User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

«Обменяли хулигана
На Луиса Корвалана.
Где б найти такую блядь,
Чтоб на Брежнева сменять?»
(by Vadim Delaunay)

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

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

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

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

A bit of help, please

Hello Irina Harpy,

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

Hi, Lklundin. I've left comments on both your talk page, plus on Cminard's talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of a peer-review

Please, join Talk:Bulgarian Turks and state your grounds. Thank you. 87.227.209.36 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, IP 87.227.209.36. The removal of the DNA section you added to Bulgarian Turks was not personal. Please take a look at the discussion here on this talk page. I hope that this doesn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia... in fact, I have no doubt that you'd be an asset as an editor. Have you considered opening an account? Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for the cookies !!

@Iryna Harpy: Hello dear Iryna, sorry for my late reply and thank-you for your great digital cookies - really delicious ;-) and also thank-you for your great links which I read (and for some - re-read). If ever you plan to travel to Europe and stop in Paris, I would be delighted to invite you to taste a local "croissant au chocolat" ;-) Ferrer1965 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(PS, as a side note, I know you are bit fed up with the Sam Parnia's page but if you could take a look that would be appreciated my dear - Ferrer1965 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

@Ferrer1965: Yes, I just received the notification regarding changes to the article's content, and new discussions on the talk page. I'll mull it over and add my 2¢ ASAP. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Collaborationism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers Take a look at the last couple of edits.--Galassi (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Genocide In India By Muslim Adherents

This needs to be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history . The quotes were directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India . A citation or two was needed for the references directly from the wikipedia article , which is . What else was the issue ? GeMiJa (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

GeMiJa Firstly, it was a badly structured cut and paste from another article which doesn't take into account the structure of the article you're trying to introduce content into. There is a section specifically dedicated to "Before 1490", plus one for pre-WWI. All you brought to the table was religious violence with nothing backing up 'genocide', so where is the 'citation or two' to be found? Secondly, please take it to the article's talk page in order to discuss if and how it should be included. Please bring the relevant academic references both pre-1490 content and for Aurangzeb's reign as being 'genocide' or 'genocidal' in nature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A good point. I undid Irina Harpy's overly hasty removal of your excellent addition, but was myself undone. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I didn't catch that error myself so thanks for fixing the error on my part --Saltedcake (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saltedcake: You're welcome. It's an easy mistake to make when copy editing. As a group, one might anticipate that 'Vietnamese Brazilians' should be in the singular. Keep up your good work, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My revert on Ukrainians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hebel: Yes, I'd say that the project would be the ideal venue. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Iryna Harpy. Just a heads up. On the page Ukrainians I have been involved in a series of edits on genetics again beginning here. You can just click through to see how that went. I’ve also commented on the talk page here. I hope I’m able to come back to you next week with an RfC proposal. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: There's something not quite right going on. New SPA editor confidently using terms like 'gaming', etc.? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Yes, my thoughts exactly. At some point in this whole mess he even seemed reasonable and also seemed to know what he was talking about where genetics and the sources he introduced were concerned. But then he suddenly reverted his own edits and left a mess because he didn't remove some of the text and added stuff that wasn't in the sources (I think). What a poster picture of what is wrong with these sections! Also Iryna, I'm just as guilty of 3rr reverting as he is at this point... Just to be fair. I told him that too. Do you think he might be not all that new? As an SPA and have been here ans an unconfirmed user before. He seems to know the ropes somewhat. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: No, we're definitely not dealing with a newbie. Of course, that doesn't mean that this person hasn't edited regularly before as an anonymous IP, but given the battleground attitude, it seems highly unlikely that someone with such a volatile temperament would have gone unnoticed had they gained their experience in a WP:HERE manner.

