply don't see this as being desirable due the the vast number of pre-existing articles. If we apply this form to list articles, there are other equally grammatically undesirable article titles that also need to be addressed based on the same premise. I support you in theory, but definitely not in practice for the purposes of Wikipedia. You'll find my response in the form of a comment on the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What would your opinion be about this?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Iryna,

Long time no talk! I remember vaguely we collaborated somewhat in the past on the "ethnic cleansing of Circassians" page in the past. "And", I do remember we had some talks about the Zaporozhian Cossacks (don't ask me what precisely, for that's it been too long haha) You might most likely not remember any of this, but I randomly happened to, and I reminded you as a person I wouldn't hesitate in contacting about other Russian/East Slav related topics.

To the point, I have a question for you. What is your opinion about the sudden ' supposed ' fact that General Suvorov happens to be partly "Armenian"? Frankly I had never ever heard of this, until this information got added not that long ago on his Wiki page. I created a section on the talk page, but so far I only got a comment by the user who added the Armenian-related info on his page.[1]

It sounds extremely far fetched to me. Not just because frankly no one I know has/had ever heard of him being supposedly partly Armenian, or that back in those days there were almost 0 Armenians in Moscow, but also because the names of his supposedly Armenian ancestors don't sound Armenian in the slightest. (Except for the surname of his "Armenian" grandmother which does sound a bit odd). Their names sound totally Russian, and especially in that time there would be absolutely no Armenians with native Russian names like that. (Not even the 0,0000000001% Russified Armenian ones in the lower nobility) On top of that, Suvorov himself looks not even close in being partly Armenian, or any other type of ethnos from the South Caucasus.

Anyway id like to know your stance on this and whether you actually had ever heard of this. IMHO, this is nothing more than just a pov-pushed theory which is tried to be made the one and only "fact", and whilst it probably should be added to the early life section, I see absolutely no need nor the confirmation to remove the other info/claims about his ethnic origin which is how I looks like atm and how he's portrayed as some Armenian person. Let me know what you think of all this.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, LouisAragon! Like you, I remember our collaboration in the past, but can't remember all of the details. I've encountered the POV-pusher/user, and have checked the sources s/he has cited with care. I'm of the same opinion as you and have left a lengthy response on the relevant talk page. I've also pinged several NPOV editors who may be willing to add their 2¢. Either way, the article is now on my watchlist. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Iryna. That's good to hear. I just checked your comment on the talk page (I agree with every single sentence of it) and I hope we will be able to indefinetely remove that stuff which has been added as some sort of a confirmed fact (which is totally nonsense) the sooner the better. Bests for now - LouisAragon (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on article about Bohdan Khmelnytsky

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Iryna,

I really appreciate your comments to my last edit. I understand you may have found my changes not-neutral, but I hope, I will explain myself quickly. When I stumbled across the article on Bohdan Khmelnytsky, I was surprised there is no mentioned about the incident at the battle of Batoh. If you want me to rephrase my edit, I will do that, but still I find it quite important to include into the main article.

The statement "First Katyn" or "Sarmatian Katyn" is quite popular in Poland, it was even used on Polish version of the article on this battle (last sentence and words "Sarmacki Katyń") -> https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rze%C5%BA_polskich_je%C5%84c%C3%B3w_pod_Batohem, but for a moment I cannot provide to you any reference to this statement in the scientific publication (but I can give you several references in popular publications). Katyn is a place of the massacre of Polish prisoners by the NKVD in 1940 (actually, it's a one, common name for the many massacres perpetrated in the Soviet Union at one time on Polish POWs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Marcus19771107. This is why I have opened a new discussion section on the relevant article page in order that other editors get the opportunity to voice their opinions and, where it's deemed appropriate, find reliable sources for the information. Remember, though, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic source, therefore what is 'popular' in Poland or Ukraine (i.e., nationalist narratives) are not considered WP:NPOV. Please feel free to comment on the article's talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in Ukraine‎

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have the article on Freedom of the press in Ukraine‎ on your watch list?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I didn't, but I do now. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Added a new section to the article dealing with the missing and captured. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, EkoGraf. Apologies for not having had time to develop the article as yet. There's so much in the way of tendentious editing going on that I can't check the balance of sources (or translate where needed) quickly enough. I think there's quite a bit of additional information from sources emerging and being used for the humanitarian situation article that could/should be carried across without duplicating too much of the content. I'll look at what I have bookmarked and downloaded. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, you too! EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Holodomor

