User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Untitled

Dear Iryna,

Thank you for your message on my talk page about the edit I had made to the page PMOI. I have been trying to get help from an administrator or anyone with more authority to help with what is going on on this page and all related pages to the main Iranian opposition group. The PMOI / MEK has long been subject to a vast campaign of demonization by the Iranian regime, obviously to discredit its only democratic opposition. The articles on Wikipedia have been used as part of the campaign and sitting on the wealth of a country like Iran, they have been able to do a lot and bring in professional help to restructure the page and add so much negative material against the organization that anyone reading it will back off and feel terribly bad about an organization that has been struggling for freedom and democracy in Iran for the past 3 decades and has lost over 120000 of its activists in this path (including children as young as 11 and elderly people above 70). The organization was black listed in the US in the 90s and later in the UK and EU, as a political move to "help the moderates in Iran" to gain power, by black listing the opposition. The MEK fought this designation in courts in the UK, and after years of legal battle the law lord, Philips ruled the organization to be delisted and called the UK government decision to proscribe the MEK as "perverse". They reviewed both classified and unclassified "documents" and found nothing that would question the legitimacy of the struggle MEK has been involved to return freedom and democracy to Iran. The almost identical procedure took place in the EU and later in the U.S. and the State Department took the name of MEK of the list. There is an independent study done by Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield https://www.amazon.com/Mujahedin-Khalq-Shackled-Twisted-History/dp/0615783848 I will be happy to forward or share an electronic copy of the book with you, if I can have an email address to send it to.

In addition to this, the page contains a lot of other lies that are part of the demonization campaign. Anyone that is familiar with the organization, will be shocked by the extent of negative propaganda on the page. For instance if you look at only the month of November and December 2016, you can see over 190 edits by the users "pahlevun" and "Denarivs" (that are obviously doing the job for who ever is behind the demonization campaign), all of them negative and in violation of the NPOV, and they also have erased every single item on the page that had anything positive or in contradiction with their propaganda material. The disinformation campaign refers to the MEK as a "cult", "Marxist" organization that "has killed Americans" in the 70s, and whatever nasty thing you can imagine, and even sometimes very contraditory, since it calls the MEK, as agents of CIA, Moussad, Israel, Russia, while during the 70s all MEK members and leaders were in Shah's SAVAK prison and could not have been involved in any activities against the Americans working in Iran at the time, and this has been documented. Also There are sources that respond to all the allegations by the regime about the MEK like www.moisdisinformation.com www.moisnamecalling.com www.kurdsanddisinformation.com www.mullahswar.com and also a website that gives a rather correct explanation about the MEK, www.peoplesmojahedin.com In any events, I would appreciate your contribution on this issue, to help prevent abusing the Wikipedia to demonize a movement that has already paid a heavy price to deliver freedom and democracy to its country. Thank you. NickRovinsky (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to self - identified a sock of Newcomer1 (talk · contribs). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

refs in Cyrillic

Hi, Iryna.

I just deleted a ref to the Kievan Rus' article, because the ref and the contents is entirely in Cyrillic, and in a form that Google does not translate (and the contribution was anonymous). My question for you is this: is there a WP guideline as to the use of non-English references in the English Wikipedia? There are other Cyrillic refs in this article; I don't know if they are translatable (I can't check right now, I'm at work at a US govt. office and their wifi won't let me access content from the Russian Federation, dontcha know).

Obviously, for an article like this, much of the best information will come from sources written in Russian and Ukranian. But, given the primary directives of Wikipedia, what's the best way to handle this? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Paulmlieberman. The guideline is WP:NONENG. I'll take a look at the article you've reverted when I have some time as it's in Ukrainian. If you think that the article may be helpful, you can tag it using Template:Not English-inline. From what I've gathered of the author, he's an architectural historian who also works on early history. Whether that qualifies him as an 'historian' is another matter altogether. I need to check around to see whether he is recognised as being a serious historian, but I'm not really convinced. Mind you, there are a few other references in the article that I've never been comfortable with. One of these days, I'll get around to picking through these dubious 'experts' carefully (pipe dream?).