As regards your overstepping 3R, don't let yourself get caught out again by being tempted to revert. If the editor reinstates a previous version and does no more to develop it, I'd rather let it stand for a while. If the editor reinstates and continues developing the section, I'll have report it myself and plead your case for having tried to start the BRD process, co-operate with the user, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You're absolutely right about that of course (the 3rr thing). I also think that this user is not a newbie. Anyway, I hope he goes to the talkpage. I did, but he didn't answer. There is something to talk about. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Iryna Harpy and User:Volunteer Marek I promised you some text. My proposed RfC question is very brief. The comment following it (which I would also like to post) is somewhat longer.

Proposed RfC question: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?

• ’’’Comment’’’: The investigation of a limited number of haplogroups (either Ydna, Mtdna or autosomal dna) in still very limited test groups of various populations, to track migrations of people that took place in prehistory, is a field still very much in it’s infancy. It is a field that is still changing all the time (which is a good thing by the way) and it is a highly specialized field. Publications in books, on the internet (blogs or summaries) are manifold and of varying quality and, taking into account that the field is still in it’s infancy, often contradictive. Although undoubtedly interesting I would like to raise a few concerns about the way this field is reflected on several Wikipedia pages on ethnic groups:

WP:SYNTH. Synthesis: It has come to my notice that many of these sections are based on more that one primary source. Interpreting these sources is not something that WP editors should be engaging in as they are not supposed to be qualified to do that.

Nitpicking: Various haplogroups and various investigation in them can tell different stories . Per haplogroup, (which stands to reason) or per investigation and blog or press release about them, which can also come to different conclusions about single haplogroups. This situation can allow an editor to emphasise those results that will show the ethnic group of his choice in the light he pleases, where descent or relations to other groups are concerned, and ignore others. I am aware that this doesn’t always happen consciously, but it’s a danger. Again. Wikipedia editors should not be in the business of interpreting highly specialised primary sources. This also often leads to editorialising

The notability of haplogroup genetics in relation to the subject at large: While descent is most certainly a subject of interest when it come to ethnic groups, deep time genetic relations and deep time migrations of populations do not always convey very useful information about the actual origins of modern ethnic groups, or indeed about the modern concept that the subject itself is. Ethnogenesis is a process that at various times in history has completely ignored (or mythisised) descent. Let alone deep time genetic descent.

What point do these sections make: This is a worrying subject for me because a lot of them seem to be about showing that ethnic group (a) has always been deeply related to ethnic group (b), while not so much with etnhic group (c) and (a) and (b) can’t stand (c) anyway. It is easy to see the potential for politically motivated mischief here. This also often leads to editorialising. That of course in combination with the possibility for nitpicking I mentioned before. On a matter concerning the subject of archeological cultures (which is admittedly not quite the same as genetics) I would like to quote an exchange I had with an editor here and in the edits beyond.

Potential for edit conflicts: It has been known that sections about the haplogroup genetics of ethnic groups have lead to conflicts between editors on a field of which they are not always sufficiently informed. Intrapolations of unsourced personal opinions of editors with an agenda do occur. For instance here and here and then of course you also get this and also this as a reaction to why the information added is not in the source given. Just a few examples. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello Iryna. I have encountered another series of heavy and mostly WP:UNDUE editing on Bulgarians and Bulgarian Turks. I would like to file the RfC that we discussed earlier. Did you have time to look at it? Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I think it's good to go as you have it now. There are bound to be elaborations on the subject by other editors participating. If any other details need of being addressed/discussed, this will take place following a natural course at the RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made it so here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Very good contributions and edits. Keep it up. Regards. Zyma (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Zyma. Much appreciated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

your reverting of my last edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note to self: striking discussion by Γνῶθι σεαυτόν's WP:SOCK, but retaining as reminder of stylistic mannerisms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

how are my edits vandalism?