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I see that on the 16th of February you have an edit on "Holodomor" that included a tag about how the "consensus term is 'man-made'. See talk page and archived talk pages." Is it possible you could direct me to that exact talk-page discussion? I was interested in reading the discussion in full and don't know where to look. Thank you! Wolfdog (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about this question, Wolfdog. Are you well versed in the subject, or are you dabbling? I mean that in good faith, as I'm not even aware of the famine's being man-made even still being in question. The only question mark that remains is whether the nature of the famine in Ukraine, specifically, was genocide or not. Have you actually read the sources? It would also be useful for you to familiarise yourself with Denial of the Holodomor and other related articles (plus sources) which will provide you with an indication as to which sources are considered reliable, WP:BIASED, but acceptable for the sake of critiques, and which sources have been dismissed.
The most recent 'discussion' can be found here, but that's very recent in terms of the article's talk archives. A full list of mentions can be found by typing in the term in the search box which has yielded these mentions.
My recommendation, however, would be for you to actually read all of the archives (18 painful, edit-warring, POV battlegounds worth, or so) in order to get your head around why this article is one of the major ticket items at WP:ARBEE, and where you'll find that a vast number of editors have been blocked for their activities surrounding the content of the article. Personally, I don't care to work on it other than maintaining it and keeping my eye out for changes from POV pushers from either side. I've had more than enough of the acrimonious atmosphere there and, since I work on Eastern European articles, I can promise you that I don't break easily. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how to word my comment to not put you on the defensive, knowing it might be misinterpreted as sounding "denialist," but I feel I put you there anyway. I'm certainly not interested in trying to get you to "break" or wondering if the Holodmor was man-made; I'm quite certain it was. I literally just wanted to read the discussion. The reason is actually because I'm interested more in the nature of famines. In fact, according to my learning (and I suppose there's a whole controversy on this too), all conditions for famines are man-made, therefore so are all famines basically (if indirectly or mostly unintentionally) man-made. I'm just wondering whether another term, like "an orchestrated famine" or "an intentional famine" is a bit more specific than simply "man-made." I definitely assume that people caused the Holodomor, yes; but, for specificity, I'm also assuming that people intentionally caused it, and I feel that this point is crucial. But, no, I haven't been through all the probably tiresome POV battles you likely have; so maybe you've already seen this discussion resolved elsewhere? Does that make more sense? Wolfdog (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, in other words, you're investigating whether, lexicologically speaking, there are levels in terminology reflecting the extent of human intervention (and, by extension, levels of malice as regards intent). No, I'm not aware of any studies or research addressing this specific field. I'm afraid I can't help you out on that issue. I'm bearing in mind that we've also had to try to evaluate whether Ethnocide and Genocide should be merged into the one article, but there is a variance in the usages (just as there is Cultural genocide or cultural ethnocide). Ultimately, there's always the risk of WP:SYNTH or plain WP:OR therefore, if you were to find academic studies indicating that there's a glossary distinguishing between forms of famine, applying these to various famines would have to be a case by case consensus discussion per famine/article. I'd be hesitant to apply such terminology unless it were backed up by RS dealing with each instance. Hope that makes sense! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was helpful. And you're right that using a word like "intentional" would probably need some bolstering via research. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
As you're interested in the subject, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia articles dealing with this specific aspect, and I have no doubt that there has been reliable, empirical research surrounding lack of pre-emption all the way through different levels under politico-economic circumstances. I certainly think that there's room for such an article, even though retrospective application is likely to be undesirable. Good luck on developing the subject if you intend to create such an article, Wolfdog... and please feel free to ping me or drop by my talk page if there's any content you want to bounce off another editor in the process of development. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thanks

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that you have twice thanked me for reverting contentious edits on Cyrillic script. There have been a number of irrationally partisan edits to this article of late and I try to keep it sensible. It is clear to me that the brothers were Greeks who evangelized Slavic settlers in the Balkans. There has also been some contentious material put on Sykes–Picot Agreement, an article which is of great interest to people trying to understand the problems of the Middle East. I do what I can to keep such articles neutral, but I sometimes feel common sense is having a difficult time at the moment.

I notice you are a supporter of the Russell's teapot principle. Now I choose to believe in Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster and that teapot which has been circling the Sun since before the dawn of man and tea-drinking, but I don't expect anyone else to agree with me! LynwoodF (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, LynwoodF. Thanks for keeping your eye on the article and, yes, it is subject to ridiculous POV changes (most specifically surrounding Saints Cyril and Methodius). Macedonians want them depicted as being Macedonian, Serbs have tried to demonstrate that they were Serbs, etc. The issue has been dealt with at length many times on the article's talk page.
As to your belief system/s, I'm good with Russell's teapot... but you're welcome to believe that Druids live in the teapot. Let's just have a Mad Hatter's tea party and eat worms! Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Gamerprof

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there IH, this is (formerly known as) ALWAYSLEARNING here, from Portugal (I had a serious run-in with a troll that wanted to vandalize articles at will when his sports club lost an important competition, then asked my account be vanished because I had the serious intention of leaving forever; guess I cannot, I'm "wiki-hooked"),

about this user, which you have warned today from what I see: at least in Justo Villar, they show no sign of compromising, altering the player's height with a source that may not even be reliable for all we know. 99,9999999999999999999% of reliable the sources available give Mr. Villar 1,80 meters (and another, BDFUTBOL.com, 1,81). I took it up a notch and browsed his OFFICIAL club profile, and voilà, it also says 1,80.

