User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Holodmor edits / dodgy sources

I have brought up the discussion of why Robert Conquest material should not be treated with skepticism on wikipedia articles relating to Soviet history. Not only was he a member of a branch of the British secret service dedicated to spreading disinformation, but he is a fraud who mislabelled photographs taken from Russian in the 1920s and relabelled them as Ukraine in the 1930s. Like I have already said on the Holodmor wiki page, Imagine if a Japanese historian took photographs of Pearl Harbour and relabelled them as Hiroshima, we would rightfully label this historian as a fraud. So why don't we apply the same standards to historians who are highly critical of the Soviet Union? His book The Harvest of Sorrow contains excerpts from the Chicago American, a newspaper owned by fascist media giant William Randolph Hearst (a personal friend of Hitler) which was infamous for spreading open lies about the Soviet Union. It may be difficult but if we believe that frauds should not be tolerated than we should think twice before citing him Office worm (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page, not mine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what story was behind this. Which alternative accounts? Ah, I see: all three accounts edit war to include this "info" [1] on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think it's a coincidence that there's been quite a resurgence in activity surrounding all things Holodomor-related over the last month or so... and, strangely enough, involving accounts that haven't been used for quite some time. Something smells very sleeper-ish. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on White Russia + All Russian Nation

Hi Iryna. You haven't answered on the information which I have send. Please look to article on White Russia and All Russian Nation. I'm adding articles on the talk pages now before making any edits. Thank you. (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Iryna Harpy!, I heard that you deleted the Italian military bases, Why did you do that? The Italian military base in Djibouti it's similar sto those of Japan "Deployment Airforce for Counter-Piracy Enforcement", in Djibouti USA, France, Italy and Japan have Military bases, in the United Arab Emirates, Italy have a similar Military base, I don 't know why you delete Military bases of Italy When in the list of other countries there even "Coastal Surveillance Radars", I would like to put also the Coastal Surveillance Radar of Italy , but I just listed the Military Bases , There are many military bases listed in the list of other countries, Which aren't Military Bases or "deployment" as in the case of Turkey. --LuigiPortaro29 22:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs)

Hi, LuigiPortaro29. Could you please take this to the article's talk page. Editors have been discussing which types of bases are appropriate for the list. We need to come to a consensus as to what kind of bases should be listed (e.g., NATO approved peacekeeping bases; bases that have been agreed on but not started, etc.). Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit

I found reading your user page very interesting. My ancestors, although German-speaking Mennonites, came to the U.S. in 1882 from the Molotschna area of present-day Zaporizhia Oblast. The story is told of a prosperous bachelor returning to Ukraine to marry my widowed Great-great grandmother and bring her and her 10 children with him back to his farm in the U.S. It would be very interesting to visit Ukraine some day to see a small piece of family history.Jsniessen (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

angry at your so called knowledge of south african chinese

I am a chinese south african, whose family has been in south africa for many years. you clearly are not south african especially with a name like Iryna Harpy. it is clear that you do not understand the dynamics of Asian culture. please educate yourself! there was a documentary on chinese south africans where a chinese south african once stated " no chinese would dare consider pretending to be Japanese just to get privileges!" it is considered dishonourable to this day for a chinese to take a japanese name because of the atrocities committed by them against the chinese during WW2. any chinese who did this was ostracized! your pathetic article where you pretend to understand chinese south africans dishonours me and my people and the those that have suffered. I want your contact detail ASAp so that I can sue you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTpie (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I know melanie Yap personally!

I know Melanie Yap Personally! she was the one who wrote the book colour, confusions and concessions! and she told us about a story in pretoria during the apartheid era where a Japanese man wanted to get onto a bus but was refused because the white bus conductor thought he was chinese! so where is this nonsense about chinese being honorary whites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTpie (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

as I have said your knowledge of chinese south africans is atrocious! here is what you said and I quote, " No group is treated so inconsistently under South Africa's race legislation. Under the Immorality Act they are Non-White. The Group Areas Act says they are Coloured, subsection Chinese ... They are frequently mistaken for Japanese in public and have generally used White buses, hotels, cinemas and restaurants. "

the immorality act had to do with the prevention of intermarriage between different races! why would a chinese during apartheid marry a Japanese after the wounds of ww2 was so fresh in their minds? they hated each other and still do. get your facts straight please. I can tell you now as a chinese south african there are no half chinese half japanese people in south africa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTpie (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"the Chinese Association of South Africa was represented by human rights lawyer George Bizos in court during the case.[3"

excuse me but what the hell is the "chinese association of south africa" i've lived in south africa as a chinese south african and I have never heard of this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTpie (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Honorary whites

You may want to review QTpie's edits here too. It's not my area. Meters (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: It's not one of my strong points as regards apartheid, but I'd noted that the contributor had moved onto that article. I'll take a look ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Righteous Among The Nations

Thanks for the thanks Iryna. As usual, you got the subtlety. There was a bad typo on my part in the ed. summary. I meant to say "does NOT confir.." (why are ed summaries so prone to typos? I think there is a time lag typing glitch there that has never been noticed by the software bods, or maybe it's just me). I always keep a careful eye on see also lists. They are underobserved i.m.o and so much crap, occasionally poisonous, are present in them. I may start a seeallsowatch campaign :) See you around! Si. Irondome (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about editors

(refactored from Talk:Genocides in history) (Lengthy comment not related to article improvement moved here from an article Talk page, per WP:TPO. I would have deleted the inappropriate comment outright, but this editor apparently felt it is important to discuss this with you, so I moved it here to the appropriate venue. -Xenophrenic)

Iryna, Rocky may have gotten drawn into harsh words himself, but it's understandable.