I just want to know how my edits are vandalism? I really don't understand how these are forms of vandalism. someone explain. if you respond, do it quickly because i'm busy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:9DD3:941D:BBCB:7F7A (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I declare that I do not use other accounts. If you think otherwise, I am sure that you will be able to prove it. Loxley (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The May 2016 inbox edit war

I know it is frustrating, but please could you continue to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Status"-section in Infobox. Let's use it!.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warnings

Three edits over a 5 day span is not edit warring, there is an open discussion on the issue. Rather than sending belligerent messages, take part in the actual discussion and be constructive.XavierGreen (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You're engaged in a slow edit war over removing the same infobox content despite having been reverted by multiple editors. That is edit warring. As for engaging on the article's talk page, I now have. If you care to note my contribution history and my user and talk page history, you may notice that I've been on holiday... meaning that I literally was not around to see that you'd started your disruptive editing patterns yet again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide edit.

Hey Iryna Harpy,

This is Kevin and and thank you for contacting me. I have been a Wikipedia user for a year now and it I want to say it is very pleasant experience. Regarding my edit on the Armenian Genocide, I deleted Armenian Massacre because, I think it was a very special move. This is to encourage to people to recognize the Armenian Genocide as "Genocide", especially the Turkish people, the majority of which deny it to this day. The time has come to recognize the Armenian Genocide, putting strong emphasis on the term "Genocide", so there are no distorts about this tragedy. Regarding the term "Medz Yeghern", it may be a little misleading. I think it best to add the Reformed Orthography "Mets Yeghern" of the term, not just the Classical orthography. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Sincerely,

Kevin Kljyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinkljyan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Iryna Harpy,

This is Kevin and I am the wikipedia user who made the edits to the article on the Armenian Genocide of 1915. I think it was a mistake to reedit the area where the United States have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. The reason why is because it distortion of the reality. The reality is that the US, Britain, and Israel have strained relations and they fear the by recognizing the Armenian Genocide they will anger Turkey. I think it is more accurate and factual that I put it "The US, Israel, Britain have refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide", because it is the reality, if one thinks about it deeply enough. Just like the Turkish government, these countries deep down inside that the Armenian Genocide was a Genocide, but they do not have the courage to express it putting strong emphasis on the term "Genocide" and that is of course, out of fear of Turkey's anger. It is time that they step up and do the right thing of recognizing the reality of the Armenian Genocide because, as Pope Francis puts it, "our wounds are still open to this". Recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide will first step into educating our children on why this happened, what it was, and how can we prevent genocides happening again.

Having said of all the above, I went with making the edits on the article of the Armenian Genocide. If you have any further questions or want to share your opinions on this topic, feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Kevin Kljyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinkljyan (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Lapes

Dear Irina, thank you for your message. I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you claiming that providing historically accurate, sourced information is not quite neutral? This village is known from having majority of Polish-speaking inhabitants. Therefore, I took the liberty of reverting your revert. Of course feel free to edit wording as long as this bit of information is not removed. Sincerely yours, Loxley (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Loxley: Iryna doesn't seem to know why historical demographic data pertaining to Poles is relevant for many towns and villages in Lithuania. Others do understand: "Warto pamiętać, że sytuacja demograficzna Polaków przed wojną na Litwie Kowieńskiej była bardzo podobna do obecnej na Wileńszczyźnie." (p.137 of this). Do you know if Iryna speaks Polish? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@BowlAndSpoon: Stop hanging around my page specifically for the purposes of WP:HARASS. It seems that every time someone posts a message about not liking an edit of mine, you're there to revert it and use my talk page to offer further WP:BATTLEGROUND support to other editors you've never encountered (and have had no editing experience to mention).

Read WP:TALKNO. "Do not ask for another's personal details"; "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article"; PLUS Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Do not play at WP:TAGTEAM with another editor as you have here, and as you have done before despite any relevance or consensus over the matter. Have you understood me? Reply with a simple yes or no.

If you wish to discuss the reversion of the addition of 1922 census data to a tiny article about a teensy village in Lithuania, take it to the article's talk page!!! Understood? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: A number of issues have been raised.

"Stop hanging around my page… specifically for the purposes of WP:HARASS."

You badly need to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Your response was quite aggressive in tone, and your constant WP throwing is really, really tedious.