So, Mr./Mrs. Gamerprof is wrong, and being a downright nuisance no? Please tell me your two cents about this (and since I imagine you are not all that familiar with the football world, i'll drop a note similar to this here at WP:FOOTY), and keep up the good work --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 84.90.219.128! Actually, I've just spent a little time reverting a number of edits by Gamerprof (who likes to spread himself/herself around various area of Wikipedia) after receiving your message. Some of the edits have been correct, so I'm assuming good faith and am not going to report this user as yet. I have, however, left a very clear message on their talk page about their editing patterns.
If you encounter new edits by this user after my message evidencing that they've disregarded the information I've left for them, please let me know and I'll submit a report that will, then, demonstrate that a pattern has been established, and that the user is WP:NOTHERE. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your reversions, hence all the more reason not to be so hasty, thank you for the reply, sorry for any inconvenience madam and all the best! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure... and not an inconvenience by any means. If you encounter any other problems or have any queries, feel free to ask for my assistance. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Church in Lebanon

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Iryna, Since ≈ the 2nd century AD that church/ethno cultural minority has always been called « the Greek Church of Antioch » or « the Greco-Roman Church of Antioch, Syria [including Lebanon and Cilicia], and the East » or « the Greek Orthodox Church of Syrian and Lebanon ». See the official website of the said community for Lebanon: http://antiochpatriarchate.org/en/category/beirut-and-dependencies/65/ It speaks only of the « [Antioachian] Greek Orthodox Church in Beirut and Its Dependencies » = The Greek Orthodox Church in Lebanon in modern English. The expression « Eastern Orthodox » is not applicable in/to Lebanon for a reason: it’s a rather recent, confusing formulation in the MENA context. It may be used in jurisdictions such as say Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Ukraine,… who may want to differentiate themselves from Athens/Constantinople or Moscow. It’s v. rarely used in the Cilician/Syrian/Lebanese = The Greek Antiochian Levantine context of which the Lebanese members of that community have always been part. Hope it all makes sense --B.Andersohn (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

uk -> en translit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could you please review page moves done by MykhayloNaumenko (talk · contribs) because I am not sure he is familiar with the guidelines on transliteration of Ukrainian names (neither am I). -M.Altenmann >t 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I did this earlier, they seem to be acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Altenmann (and Ymblanter). Yes, the user does appear to have been aware of our transliteration system from the outset, so I wouldn't doubt that transliterations of naming conventions from Ukrainian to English by the user would be correct where they are warranted. As a big however, there were definitely Ukrainophile (if not nationalistic) problems with moving pages for celebrities who have official English language social sites and media coverage demonstrating that their COMMONNAME is some form or other of Russian transliteration. There was definitely edit warring on behalf of user MykhayloNaumenko to POV push Ukrainianising these celebrities.
I don't feel that my adding more of a blurb to the current ANI is going to be constructive. As it stands, there are a number of regular editors (and at least one admin) watching MykhayloNaumenko's contributions. As was already expressed at the ANI, any more signs of POV pushing will end up in the user being sanctioned and blocked from editing any articles surrounding Eastern Europe. While we do have contributors whose English isn't particularly good, those whose English is particularly weak and create a nuisance of themselves aren't doing any favours for anyone, including themselves. A few minor reasonable edits don't make up for a mass of disruptive ones. If the user wishes to add anything more to the current ANI in Ukrainian, in order to better express their WP:HERE intentions, I'm happy to translate it on their behalf. Otherwise, I'd suggest that they shouldn't be editing English language Wikipedia, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there might have been a mistake

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just got a new message from you saying that I am required to cite sources before adding content. I have not added any content to Wikipedia thus far, I have only used a talk page and edited a spelling error thus far.

Thank you for your time. 98.196.23.15 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)§

No, the only message I've left on your talk page is a talkback message leading you to my response to your new section on your wanting to create a new 'Cossack military and heraldry'. I apologise if my brief response confused you. I'm merely inquiring as to a sense of what would be involved. The WP:RS was an indicator as to my having no objections if you have good sources. I just want to ensure that the content you're proposing isn't already available in a related article, or that it wouldn't be more appropriate in a pre-existing article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My Final word on the Mykhaylo case