This is what an editor removed from the post of RockyMtnGuy as a "personal attack":

And of course, all your POV's are personal and you are deliberately misstating everyone's arguments. You are just blathering on and on endlessly about your own personal delusional systems while ignoring everyone else's opinions and the fact that the objective of Wikipedia is to produce GOOD ARTICLES which contain verified FACTS. All I can suggest is that in order for the rest of us to have a rational discussion with you about this, you need to take the right meds. If the ones they recommended for you are not working, I can suggest better ones.

but this is kind of stuff the same editor writes right above and below it:

And if you are only speaking from personal opinion again, please just exit the discussion.

Would you care to substantiate your empty claims and mischaracterizations? No, of course you wouldn't. You can't. Red herring much?

And if you are only speaking from personal opinion again, please just exit the discussion.

As for your ramblings about Amherst

Let alone the worse stuff in other posts like the OoflyoO thing. I don't see any difference in the attitude. He was just talked to like he talks to others.

The same editor is constantly removing our posts or parts of them and misrepresenting everything. He commonly adds the citation needed tag directly to others' talk posts. If you spent even a minute checking any source or quotation he pushes you'd find it false or grandly misrepresented. This is all directly of WP:TROLL. He knows how to drive off editors without getting punished by admins. Etsybetsy (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Etsybetsy, what would it take to motivate you to collaborate on article improvement, rather than spend all of this effort disparaging your fellow editors? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Etsybetsy: Please don't continue your complaints about the removal of this 'comment' from the article's talk page. It was removed with what I'd consider to be a rational explanation here. It's an article talk page, not an ANI thread. Genocide related articles have been (and still are) amongst the most sensitive of areas on Wikipedia. Allowing their talk pages to descend into WP:SHOUTing matches and general attacks instead of discussion of content attracts more trolling and escalates into a pie fight. I confess that I realise that my comment to RockyMtnGuy was overstepping common courtesy, but I'd been following the discussion and was WP:EXHAUSTed by the level of the fighting. Please focus on the content and bringing sources to the table as requested. Whether I like the content, you like the content, or anyone else likes the content is irrelevant: it's how well RS are reflected in the content that matters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Russian demographics

Iryna, I see the point of your rollback but IMHO here the issue is of a different nature. English sources should be preferred on English Wikipedia to Russian ones (especially when the first largely available). And the fact is that English sources do not include population of Crimea in the Russian demographics. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: I think your argument (or, should I say, our argument) is with the IP who reverted you. For some reason, I didn't notice that revert and just copyedited your change to the content. I've adjusted the article to reflect both stats with the non-recognition previously, but a lot of traffic goes through the article and, before you know it, it's being presented as if it were an undisputed fact that the RF's stats are recognised as being uncontroversial again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks quite a few IP's edit the article. I wonder if someone sponsors them. Do you think this is possible? :))--Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's anything we can do about it other than keeping on top of the bragging. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your part revert of my edit on Germans

Hello. Please check the refs before reverting. Both the refs as added by me were checked and confirmed to be working, and most definitely not dead. Your revert restored a dead link, though. The first link in the cite, as restored by you, is dead, but the archive-URL in the cite works. The problem with that is that people only see the first URL, not the archive-URL, and because of that automatically assume that the entire link is dead. What I did what adding a new reference plus stripping the Bündchen-ref down to the bare archive-URL to get it to work again, leaving for editors who use scripts, and like to do those things, to turn it into a full "cite web"-thing. So please fix it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Thomas.W, but you are incorrect. Try actually clicking the links. The first link (being the intuitive one to click) is the one that takes the reader to the archived version. The "archived from" is the dead url. You removed valid, working archived links. It is standard practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not incorrect. Both of the archive URLs that I added worked, and still do. Click on references #14 and #15 in this revision of Germans, i.e. after I had made my edits, and you'll see for yourself. Both reflinks worked after my edit, and still do, and had of course been checked by me before clicking save. It doesn't really matter if your edit stands or mine, but being accused of adding a dead link, i.e. not checking before saving, hurt... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand how I offended you, Tom! My sincere apologies! I assume you're referring to this edit summary. The problem with edit summaries is in keeping them brief. I didn't mean to suggest that you'd added a dead link. What I was referring to is the manner in which citations are formatted, i.e., accessdate (date retrieved)= the date on which the live working link was last accessed. If no-one added an access date, the parameter is left blank (or just not added). The archived version is marked for the date on which it was archived. If you'd like, I'm fine with reverting to your version with an edit summary apology for the public record. I just need to save the PDF details as it has information for other diasporic groups in Brazil, so I intended to check the relevant articles for ethnic groups in Brazil to ensure that there are citations for their diasporic numbers as depicted in the booklet. I can do that now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Afro-Colombia Article

Please remind me what I edited and also please share why you didn't think it was constructive.