Anyway, an editor's experience ("no editing experience to mention") on Wikipedia is not germane; what matters is whether or not any given edit meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. This is the second time you have mentioned, explicitly or by allusion, Wikipedia experience. All Wikipedia experience demonstrates is, firstly, an ability to follow a few simple rules and, secondly, that you have decided to devote your time over an extended period to editing Wikipedia. It says nothing else about you, though you seem keen otherwise. It reflects nothing other than the two things I have mentioned.

Either there have been no personal attacks from me or you are guilty, again, of really quite transparent hypocrisy. Listen: You just reproved an editor for lacking sufficient experience; yet your thin-skinned launch of WP:NPA was over my implicitly questioning your own fitness to edit articles for reasons of ignorance. According to your talk page, you don't even speak Polish, nor do you even have a complete grasp of the Cyrillic alphabet. Not even the alphabet. Surely you must be Level 1 for RU and UKR?

Your editing an article in no way implies your having requisite knowledge to do so effectively. There was an enormous amount of anti-Polish ethnic cleansing within what is now Lithuania; either you are not aware of this, or you have failed to factor in its import for Loxley's edit to the article in question.

"If you wish to discuss the reversion of the addition…"

You have taken the same level of interest in this article, removing well-sourced material about this "teensy village". Don't throw stones in glass houses, Iryna.

I have already asked you to consider WP:FRESHSTART; I now do so again. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@BowlAndSpoon: 1) Would you care to explain how WP:FRESHSTART is relevant to me? Why would I want to/need to/feel compelled to change my account name in order to detach myself from my moniker? 2) Please show me even one diff where your actions in relation to me have been anything other than reverting me or leaving an extremely rude and derogatory remark about me on an article talk page, or here on my own talk page. 3) Are you even paying attention? Take a look at my user boxes again. What do you think Cyrl-4 relates to? 4) If you have issues about an article's content, take it to the article's talk page where I have pinged both you and Loxely regarding the content... so get off my own talk page. I've never asked another editor to stay away from my talk page, so when I ask you to do so I am absolutely serious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment edited to remove personal attack. Baking Soda (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit, addition of unsourced copied content, is a strong indication of hounding and/or lack of competence. Baking Soda (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand Australians

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Grutness

Cheers. Agreed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of the DNA Geeks!

Iryna,

I don't know how much attention you pay to the article on the Rus People, or that on the Rurik Dynasty, but you are (to me) the hero of maintaining reasonableness in the articles around Kievan Rus, so I'm contacting you. I have noticed something, and, as I don't have a lot of time to research this just now, but I suspect this will happen more and more.

People who are enamored of the current fad of using DNA analysis to determine genealogical relationships have started peppering Wikipedia articles with statements that may or may not be factual, but all cite references to the Rurik Dynasty DNA project at familytreedna.com (and no other sources). I noticed this because somebody just reverted such an edit on the Rus People article, stating that familytreedna.com is not an RS. If you google this: rurik dna site:en.wikipedia.org you will see that several other articles have been similarly edited (and not reverted).

I think this may be a statement worth making, but familytreedna.com is probably NOT an RS. I would like to find an academic article on this question, but so far, no joy.

What do you think of this? Should we throw the barbarians out, or try to support their claim?

Yours,

Paul Lieberman Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for interjecting. I have extensive experience with the recreational DNA-tests sold by familytreedna.com. The actual tests certainly have value within the proper scope and they do indeed form the observational basis for peer-reviewed scientific articles. However, the conclusions that are drawn from these tests at the DNA projects that FTDNA hosts do not undergo the same scientific scrutiny. Each project is run by one or typically several volunteers, that certainly in some cases do a good job (I follow several). But these DNA projects do suffer from the risk that someone connected with the project may wish to push a certain agenda, and thus tries to skew the interpretation of the results. The discussion forums that FTDNA also host also have examples of people trying to interpret DNA-results to support a certain conclusion that they wish for. So I would say that the reliability of these DNA projects at the least needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Lklundin (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Paulmlieberman and Lklundin: Apologies for the tardy response. I think that the only method of making encyclopaedic inroads into the issue into this problem is via this current RfC. It's struggling along a little but, whether editors think that the analysis of genetic data - in itself a science in its infancy - is appropriate to some extent in articles about ethnicity/ethnic groups, there is undoubtedly a common thread evolving: that any information in the articles themselves needs to be kept terse, and that the main information should be examined in dedicated articles using high quality sources, and by editors who are at least well acquainted with the subject area (even if we can't be as exacting as to demand that only experts are permitted to work on the genetic data articles).