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

So you've noticed I reacted very poorly to Mykhaylo's SPI and other things. I retract the posts I made after the SPI started. I have stepped out of the matter to keep my own cool. I may/will be ceasing and desisting on the matter of Mykhaylo. Time for me to clean up and move on. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Hillcrest98. My apologies for being sharp with you over the matter, as I don't recall you ever having lost your cool in this manner before. I was actually quite confounded because you've always been a positive and collaborative editor. Mind you, it isn't that I can't empathise. I've had my bitey moments with both pro-Russian and Russophobe loonies over the last few years, particularly since events in Ukraine have polarised opinion, so I know where you're coming from. I end up having to step away for a while in order to get some sense of objective perspective again.
Well, the 'cousins' (ultimately, a stupid move to try to fly under the radar) have been blocked as socks, so I doubt he'll be coming back in order to be disruptive. It isn't as if we haven't had users play nicely for a while before they escalate back to making substantial POV and battleground content changes.
If nothing else, having given you the opportunity to vent will have made the ANI worth it. At least there aren't enough admins checking in at the ANI of late for it not to pass fairly much unnoticed into the archives. Cheers, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That "I have the strength to bite newcomers" thing on my userpage is a remnant of my newbie days. I always chuckle when I see it now.Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 04:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so you were prepared to bite yourself on the bum. Double-ouch, there: dislocating vertebrae AND taking a big chomp. That's beyond 'strength'; it's positively Spartan endurance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, as of now, the sock has not been blocked and continues disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillcrest98 and Ymblanter - I've left a comment on the ANI and on the SPI regarding the accounts not being blocked. Again, apologies if I didn't make it clear as to what my main objection was, and that is that you (that is, Hillcrest) had opened up a generic section for rounding up all suspected Ukrainian/anti-Russian POV-ers under one section and treat it as a show trial (essentially WP:WITCHHUNT) where more perceived miscreants could be added by you, or anyone else, by tossing in editors using a few diffs. I regard that as being misuse of the ANI.

As for Naumenko, the second account should have already been blocked so his behaviour could be monitored from the original account. He's blown it. I had no doubt that duck was the order of the day but, even if there was any doubt, the least that is applicable is MEAT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just responded there, and fully understand the muck-up. The guy isn't worth the grief or the amount of time that's been sunk into trying to stay on top of his efforts. If he's still pushing 'Kyiv' over 'Kiev', it means that he's NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Casualties in War in Donbass article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Done [2]. Opened a new section. Let me know what you think. EkoGraf (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EkoGraf. Shall do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


23 05 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm tired to get unacceptable entries on my talk page. When I say that it is necessary to look at the page Religion in USA and to see that there is no categories as Islam in USA, or Christianity in USA , you d better do it.Cathry (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cathry, I fail to see how my notification was "unacceptable" as I made it clear that category issues are not issues to be addressed through WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on articles, but should be addressed at the correct venue: being at the category level. In fact, it may well be that I am in agreement with you as to issue of whether the categories are unnecessarily unique and redundant. While the cats exist, however, it is not inappropriate to use them as article cats.
Should you wish to start a discussion as to whether specific categories should exist on their talk pages, please feel free to ping me on the matter. Ultimately, there are many inappropriate and unjustified categories. The point of the exercise is to look at the issues in the correct context/forum for such questions. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to start discussion on article talk page even if subject is very obvious Cathry (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Cathry, I'd suggest that the best approach would be to start a new section on the actual category talk page, then create a new section for those interested on the article's talk page pointing other editors to the category discussion. Discussing the issue would also draw in neutral editors who work predominantly on categories for their input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Holodomor

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Socialistguy&diff=663912028&oldid=663902231 Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Doubt you will agree with this but

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I still think 'Challenging Operation Vulture in Ukraine' worth close reading It'0s by Michael Hudson. It's increasingly a no win situation, whatever bloc wins the squeeze, and utterly distressing. BestNishidani (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nishidani. I'm not certain as to which Wikipedia article you're referring to... and I'd be surprised if you were truly surprised as to my personal political proclivities. I have a vague recollection of rejecting the use of opinion pieces published in CounterPunch in at least a couple of articles surrounding events in Ukraine, but if I reverted or objected to a content addition it may well be that it was due to any number of factors and not necessarily simply the CounterPunch piece (i.e., "I'm sick up and fed" with CRUSH tactics being introduced to talk pages, usurping pre-existing and serious deliberations as to what is DUE and UNDUE).
Please let me know what the context is as, in fact, I find it to be an excellent and relatively objectively written piece dealing with the bottom line (being global economics). My usual MO is to reject 'colourfully' expressed opinion pieces — even if they are published in an RS — in relation to articles dealing with borderline RECENTISM issues.
Awaiting your response. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. I just thought it was a fine analytic overview that might interest you personally (I grew up close to a wonderful Ukrainian couple, hence . .though they did get upset when I chose to learn Russian rather than Ukrainian). Since I am daily reminded that the things I think obvious are 'extrteme', 'fringe' 'undue' it's just a reflex of mine to feel that in passing on a link the other editor might think I'm being provocative. That was all. Nishidani (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Nishidani, I've been in the trenches for so long that I can't even take a friendly FYE at face value! My immediate thoughts turned to some article in particular where I might have reverted the introduction of this piece into the content.
As expressed above, I do consider it to be a good read addressing the reality behind the waving of nationalist cards. The carving up of state coffers with the horrendously mismanaged 'end' of the Soviet Union left me with a very, very bad taste for the Tymoshenko's, et al. The underlying impetus is cynical at best: oligarchy and plutocracy... 'tomato'/'tomato', 'potato'/'potato', let's call the whole thing off (but how?). The bottom line remains nation-states and whose interests are being served: the ordinary poor sod's? At the end of the day, I despise 'em all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It's history in the raw, screwing the poor. Fuckemall. Best Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Silesian Language