Thanks, Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.125.227 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's in the article's editing history here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Okay, I'll add a source. Also hello, fellow ukranian. My mom is ukranian :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciliatedflower (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating Crimea on the map

Once I have been in touch with you regarding displaying Crimea on the maps as a Russian territory and you have corrected article. Now map of the article again is stating Crimea as part of Russian and not as a disputed territory https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Russian_military_bases_2015.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad

Vlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulsioner (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the map until Crimea is depicted as being disputed territory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Germans in Brazil

An user insists on putting figures about Germans in Brazil based on sources that claim that Brazilian census found that 12 million people claims German ancestry in Brazil. However, Brazilian censuses do not even have a question about ancestry. The sources are obviously wrong. This is happening in Germans and German Brazilian. Xuxo (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• See my message on User talk:Xuxo. The "12 million" is sourced to multiple reliable sources all claiming that it's based on the Brazilian census of 2000, while Xuxo's claim is based only on a link to a website quoting an old article from Deutsche Welle (an article that AFAIK predates the 2000 census) and makes no mention of what their figure of 5 million is based on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My friend....how many times do I have to repeat this: Brazilian censuses dot not even have questions about ancestry....if your sources claim that, they are obviously wrong. Learn Portuguese and go read the censuses. Xuxo (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xuxo: And how many times do I have to repeat that we, per the English Wikipedia's rules, cannot just take your word for that. If multiple reliable sources say that their numbers are from the Brazilian census of 2000, it's up to you to prove, through reliable sources, that ancestry wasn't reported in the Brazilian census of 2000, just saying so isn't good enough. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm responding on the relevant talk pages where, for the sake of transparency of editing processes, this discussion belongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• I get the impression that it's a small group of people, or perhaps even just a single individual, in Brazil who don't like Germans/German Brazilians and want to downplay their numbers. See Special:Contributions/Asggerr for a user who was blocked indefinitely about ten days ago for repeatedly adding fake, and very low (varying between 750.000 and 2.500.000...), numbers for German Brazilians on Germans, even creating a fake map, based on their own fake numbers, and adding it to the article. Which is how I got into this mess (see User talk:Asggerr). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The German ancestry issue does appear to be at the centre of some very aggressive editing. Until now, I hadn't noticed it as activity has been sporadic, with enough time between trying to knock down the numbers for resurgence to fly under the radar. I'll be on the alert now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The page doesn't inform about Nazi migration to Brazil after WW2.Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

bug map

The following map contains 1) unprofessional data about territory of Slavs. 2) contains no data on the territory of Roslagen 3) names mordva not Finno-Ugric peoples and a number of other errors. Please do not use this map in the future. And do not obstruct others to improve the quality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Frankiv: 1) The discussion is taking place on the talk page of the relevant article here; 2) Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and do not treat articles and talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The map you are trying to introduce is entirely WP:OR, as has been explained by me several times. 'No original research' is a policy. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

bag map2

map contains serious errors and signs of ethno-political manipulation. Please do not post material without consulting with historians and experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) once more about Europe_814.png

bugs in Europ map of 814.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Roman Frankiv: Discuss it on the talk page of the article, as Iryna told you, not here. The map you keep adding is unsourced, and can not be added to the article. Period. Claiming that Roslagen should be included in the map is also outright silly since there were no Rus' living there, and never have been. The original Rus' came from there, but that doesn't make the people who stayed in Roslagen Rus'... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Er, why are you now posting it to Tom's talk page? He's seen it... quite a few times. Obviously, you enjoy creating maps to make a point, but you're not going to accomplish anything by WP:BLUDGEONing us with it. Thank you for your consideration in not prolonging this further. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen

Dear Iryna;

I do have a question as to why my edits are problematic. The link I added, the East West Accord, is headed by Stephen Cohen, and it should be listed as part of his biography. It makes no sense to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racarrera (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Racarrera. I'm cautious about the use of external links, and in this case I read it as being WP:LINKSTOAVOID, although I see a case for using this link (which does conform to acceptable linkage). There are examples (i.e., David North (socialist)) where the subject's primary venue is appropriate, but Stephen Cohen's bio has been used extensively as a WP:COATRACK for promoting his perspective on various recent current affairs, and it is not his primary venue, nor what he is notable for.