While I don't really think of DNA research as being a war Wikipedia needs to fight, it's certainly not an area for amateurs (that is, the average Wikipedia editor) to go stomping through, nor a cyberspace playground for editors to sift through the OR to be found in the profusion of amateur sites and just toss into the content mix as if anything available is RS or even WP:DUE. Most irritating is the fact that genetics sections are getting longer than the articles on the ethnic groups themselves! Is the sum total of any ethnicity to be found in specific attributes more common in this or that haplogroup than in another one? Skin colour? Hair colour? Thick ankles?

I do think that gleaning some solid threads from the current RfC is the next step to thinking around a serious approach to dealing with content we can't simply ignore, but can't allow autodidacts to try and decipher whilst hijacking entire articles about rich, complex human cultures.

It would be great if you could both comment at the RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for what I allow myself to consider an expression of faith in my knowledge. :-) FYI, here is my comment. Lklundin (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian Campaign

Iryna, I'm all for reverting the propaganda russophiles insert into Wikipedia, but maybe an article about Russia fighting the IS isn't the place to do it.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Er, I beg your pardon? I have absolutely no idea of what you're referring to. Please clarify what this comment pertains to. Do you think I'm on some sort of very special personal mission? Do you believe that you are part of this very special and secret mission? I'm not even aware of having worked on any articles you may be involved with, nor - in looking at your contribution history - can I see any indication of our having had any communications or overlaps in interests.

If you're labouring under the delusion that I'm a Russophobe, that's your problem, not mine. I don't appreciate WP:ASPERSIONS being carefully placed on my own talk page implicating me in agendas I don't have, nor in some sort of intimate relationship with an editor - you - I don't know from Adam. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 May

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 White Latin Americans page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and an archiveurl 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) 00:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, ReferenceBot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fatimid Caliphate flag?

I am not going to pretend I am an expert on early medieval Arabic history but I am pretty sure the flag in this article fictional: [[5]] You seem to have made simular edits so I presuming if you will be able to help me. Thanks. Generic User (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, Generic User! Yes, there are a few I probably missed when going through Middle-eastern history articles. They're all use Jane Hathaway's A Tale of Two Factions: Myth, Memory, and Identity in Ottoman Egypt and Yemen account by Ibn Hammad as the reference and I wanted to be certain that there are no other sources corroborating that these were genuinely understood to be flags or emblems before removing more such original research. The account, and her interpretation, does not support the idea that anything other than a colour associated with a royal (or, should I say a medieval clan) house was understood to be a 'flag'.

I should have kept a list of these purported 'flags' kept at WikiCommons to challenge them. They can't be removed from Commons, but they all need to carry the disclaimer that they are not to be used as genuine, sourced representations in Wikipedia. There's already one that carries such a disclaimer. If you spot any more, please let me know. I appreciate your pursuing this further. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed another one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Sicily, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_C%C3%B3rdoba and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_C%C3%B3rdoba Generic User (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, there are a lot of them once you start digging. My apologies for snapping at you yesterday, but I think you need to understand that WP:NPOV is a lot more complex than trivialising Western sources. If there are problems with articles that have been virtually abandoned for years, developing them (as you are now doing) is the approach to improving them rather than tagging them and leaving messages about them being instruments of propaganda. Reliable sourcing doesn't necessarily mean that editors always believe them to be unbiased, but are what the mainstream views are on any given subject. It means that, as an editor, you need to detach yourself from the subject and present what these sources say even if it goes against your personal POV. It's a steep learning curve, so good luck and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello you revert my edit, but as you can see there is a new policy RFC in 31 January 2016. (The one you cited is from June 2015) here is the new one. It said "Closing comments: Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox. has succeeded."