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I strongly disapprove of your action, because there's not enough of a reason for it, and I don't like my work to be thrown away. Also, you misread what I wrote. My edit was a set of small changes, not one small change. If you found something questionable, please edit these pieces out. Simply reverting everything is drastic and rude. The cause of my edit was

1) to remove POV - I removed the bit about this conflict being unanswerable. This is actually what the pro-language groups (Kamusella) claim, because they know the idea that it is a separate language is a new and minority claim. Please note: it is an opinion and there was no backing or any source of it, not to mention indication of it being predominant. - I removed a claim that people from Silesia tend to consider it a language, while people from the rest of Poland have another view. That is a baseless claim. In fact, most of the discussion is internal Silesian one, with rest of Poland or the world hardly caring. There are prominent Silesians that do not agree with the idea that it is a language, like prof. Miodek.

2) to remove faulty information - It is not true that "Until 1945 Silesian was spoken in enclaves in Lower Silesia". First of all, Lower Silesian dialects, according to ISO, is not part of Silesian language. But it's a technical issue and not really important. What's important is that it's not true. Lower Silesian dialects didn't die out in 1945. The Lower Silesian dialects from around Namyslow, Rychtal etc continued to exist after the war, and - perhaps reduced - still exist. The sub-dialect that was destroyed during the war was the dialect of Chwalim, but the population was deported from there in 1939, not 1945. - it is not quite true the line marking western edges of the dialect was Prudnik. Not quite true, because entire Glubczyce area was mostly German speaking.

3) To add information - I corrected the numbers from Polish national census. This is not controversial. - I added information about the relative number of Silesian language declarations compared to Silesian nationality declarations. While some people on one side would like to point out to these numbers being result of local contestation of the economical or political situation, while others do not like to remember that Silesian language existence is a minority stance among Silesians, and even compared to the Silesian nationality declarations it's a minority, these are just facts. Data from national census. So what's the problem? - I mentioned that some Silesian (Laskie) dialects are in Moravia. That is not questionable. Enough to compare the borders of Silesia even on the maps at wiki with the borders of Laskie dialects, which are mostly west to it. This is not an opinion, it's a fact, so what's the problem? - I explained the reason, that is that these lands used to belong to Silesia before Brzetyslaw's conquest. This is a little-known fact, but it's just that: a fact. So what's the problem? - what may be controversial is my mention of that Silesian wasn't until recently used in writing or even in sermins. I provided a link to a reknown professor of Polish language, himself being half-Silesian from Tarnowskie Gory, mentioning it in an interview. If you want, you can delete this information, you would be wrong, but I wouldn't insist. - It is also a fact that what contributed to the rise of Silesian nationality and language declarations is an action by RAS promoting the idea of possibility of declaring Silesian nationality and language - it is not anything controversial. Also, what contributed to it was the movement promoting creating Silesian literary language. You can write it off as an opinion. It is quite obvious though. But I will not insist on that. - I added information on how is it called in Polish. I left język (language) and etnolekt (ethnolect). But język is only used by those believing it to be a separate language, while etnolekt is a word that is completely not used, and it is used on Polish wiki only because it's a compromise between pro-language and anti-language wikipedists. But to keep it NPOV, one should either use etnolekt only, or add also gwara (which is actually most commonly used name, despite being scientifically incorrect) and dialect. By leaving etnolekt and język, one makes wiki takes sides in the conflict.

May I add that in the second version, I provided references for my information.

As of yet, I will only remove the two opinions that I found controversial, and I will await your reply before deciding what to do with the rest. Heresson (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take this to the article's talk page as I requested, not to mine. I am suggesting that the multiple changes you made should be discussed with other editors. Make your case for your changes and additions there. I am aware that you are an inexperienced editor, which is why you should pay attention to the "Warning: this article is subject to a WP:1RR limitation." box at the very top of the talk page. The entire article has been the subject of serious edit-warring and, as it's not a specialised field of mine, I am simply trying to make you aware that you need to approach the article with caution. As it stands, you've already overstepped the 1RR today, but I'll overlook it due to your inexperience. I would, however, advise you to self-revert in order to demonstrate good faith. Thank you for your understanding. Good luck, and happy editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple addresses

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you so aggressive? I really did not vandalize those pages. Joeyc did on the other hand. The point I am trying to make is that the census data from 2011 but released in December 2013 take precedence over estimates made in mid-2013. Joeyc just doesn't want to accept this fact. 104.254.93.198 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In which case, don't edit war it: take it to the relevant talk pages and discuss which figures are more recent. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Joeyc does not want to talk. I will start a talk page and how much you want to bet he'll ignore the issue and keep reverting just like he did before.104.254.93.198 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Hopefully he'll stop after a few serious warnings. Cheers. 104.254.93.198 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gruzia, Georgia, etc etc