Incidentally, I see that you're not an experienced editor, so please be careful to log in when you edit, plus leave an edit summary. I had to double-check the article in order to work out who your are as you'd edited using your IP. Please read WP:LOGOUT, and welcome aboard! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Bangladesh

@I Harpy, please read LGBT rights in Bangladesh, this article contains wrong information.আইশ্টে হায়লেশ (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, আইশ্টে হায়লেশ. Unfortunately, it isn't a subject area I'm familiar with. If you're concerned about the content of the article, it's best to approach the WP:LGBT project and ask for assistance there. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic content dispute

Hello, Iryna Harpy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sincerely, Heptor _talk 19:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

Iryna, I don't know if you've ever edited the Igor Sikorsky article before or not. If not, could you take a look at it? As a Russian and Ukrainian aviation icon (and American too), his article is subject to a lot of back and forth editing from users, mostly IPs, pushing a pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian POV. We even occasionally get pro-Polish users.

I don't know if this type of article and controversy, primarily over his mixed Russian/Ukrainian/Polish heritage, interests you. However, it could certainly use attention from a good editor with your familiarity with Russian and Ukrainian topics. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, BilCat. Uff, it's one of "those" areas of Wikipedia and, yes, it's definitely about who 'owns' him. I'll take a look at it (when I have the stomach to do so) and try to clean it up. It's another in the long line of bios less concerned about what the person was notable for than his ethnicity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-November 2016

What are the reliable sources in your opinion?..--RabeaMalah (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll look for reliable sources. Regards.--RabeaMalah (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the paragraph, with a better explanation, and reliable sources. Take a look and tell me how is the..--RabeaMalah (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Polish census

You may want to report 128.204.246.188 to AN/I as block evader, since you know who this is. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I've just added the IP to the Dr Franklin sock page. Quack! Unfortunately, he'll be back soon enough. He's admitted that he works from behind a firewall, so he can bounce his IP so that it can appear to come from anywhere in the world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If this happens, ask for longer semi-protection of the article. Rants in talk page may be simply ignored. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Very good formulation on Demographics of Russia

I liked your new formulation for the numbers, which is neutral and presents the fool picture.

Now - a neutral formulation is needed for Russian language in Ukraine. Maybe my formulation is not ideal, but you can't say that "Russians were colonising Ukraine" when referring to Russian settlement in Novorussia in the 17th century; they were colonising land which was formerly Tatar, fair enough, but they were most certainly not colonising "Ukraine" simply as at the time Novorossiya wasn't actually Ukraine, and no one saw it as such.

The first time Novorussia became a part of Ukraine was under Soviet rule, and fair enough, since then it is; legally, it still is, as even Russia doesn't recognise DNR. But in historical context, Russian settling in 17th century Novorossiya had no connection whatsoever to Ukraine or Ukrainians. DonetskAndBack (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@DonetskAndBack: I uphold such a splitting of population stats on both the Ukraine and Russia articles, and the issue has been thoroughly discussed on their talk pages. Both reflect 'de jure' and 'de facto' statistics as a reflection of reality. Facts on the ground are that the Crimean Republic and Sevastopol are governed as part of the RF. Facts from reliable sources tell us that the majority of the world's sovereign states don't recognise the annexation as being legal, and still recognise them as being part of Ukraine's sovereign territory (at this stage, that is how it will remain unless the Minsk II protocols are upheld).

As regards other articles, such decisions are not up to me, and I follow WP:CONSENSUS whether I agree with it or not. If you believe the subject to be worth discussing, please start a relevant thread on the relevant article talk page/s. Neither you nor I WP:OWN the articles, therefore arguments as to the content must be discussed per WP:BRD. The worst thing you could do for yourself it edit war the article content, whether you believe it to be the truth or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

...for removing vandalism. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Slavs/Eurasia

Hello Iryna. Having Slavs on the watchlist I noticed this edit[2] you made in good faith. As it's you, I'm not inclined to revert but I thought I should point out that I am not full agreement with the summary. First and foremost, you won't ever meet a bigger anti-European here than me - not that this has anything to do with the edit! But I believe that the word "Europe" is grossly oversubscribed, "European culture, European people, European values, European ideals, etc." and I feel like kicking that person hard up the backside because the whole thing is a fantasy. There is no "European people" in any tribal or progenitor sense, but merely a population that resides on this western fifth of the Eurasian landmass. I accept it is a place on the map and that is how it should be left: a point of geographical reference and no more. If told that the Tara bridge in Montenegro is the "highest bridge in Europe", that means as much to me as "longest tunnel along the Tropic of Capricorn". Exactly, i.e Noway and Spain may not have higher bridges but Bangladesh might! So why do I care about Norway and Spain? What as a Slavic person do I have in common with Estonians and Portuguese that sets us all apart from Iranians. Answer: nothing. So then people move to their ideals/values argument which is in actual fact little more than Central Europe calling the shots, and everyone from Eastern Europe having to unnaturally adopt to those "principles". How frankly people can call themselves "Europeans" astonishes me when the borders of this fake continent have changed over generations, particularly in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Right now we have five trasnational countries between Europe and Asia, not to mention Spain which occupied parts of Africa, and the Netherlands which is Holland in Europe and other countries across the ocean. But if anyone mentions the people on the eastern fringes such as Georgians on the European side of the internal divide-line, or Turks from East Thrace, you get smart-arse "Europeans" saying, "they are not that European", or "I wasn't talking about them". So suddenly one forgets that he is discussing a geographical entity and prates about a culture and collective values originating from the western/northern areas while using a more far-reaching term to smear their feces. Albanians are proud that a part of their population is Catholic - NOT Orthodox - but Catholic. Apparently it helps self-hating Muslims and Orthodox Albanians feel more "European".