So i don't understant why my edits been reverted, when there is a new RFC policy from 31 January 2016 (while the Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations is from June 2015), cited that nonreligions should not been included in Infobox. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jobas. You've overlooked the fact of an important qualifier: "This RfC does not change the existing strong consensus that religion in the infobox must be relevant (per the template guideline), supported by reliable sources, and covered in the body of the article." The majority of the articles with diasporic ethnic groups living in another country have no information on religion in the body of the article, plus in the majority of cases there are no reliable sources for the supposedly main and minor group following any particular religion or denomination... it's based of assumption, which makes it OR.

I really think these issues need to be discussed: particularly where the article is about ethnic groups who have extremely substantial numbers of irreligious individuals. Using the religion parameter in the "ethnic group" infobox where there is nothing to back up contentions other than assumptions, or where it is the equivalent to misrepresentation of the religious complexion of the ethnic group is duplicitous in an 'at a glance' context (which is the purpose that the infobox serves).

I'm not interested in the mad little minority group representations, but in representing an ethnic group as being highly religious if it is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, i asked user Müdigkeit if the new RFC applied also in infoboxes of nations?, since the final result was without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the infoboxes, If so, I will remove it agian - hope will not turn to edit war -. If there is probelms with the new RFC then i think it should be discussed agian maybe there will be new reuslt. Hava a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jobas: Yes, in thinking on it, I do agree that it should be treated as a 'no exceptions' ruling. Apologies for hassle. I do think there's another RfC to be had on diasporic groups where there's no reliable sourcing for what descendants of descendants adhere to (and nothing on religion in the body), but I'll leave that for another day as I'm heavily involved in a couple of other RfCs at the moment. Thanks for your understanding! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for revert the edit, i do appreciate your politenes. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jobas: That's all of my reverts covered between the two of us. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think the "religion" in the infobox for ethnic groups is highly controversial and usually should not be used at all. Consider this, for example. Why predominantly Russian Orthodox? This is POV. I do not see it in sources. One would need a study showing exact percentage of people that consider themselves belonging to certain religious confessions. Now, let's assume that we have it: 80% atheists/agnostics/nonreligious, 6% Russian Orthodox, 5% protestants, 4% paganist, whatever. Telling that most of the population are Russian Orthodox is completely misleading. That "religion" field must normally remain empty. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I agree. The various RfCs surrounding the use of religion parameter for individual (bio type infoboxes) or "country infobox" were clear on the preference not to use the parameter unless the individual in notable for being religious or an anti-religion activist as at least an important factor regarding their notability. For countries, the religion parameter is only to be considered relevant if there is an official state religion. In terms of ethnic groups, the parameter is misleading for numerous countries where the number of irreligious people account for anything up to the majority and beyond. It is also misleading in that the figures are inevitably drawn from citizens, and the citizenship itself is made up of a vast amount of immigration over as little as a few decades. In other words, what is depicted does not even represent what could be understood as being 'traditional' religious affiliations which have shaped the actual ethnic group that the article is about, but is representative of recent advents in global population movements. It's not truly diversity of religious affiliations in the ethnic group, but diversity in the citizenry in the modern nation-state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mongol Empire

I'm adding a new feature to {{Infobox former country}}. If the pending change gets approved and applied, both the status "Nomadic empire" will be linked and the article will automatically be added to Category:Nomadic empires, if |status=Nomadic empire (without square brackets). --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you wait until that has been accomplished before removing the links? Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Quest for Truth: As per Laszlo Panaflex's response, it would be preferable to wait on approval. In that way, a template ES can be added immediately pointing to approval so as other editors are aware of the existence of a new template. I understand that it's tempting to clean things up in preparation, but it strikes me as being even easier to just paste the new template over the wikilink in one step. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)