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Please. The name "Gruzia" is used in a number of state media. Are they more stupid than wikipedia, or they are paid to insult that country ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Which state media? Not English. There is no "Gruzia" in the English language. Please demonstrate where it is used per WP:COMMONNAME. Aside from that, even if you genuinely didn't know that referring to the user as a "Gruzian" was insulting, you were told a couple of times, yet you continue to be antagonistic about it. Comment on content, not the user. You do not make assumptions as to anyone's WP:POV based on their ethnicity. Learn to assume good faith about long-standing editors having to be neutral: if they're POV, they would have been blocked from editing articles about ex-Soviet countries long ago.
So far, going by your track record, you've managed to alienate a number of editors due to your aggressive manner. I suggest you learn how to be WP:CIVIL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh, so English or English media does not use "Gruzia", and so ? That means using "Gruzia" is insulting ?

Dear me, State media of Vietnam, Vietnamese version of VOA, Vietnamese version of BBC, State media of Russia uses "Грузия", Xinhua News Agency used 格鲁吉亚 instead of 喬治亞, Article in government's media of Estonia use "Gruusia". Probably they are paid to insult the country name საქართველო, aren't they ?

Let's sue them. Yeah, sue them. Bring back justice. Stand up for საქართველო. Yeah yeah, go go.

I used the world "Gruzia" for years, without any intention to use it as a derogatory means. The above government media also use that for years, without any derogatory meaning. And I don't intend to stop using it just because some people falsely accused me of insulting.

There is no way, no where I use the world "Gruzia" to insult the ethnicity of the user Kober. What I meant at that case is, "he is a Gruzian citizen and may be he don't like it when bad info about his country's president is posted". You may criticize me about that thinking, but there is no way you can say I use the name "Gruzia" to insult the country საქართველო.

I consider the act of forbidding me from using the word "Gruzia" is a blatant case of totalitarianism and censorship. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your examples are not written in English. You've been told that it is not used in the English language and is considered to be a pejorative term. Furthermore, you were referring to the Wikipedian you were engaged in a so-called 'discussion' with. While you're about it, get off your WP:SOAPBOX about totalitarianism and all the other 'isms' that you appear to fond of bandying about. If you feel you're being 'oppressed', remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. If you enjoy a good WP:BATTLEGROUND, you're welcome to hang around Lurkmore or find another forum/blog site to frequent. Your attitude is not welcome at Wikipedia... nor is it welcome on my talk page. End of correspondence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sue me if you want, but I will continue to use "Gruzia" unless it was banned from all the offcial state media in this world. I don't feel any need to submit under the pressure of someone who falsely accused me of personal attack. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nice. You're now stretching yourself into the realms of WP:THREAT. Suggestion: keep away from my page and spare us both a headache. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback and Pending changes reviewer

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Iryna Harpy. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
 
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Pending changes reviewer user right
 
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! 20:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

Cheers, Berean Hunter. I've intended to get around to applying for these user rights for ages, but just hadn't gotten around to doing so. Thank you for organising these for me! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Donbass War

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Iryna, I was wondering about the Donbass War article which I understand you edit. From my understanding of the citations, the number of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine is separate from the number of separatists killed in Ukraine and is not included in the estimated death toll of the roughly 2,120 dead separatists killed. The wiki page makes it seem like the 400-500 dead Russians soldiers is included in the separatists death toll when the citation seems to say otherwise. Could you please either correct mo on that, for I want to be informed well on this topic, or fix the problem since I am not an experienced enough wiki editor to fix the page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapcapkapm (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've redressed this. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I thought I should let you know that I intend to raise the matter (you know which) on other regional talk pages as it would be a good idea to get some universal feedback, plus I am also interested in what goes on among other sets of editors. I need time for this, but I have already left a message at Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic#Western Asian countries whereby I have cited my involvement at Talk:Kosovo. Just letting you know, becuase I would not want the activity to be seen as acting in stealth later on. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried to stay at arm's length from the issue for a few days, but it's now out of hand. The burden of proof lies with anyone introducing said content (top level country category) to demonstrate that such an inclusion is backed by RS. In this situation, we have equally compelling RS to demonstrate that it is not. I've just pushed the envelope by asking Golbez for further advice as to how to resolve this on the Nakhchivan talk page so, if anyone appears to be forum shopping, I'm prepared to wear it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course not!!! If you reference your involvement elsewhere when you feel the subjects are too close for comfort then that acts as a form of disclaimer. If you must know, if local editors want even unrecognised entities to be "countries" given that is what they are proclaimed to be then I will have zero objections to Kosovo joining the category. The idea that I may be pushing a Serbian nationalist fantasy is Wrong (with capital W!). Not your words though :) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work defending against POV problems. You're not the only one to suffer these symptoms! bobrayner (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bobrayner! Much appreciated. I fairly certain we've all gone a bit mad over the years... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice I provided to someone...