Anyhow I can't change things. So all I wanted to tell you was this: Russian people (along with Ukrainians) have been present in North Asia for so many centuries that they no longer have relations or connections to Europe. They are there-by native to Asia. Also, on an even smaller but relevant picture, Pomaks in small numbers (Bulgarian-speaking Muslims) are native to Anatolia (Asian Turkey). They too have no knowledge of links or family connections to people within European Turkey or elsewhere where people declare Pomak. So calling the Slavs "a European people" when they are not all native to Europe and "Europeans" are not commonly derived in the first place is inaccurate. But out of respect, you know I won't make changes to your edit. Hope you reply! --OJ (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, OJ. To be honest, I wouldn't object to a more comprehensive map, but the one introduced was essentially of Slavic countries, not where groups of Slavs can be found. The presentation of the map suggests that all of Russia is a Slavic nation-state, which is WP:SYNTH and not edifying for the reader. The various ethnic groups there may be Russian speakers, but they are by no means ethnic Slavs. If there were a map outlining regions where Pomaks, etc., have long been established communities (with a corresponding legend), I'd be fine with it. To be honest, I disapprove of the existing map as it doesn't address Slavic groups, but areas where there are Slavic language speakers, contrary to what the caption asserts. I've really had jack of the edit warring on all of these pages, so I couldn't be bothered initiating yet another one over the use of the present map at this point in time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I am not an expert on Russia. If anything, your background would make you better versed with this particular country. To my knowledge, its federal (and almost post-colonial) structure means that the linguistic rights of most of its nations are not only well taken care of but it appears these nations are constituent peoples who are even on the same level as Russians nationally. So even though there may be a portion of non-Russians that speak Russian as a first language (the process of long-term assimilation), you may be interested to know that over 90% of the population of Siberia is declared Russian (or Ukrainian and on a smaller figure German). It is a highly sparse territory with about 40 million inhabitants, so the non-Russians are generally counted in single-figure thousands. Next to nothing. There is a lot of information at Demographics of Siberia. Thought you might be interested, i case it changes your mind!! :) --OJ (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, OJ. Russian extra-ethnic territory isn't just found in Siberia, and I'm well aware of how realistic this 'egalitarianism' actually is, so I'm not about to have the epiphany you might have hoped I would. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but you might want to consider that criticisms floating around are not necessarily the rantings of Western propaganda or OTT ethnic group nationalism. You'd need to have gotten past colonialism to genuinely move into a post-colonialist phase. Let's just agree to disagree on details. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I was only talking about demographics and how Siberia is not considered extra-ethnic territory today. With regards the rest of the point, I am aware that there is confusion over the system within Russia. Everyone knows there is political injustice inside that country. However it is not along the lines of ethnic Russian versus non-ethnic Russian. It tends to be administration loyalists regardless of ethnicity vs opponents of the system (even if ethnically Russian). There is no way that anyone can equate Russian ethnic dominance with the presence of non-ethnic Russians in the cabinet or within the ruling United Russia party, such as Ramzan Kadyrov. So yes, discrimination and persecution are a real thing, but not on the grounds of an individual's ethnicity. --OJ (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I afraid that I can't agree on that one, OJ. Lip service is one thing, but all of the Eastern European Slavs are still as xenophobic as hell... and yes, there's bigotry on all levels, but the first thing any of the systems know they can rely on is appealing to their own ethnic nationalism and creation of an identity. Mistrust runs centuries deep in its own very particular and paranoid form. I'm not saying that I don't understand how it came about, but it's entrenched and all of the 'leaders' (certainly including Putin) know how to play it for all it's worth. 'Other' is a threat always on the tip of every politician's tongue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

People from Caucasus are called Blacks and accused of terrorism.[3]Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Xx236. If it were only name calling, that could be put down to ignorance and something one would hope could be educated out of bigoted fools... but that's not the case: they're hunted down and lynched by Russians, and there have been no attempts to take these murders seriously. The authorities turn a blind eye. As more emigrate to the Russian cities, the bigotry, bashings, and lynching murders spread and take hold as if it were the norm. That's the state actively encouraging and reinforcing what you interpret as being some 'normal' form of Russification, OJ. We're not living in the 16th century, and the condoning of widespread xenophobia is actively regressive (but it is expedient for a regressive state). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you are attacking the straw man!! I know what you are saying about Slavic xenophobia, about lip service from Moscow but none of this is even close to the points I was making. The state that Russians have been part of down the centuries has always been one in which they see themselves as having a leading role but in a multi-ethnic entity. As such, the proponents of the state in question (whether it be former Kingdom, Soviet Union, etc.) literally depend on external support. The October Revolutions were a classic example: significant non-Russian participation and support from observers which stood as one to bring down symbols of Russian ethnic dominance. But even Tsarist Russia had its support among non-Russians from within. I know a number of Chechens and it may surprise you to know that all of them are pro-Moscow and oppose an independent Chechnya. Naturally things brings them into conflict with supporters of the 1990s movement, but that just means there are two faces to Chechen identity. It does not mean that one is more Chechen than the other, and it certainly cannot be the case that any Chechen saw his place in Russia if doing so meant Russian ethnic dominance at the expense of Chechens. I mean people like to use the metonym Russia and Russians when discussing the Soviet Union and I have ever read articles and parts of books where the author has tried to persuade his readership that the Soviet Union was a Russian nationalist state, that other languages were forbidden and that its most memorable leader Stalin saw to these things. I only wish I had this information at hand. It is astonishing how you have these writers who are not only out to disparage the former USSR but how ignorant they are not to know that Stalin was Georgian. Even when this is known by some writers, I am still waiting for one to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how a Georgian - whose power was disputed by nobody - even got within shouting distance of leadership if it were true that all prominent posts had to be held by Russians. Moreover, it is incomprehensible why a non-Russian would even chase his prospects in that direction. You'd think, if you believed what everyone says about Russia, that non-Russians might not even be able to find work as civil servants. Yet non-Russians today and at all times in the past occupy positions in the police, army, local authority (oblasts), and central government. As I already pointed out Ramzan Kadyrov. You are welcome by all means to disagree with his being Chechen or that he is a member of United Russia, but I am not agreeing to differ with you here. I don't have a choice on whether I agree with this or not. If a person chooses to disagree then it is him or her versus documented facts. There you are. --OJ (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Finnland was authonomic and departed.

The Kingdom of Poland was economically, politically and culturally discriminated and departed.

The Soviet revolution was internationalistic, so the others ruled at the beginning. The Russified Georgian exterminated minorities harder than ethnic Russians. He declared Russians to be better (I don't remember exact words). The Red Army during WWII was racist - Slavs and Caucas people were generals, Asians (natsmen) were trash. Almost the same was in the Soviet Army.

Today Chechens may choose between Russia and Islamists. It wasn't so around 1990.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Xx236, if you want to address me directly, you are welcome to use my talk page. At the moment I feel I am cluttering Iryna Harpy's talk so I will try to keep this one short. First and foremost, I know Russia. I don't come from there, and I am not a citizen of any kind. But I do go there frequently because I travel frequently as someone involved in sport. Firstly with regards Chechens, there is actually a third road which is one that is neither pro-Russian nor Islamist so to speak, but one that simply advocates a Chechen nation state. And yes there were pro-Russian Chechens in the 1990s and these found themselves in battle with separatist Chechens. However, the Kadyrovs were not pro-Russian then. You are probably well aware. You seem well versed in Russian history but again I am sensing ignoratio elenchi (Poland was discriminated/Finland was departed, etc.). If there were Slavic superiority then you'd think it stretched to Poland but you see it didn't. The problems that non-Russians faced did not so much concern their status within Russia but rather the attitude of the administration. Much of this was actually taken into account when the Monarchy was overturned in 1917. It wasn't because of love for the pre-1917 system that so many non-Russians helped plan and carry out the revolt. The question of independence is a separate matter entirely. If one opposes unity with Russia as is his right, naturally he will respond negatively to it and cannot expect special treatment if forced to live in such a country. In this case, it would make no difference how well his nation is treated because if he longs for independence, he will want this anyway. By the same token, one that favours unity with Russia will do so regardless of circumstance. And if it seems that the contemporary administration is detrimental, then the solution is to support changes within the system - or the ousting of the administration. The solution is not independence here, because to achieve what you want within a unified Russia will restore you to a position where independence for any nation is looked upon as treason. See the logistics?

Finland did not return to any union with Russia. However, Finland did experience internal tension and civil war that was fought by proponents of the independent regime against a belligerent and local Finnish population that sought to reconnect to Russia (i.e. Communist Russia). So no matter what anti-Russians from across the region may feel, it is merely an opinion that is not shared with every one of their nationals. (Feel free to respond on my talk). Regards. --OJ (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi Iryna. How are you? are you interested in history article? --Wario-Man (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wario-Man. Yes, I work on numerous history articles. It depends on whether it's an area I'm familiar with, or areas I've developed an interest in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I contacted you before if you remember me (my username was Zyma). I need some help, but I think it's better to contact you later. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yes, I do remember you. We've also collaborated under your new user name. Let me know how I can be of assistance when you're ready. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I found the source and I need your help. I want to add a "Genetics" section to Turkic peoples. Because it's really helpful. And I found a good study:

• PLOS Genetics: The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia

However, I don't know what to do. Because this the first time I want to create a "Genetics" section and don't know how to use content from genetic sources. So would you please write the new section? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Not interested? I asked another editor and he said he will do it. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Wario-Man! I've been caught up in edit wars and SPA activities for a few days and somehow overlooked your missive on the 11th. I'll add the page to my watchlist and see whether I can assist in formulating the section once the other editor begins. Genetics is an excellent addition where the content is kept pertinent and understandable for the reader (who isn't anticipating a heavy-handed technical write up that isn't illuminating to anyone who isn't well versed in haplogroups, mitochondrial, autosomal data studies, etc.). We have too many articles on ethnic groups that become genetics-heavy and, crucially, confusing for lay readers. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Warratyi

The editor you reverted turns out to be a sock of Gonzales John. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Response

Hello, I emptied the talk page because there was only one question from 4 months ago that had no responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseop (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nonsenseop: Yes, I understood why you removed it, but I've collapsed it now, plus am about to leave another comment about not misusing talk pages. The archiving system relies on there being one thread left on the talk page, meaning that it will soon be archived and the remaining thread will act as a reminder to anyone tempted to leave stupid comments that it is not what talk pages are for. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of entries.