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Iryna. Sorry to have touched your nerve with the post I recently left whereby I mentioned RT and Srebrenica and a host of editors. All I wanted to say was this. I have lived in Britain since 2000, every evening I watch Channel 4 News (ITN) at 1900, and the RT at 2000 to get "two sides", because believe me on world affairs it is tit-for-tat. You are preaching to the converted when you tell me how ALL news networks operate, whether they are state-owned or corporate-owned. I do in fact have the intelligence to sift through information being reported and separate facts from sensationalism. But then the "facts" can either be true or false. I do watch RT and BBC News Channel throughout the day and I read the websites as I like to know what is going on. I think networks seem to compete against one another depending on political outlook and sadly there is no such group of individuals whose purpose is purely to establish the truth. Whether it be charities, organisations, volunteers, aid workers, freelance journalists, private enterprises, NOBODY is reliable, and nobody gets involved in political conflict without shady funding, or as part of a mandate, or on behalf of somebody else with a vested interest. I appreciate how RT frequently exposes the corporate-owned western networks, but frankly I do not need it. Not so long ago John Kerry spoke of RT broadcasting in English and noted that "they" (the US government) never had a Russian equivalent. Perhaps someone should have reminded him that the US government is not a news network, but for what it's worth, I know VOA broadcasts in so many languages as do other western networks and there are Russian language services. I know how easily all news networks concoct stories, editorialise and above all fabricate. With regards world affairs, I do not sit on the fence. Long before I had access to RT I supported the creation of a Palestinian state (which makes me Antisemitic to the masses), I oppose the European Union and NATO, I support every anti-EU struggle in all member states and in candidate countries, I am (sorry to say) pro-Russian but note I say this referring to the world stage, meaning my own preference is for the political parties that look to Moscow rather than oppose Moscow. I have toyed with the idea (where Eastern Europe is concerned) of balanced relations but find it unsustainable because the hatred between Western Europe and Moscow has got become so sinister that now you are forced one way or the other. Serbia's policy of pleasing both entities won't last (my prediction). In addition I have my thoughts on Africa, South and Central America, and the whole world. But remember Iryna, that is purely my politics, not me saying A is better than B. Concerning Ukraine (your homeland), no I am not happy with what happened in Crimea and I do not believe Russia acted in its best interests acting so spontaneously. With regards Lugansk/Donetsk, my opinions here are such that I neither support Ukraine's territorial integrity, nor the independence of the entities, nor any moves to unite with Russia. If the international community allowed me to govern what happens and how it happens, you'd see something totally different! I won't get into that now. But to agree with you, all news networks are FULL of bullshit.

The issue of the RT article I have is that it can easily be doubled in size by finding (and it is not hard to find), RT's response to virtually every ciriticism published. I'm sure in time there will be a reply to all, and this in turn levels the playing field but I know it will not be warmly received. So per my advice to the "possibly not so new" editor is to keep away from articles that are full of issues. The difference of opinion between Editor 1 and Editor 2 in one area may be nowhere near as concerning as the allegiance they visibly display in other articles, and believe me, I read MUCH more than I edit on. I can give you examples but that would raise alarm bells and in all honestly, will not help the encylopaedia.