Wow, ok, I can concur with 'kotleta' not being special, however, if you visit many other lists of [x country]'s dishes, simplistic dishes are found all throughout. People that come to view the article are interested in seeing what the title describes, whether this be simple staples or 'complex' occasion dishes. I think it's granted that if someone sees the Russian version of the cutlet in the article, they have enough common sense to know that not all cutlets were invented in Russia. I'm implying, no one country invented the cutlet (it's rolled meat for god's sake). On a shorter note, I gave a fair amount of time for looking for a source but obviously had difficulty if this was my best. I understood magazines are ok as sources, according to this. I believe you know I wasn't trying to disrupt the article, if so why would i have put the effort to write actual entries?

As for 'nyanya' you seem to have removed it without explanation, that was indeed a dish. It's not 'a copied haggis' if that's your belief. The dish originates with the vikings, which have been part of both Scotland's as well as Russia's history. Anubis300 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Where did your haggis parallel come from?... and where did you get the Viking weirdness from? Evidently, you haven't even bothered to pay attention to where I hark from, so don't try to explain what cutlets and ground meat patties are. Fifty thousand modern convolutions on a recipe does not make for a noteworthy dish but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: it's just klops rolled into smaller balls and fried. As regards the 'nyanya', read WP:ES, plus WP:CIVIL... and try approaching other editors like an adult instead of being childish. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Both dishes are sheep's stomachs stuffed with offal and either oatmeal or buckwheat, depending, so I don't see what further parallel you're asking me to make for this specific dish. I can't currently retrace where I read the 'viking' theory from, but I hadn't included it on the article, nor did I plan to. I am aware of WP:CIVIL thank you, it is just not my duty to sound throughly academic outside of articles, 'wow, ok' and 'god's sake' don't have to necessarily be read as emotional, and aren't confrontational, that was not the intention. My surprise was not from 'Not notable' when it meant 'lacking reliable sources', because I could see the sense in that, but from 'Not notable' when it meant 'too simple', lists of other cuisines include dishes as simple as: minced pork with a fried egg, simple pureed peas, boiled fish 'klops', fried sliced potato(German), so there would be no sense in excluding this one when it can include parsley, rice, or/and mushrooms in versions that aren't modern convolutions. I simply hope an agreement to keep it can be reached whenever it is that I manage to collect a proper ressource for it. --Anubis300 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal

Can you explain, what was the need of removing the change on "anti-Russian sentiment"? I write something that has already has a section in the article, and giving off a fact, as well as the source (https://www.good.is/articles/russophobia) not being reliable? What is not reliable? It has been written by someone who has written articles for other popular news outlets, whilst being balanced, saying that although the "russophobia", we should still be able to be critical of Putin and so on, while other sources in the article are still being used although they are very one-sided. I would prefer an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.194.240 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is self explanatory. Wikipedia represents mainstream views, whereas your arguments are for WP:GEVAL by citing anything you can find online. Editors are obliged to remain neutral, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How so? This is essentially fact, there is even a section in this article based on Western media views, how can the same view I write about be dismissed as "anything I can find" when you have a whole section in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.194.240 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake, your edit doesn't even read as being encyclopaedic. The section on Western media portrayal is amply explicit, just as is the section on Russian nationalism. There's no room in the article for amateur opining. How is such a simplistic statement 'fact'? Actually, don't respond on my talk page: if you want to discuss your proposed 'content' with other editors (and myself), take it to the talk page of the article... And you're trying to promote this guy as a respected journalist? Sorry, but he's doing a great job of trying to promote himself by being published in as many easy access places on the internet as he can find. No banana on the reliability: it's an opinion piece by Joe Blogger. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Two additional WP:REQUESTED MOVES

Since you participated in Talk:Red Square#Requested move 1 December 2016, two other discussions bearing a general similarity — naming disagreements in Ukraine and Kazakhstan (Talk:Hretska Ploshcha#Requested move 19 November 2016 and Talk:Kazakhstan National Museum of Instruments#Requested move 13 November 2016), may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: Not a problem. They're both no-brainers as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Greek Square business, I'm afraid... but cheers for the notification! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert

The topic was in discussion and there has been no response since the 29th of November. It is not an edit war, it is outside the normal hours to constitute one. Brough87 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Brough87: Read the policy again, and stop resorting to trying to WP:GAME the system. 3RR is the bright line, but "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.", plus "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please take my word on the matter as a senior editor. I've responded on the talk page of the article in question, and suggest that we keep the discussion there as a matter of transparency. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Ilovaisk result

Could you please look at the discussion here Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk and tell us what you think and can suggest. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I think I've encountered this user before, and I'm concerned about the speed and confidence with which s/he is turning military articles on their heads. I'm afraid my health is a little off at the moment, but I'll inspect each of their edits on the article carefully, and go through their arguments on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Get well soon! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

move

• English Canadian
• British Canadian
• Chinese Cuban
• French Peruvian

Gringo300 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gringo300: I've moved all of these (plus more related articles), except for British Canadian. Once all of the articles on that DAB page are moved, I'm going to have to restructure it and find out whether someone still intends to develop an article specifically on "British Canadians". It was proposed years ago, and the page seems to have been abandoned, so I think I'll just remove the proposal tag and continue to treat it as a DAB page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

why do you call it "rutheanian"?

in the article it is said that it was called "russian voivodehip" by everyone (poles, ukrainians, europeans). no one at that time didn't call it "rutheanian". So on what ground does wiki calls it "rethuanian voivodeship"?212.90.182.118 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you actually understand the difference between ruskie and the double 's' meaning of russkie, or even rosiyske, rosja, rosiya, etc.? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

--- so english wiki uses "rutheania" to distinguish between the "rus" and "russia"? hmmm... it's a bit problematic. I don't think that "Rutheania" was widely used for referring to "Rus", so I'm not sure it's the right thing that wiki is doing here. Aren't the article supposed to provide a superior number of scholar sources using the term "rutheania", in order for wikipedia to use it? So who exactly have ever referred to "ruske voivodeship" as "rethuanian"? Seems to me that no one. I mean this is your own wiki rules. I don't think you have enough to support the claim Rutheania = Rus'. 212.90.182.118 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards to ethnicity articles

I've noticed not just on Arab Australians, but all articles on ethnicities tend to have info with no source, which nobody explains until I try to revert the edits. why does nobody explain that the info has no source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:7C17:F82:EB16:8F9C (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Arab Australians one isn't too bad as it does provide sources. Once this year's census is published, we should be able to update information I have to agree with you, however, that there have been quite a few new articles on diasporic Arab groups being created without any sources. I'm unwell at the moment, but I'm going to collate the new articles and propose them for WP:AFD if the editor creating them doesn't come up with any reasonable sourcing. Please feel free to leave a list of the articles you've found lacking in sourcing here on this thread on my talk page.

I don't actually want them deleted as it's obvious that the mass exodus of people from the Middle East recently means that there have been intakes of refugees around the world, but it's still in a state of flux and the actual figures aren't out there (meaning that Wikipedia can't 'guesstimate' anything without reliable secondary sources). I might take it to the ethnic group project - or elsewhere - to discuss how best to handle these articles with other specialised editors until more is known in order to improve the articles. Please don't get disheartened: it's just the way Wikipedia works. It would be great if you decided to get an account, but your welcome to keep contributing as an IP. The more hands on deck, the better. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Iryna, there are not enough editors like you. You are reliable, meticulous, and above all, resilient. The work you do on articles about ethnicity is simply fantastic. You help them move forward while also protecting them from harm. Thank you! Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 05:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Caballero1967! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Alans

Hello, Iryna -- In case you don't already have Alans on your watch list, I thought I'd ask you about this edit to the article, in which an editor added an image and a caption. I don't know whether the image is an appropriate addition, but the caption appears to be an attempt at a translation by a non-native speaker of English. If you think the image is worth keeping, perhaps you could improve the caption. You'll notice a tag at the Alans#Archaeology section that's been there since June 2015. I'm surprised that section is so short. I'm thinking about nominating this article for Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement. Do you think more material could be found for this article?  – Corinne (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I've removed the image and description as WP:OR. The file was uploaded as a one-off by someone who may be attached Kiev University, and this is a second editor who's translated the text and added it to the article (as well as the Mangup article). The who and when component is absent (although I'd say that it's related to a genuine archaeological expedition), as is any article on the findings. I could do a more fluent translation into English (appalling grammar!), but to what end when there's no context for it?

I have a vague recollection of the Alans practising ritual head binding, and I also don't doubt that the expedition was centred around Mangup Kale in Crimea. No doubt WP:ITSINTERESTING, but we've been given no indication as to what it is, or what it designates without RS.

I know that there has been a reasonable amount of investigation into ancient DNA of late, and investigation as to where the Alans fit into the 'out of Africa' equation in the populating of Europe from the Middle East. In my honest opinion, it's definitely a worthy contender for the daily articles for improvement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative reply. I will go ahead and nominate it at WP:TAFI.  – Corinne (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

LokiiT has been reported to ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts?

Hello Iryna Harpy,

Could you take a look at these two articles:

• Article 1
• Article 2

Since you have knowledge of both Cyrillic and English, could you give your feedback and point out any mistakes or any words which you think could be written in a better way?

Thanks. --DaveZ123 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to self for archiving purposes: responded on DaveZ123's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)