Once more, accept my apologies for the advice I gave and the points I raised. I assure you that my respect for you as an editor as higher than for anyone else I have encountered including those with whom it may appear that I am in agreement in places. As for "friends", well who knows? They have conventions or "meet-ups" and people do indeed become "pals" but on the whole, yes you are right. It is an anonymous venture, and is so for a reason which protects the individual's privacy, and that is how it should remain. Feel free to reply on my own talk if you choose. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: I'm sorry that my 'advice' came across as being emotive as that was certainly not my intention. There's an excellent essay on forming 'friendships' somewhere, but I can't find it (having so many bookmarks is as much of a curse as it is a blessing).
The point I wanted to make is that, as a relatively new editor, please be cautious of forming alliances and breathing a sigh of relief when a 'trusted' editor makes content or talk page contributions/comments. As for trying to advise longer term editors on how to approach content, it's a waste of time. Individuals form preconceptions, and very few are willing to change their attitude. As for surprising me (or 'shocking' me), that's fairly much a non-proposition. I'll tell you freely and openly that my favourite alternative outlet is WSWS: ignore the rhetoric and they have articles that can provide solid historical insights into virtually any issue anyone wishes to explore. At the very least, contextual articles there provide a springboard from which to decipher mass media and Western academic stances on any given topic.
My understanding is that truly NPOV editors are a rare commodity. For myself, I have had run-ins with editors whom I respect simply because, if we're honest as to how we parse so-called RS, we're all bound to read how to approach potential content in different ways. Honestly, Wikipedia keeps losing the best of the best simply because individual editors become exhausted with kicking against the pricks.
As regards my 'allegiance' to my cultural roots, I'm honestly not attached to nationalistic ideology as you appear to have assumed. In fact, that form of jingoism has always rubbed me the wrong way. Nevertheless, such narratives are in competition with equally chauvinistic narratives, and that is where I'm cautious about content. Redacting socio-economic/geostrategic narratives is inevitably going to lead to simplistic interpretations. Where the genuine balance falls is obtuse, therefore we are obliged to follow that which is deemed to be RS whether it appeals or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. I note your points. But believe me I was not trying to form an allegiance to any editor despite how it looked. Thank you also for WSWS which I will now read when time permits. With regards Ukraine I think I made a fast judgement in your case, so my apologies there. As regards NPOV editors, a commodity maybe but I find these to be few. There are one or two that I have spotted for the Balkan areas but I daren't approach them over this ongoing category issue (actually one has spoken, the other possibly hasn't noticed), just in case it looks like canvassing. I don't need help anyhow because I feel I can fight my own battles, it is just a sad thing sometimes that 25 points can come from one editor rather than those same 25 coming from five editors - with five points each. The argument is the same but people respect things more when it comes from a "wider contingent". Much as I am trying my hardest to respect NPOV, I am flawed by the fact that I do have my beliefs and I am open about them. In my last post to you alone I declared my position on a few things, therefore my editing will contain traces of bias. But "traces" means precisely that! My advice to any editor wishing to be genuinely objective is to pay no attention to those that purport to be unbiased, for there is no less neutral editor than one who makes out that he is. I can think of four self-styled neutral editors that are unequivocal POV-pushers but I am not going to name them because I will not allow myself to be accused of harassment, unfounded allegations or personal attacks. Instead I have to treat each one as "nicely" as I do any would-be "allies"! But the problem is as in many places, a biased person is in conflict with anybody to disagree with him - including people that are genuinely objective as I try my hardest to be in the circumstances. An argument can erupt and from what I have seen, an imaginary NPOV issue is being peddled even when one party is neutral so to speak - and all because onlookers have failed to identify the true position that the neutral editor would have taken had he been biased for the opposing faction. Anyhow, keep up the good work. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Keeping on top of personal biases is damned difficult, particularly in light of the fact that I'm the kind of person who has regular philosophical and political arguments with myself and find myself so arrogant, self-righteous and plain rude that I won't talk to myself for days afterwards. Reminding myself that Wikipedia is a long-term project and that WP:DEADLINE is an excellent method of evaluating the approach to take on any given subject. Some things are of immediate concern: the majority really aren't. I do rather like coming in and sweeping up well after the bar-room brawls. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Socratic Barnstar
In a range of talk pages regarding Russia and its foreign relations I have come to find that your contributions are always worth reading. Lklundin (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Lklundin! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Me being a "new" user

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Iryna Harpy: Whoever told you that? =) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

...Erhem, the number of contributions you've made (currently standing at 16 counting your above query). If you have another user account, you really do need to inform Wikipedia about it. WP:Multiple accounts aren't acceptable unless they meet the criteria of extenuating circumstances you'll find linked from the wikilink I've provided you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is the interwiki autologin thing acceptable then? They ban me in the Russian Wikipedia for my free speech (like trying to recreate the "Putin — khuilo!" article) and that interwiki doohickey logs me in under a new user name here as well? I never asked for it. If there is any way to opt out, I'll be gladly using my old account (though I'm not here to really build an encyclopedia, Russian WP is my choice despite all). Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Yes, I see now (by your global contributions) that you've had a short stint on Russian Wikipedia. Nevertheless, while all of the wikis are supposed to follow the same ground rules, some act independently of the others, and apply WP:CONSENSUS in different ways. That means that a contributor working on one Wikipedia doesn't automatically get blocked on another unless it's established that they demonstrate that they are repeating the same kinds of violations of fundamental policies and principles, i.e., a pattern of WP:NOTHERE behaviour.
If you're serious about contributing here, you need to go through the learning curve and understand how to contribute productively. In other words, you're welcome to continue contributing to English Wikipedia so long as you are a genuinely valuable editor. Everyone makes mistakes in the beginning, so leverage is allowed for learning from mistakes to a reasonable degree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm Lokisis. I noticed that you reverted my change to an article, Red Square, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I have reverted your changes for now, but if you'd like to ask for a citation, please do so! If you need guidance on asking for references, please see the Wikipedia:Citing sources tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Every user on wikipedia has the right to ask for a reference, but DO NOT delete articles of other users on a whim. Should you want me to provide a reference for the article, please see the guide on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Lokisis (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lokisis, please don't template the regulars. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comoros religion page

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Received your comments on the Comoros religion page and have re-revised - apart from Khodidas, I know of no other Hindus in the Comoros. I am not familiar with Mayotte, but there isn't a single Hindu doctor, teacher or lawyer in the UdC. The idea is nonsensical. How can you have a Hindu lawyer in an Islamic state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngazidja (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ngazidja. Yes, your latest change to the section is much better than the previous version. I certainly doesn't seem likely that Hindus could be practitioners of the law, but I'd certainly be happier with a citation for unlikely claims of doctors and teachers. Nevertheless, I think that a citation for jewellers is needed. Is that really the only occupation a practising Hindu could have there? Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy/Archive_18&oldid=673106500"