Incidentally, apologies on not getting back to you as regards Plokhy as yet. I've certainly used articles by him as references, and he's taken seriously as an historian. Yes, he does impress me as being balanced, so his new publication is now on my wish list for reading. If you do get a copy, do let me know your opinion! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And back again

Hi Iryna Harpy, happy new year, hope you are doing well! You were involved in the latest ANI with Asilah1981, which erupted in the article Basque conflict. The editors involved in the latest discussion without the one cited above, at odds with each other, got some kind of arrangement more than a week ago, and I thought there would be some peace after all. As it happens, just after the incident I was attacked gratuitously in my talk page over another article by a username of pretty new creation, for which I chose to let the issue go or, better, WP:BAIT. Just a few days ago, a username of new creation came back out of the blue again with an exact claim made by Asilah1981 weeks ago in the above article to mess it up over a very sensitive and painful topic, torture (see Talk:Basque conflict to get a taste).

At this stage, sorry, as Kahastok put it in the ANI, this is taking the piss, or as WCM put it some days ago in Irondome's talk page, poking the bear, making a fool of me, and the whole WP community. I am really fed up, more so if the WP does not tackle this issue decisively. I only see one way out for me now, another incident, for which I have enough evidence to start with. Of course he will come back to his claims that I am recurrently attacking him with new sockpupetting allegations. Very sad, but leaves me little leeway. (He should have been banned.) However, I would like to hear from you first. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Apologies for the tardy reply. I'm actually in the process of moving house, and it's taking up most of my time. The only work I'll be doing until April will be a bit of reference checking and minor tidies to articles as I only have snatches and grabs of time and can't focus on anything that demands more of my mental faculties. I see that Asilah said that he was going to back away from editing for a while, but his history shows that he's still editing. If this article is still a trouble spot, perhaps I could refer this to Irondome. I hope all is well with you, and that your new year is a fruitful one! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy, thanks for your reply, I hope the move is exciting at least and not too tough! I have been off the issue lately but informed Irondome a pair of weeks ago on some issues I found. The editor in question keeps coming back, with very questionable editing (WP:OR, misrepresentation of sources, removal of content), to key contemporary issues in Spanish politics, no wonder he tellingly attempted to remove the article Basque Prisoners altogether at a time when there are several ongoing extradition requests by Spain to Belgium and Switzerland, declined so far on torture concerns (confirmed by Istanbul Protocol). Irondome advised the editor to the contrary. However, my concern on his editing, erratic behaviour, and the detrimental effect is having on the WP is fully in place. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iñaki LL. It's exciting, but stressful and hectic. With regards to the articles, I've added Basque conflict and Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners to my watchlist, and will do my best to keep an eye on them until I'm settled (at which time I'll be able to be more pro-active). Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Avdiivka

Should we have an article on the current frontline shelling at Avdiivka that has left 10 Ukrainian soldiers and one separatist dead in three days? And if yes, could you maybe create a start-up article? I will expand it later. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, EkoGraf. Yes, I think another article is in order, but I'm afraid I'm in the middle of a house move at the moment, and won't be able to do much on Wikipedia for at least a month... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do it than. Good luck with the move! :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EkoGraf! Let me know where the article is once you've started it, and I'll add it to my watchlist. Sadly, it looks as if it's going to be the starting point of something big (given the latest on the Trump-Putin 'discussions'). Obviously, the situation wasn't going to remain static... but the big push is on. I feel so terribly sorry for everyone stuck in the middle of the reality of the war. It's always the ordinary people who suffer. As for the article, with Western media eyes having their interest renewed, it's going to be invaded by every man and his dog with their 2¢ worth. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rofl. XD EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: My !vote would lean towards dog opinions: at least dogs don't have nationalistic views (or so I'd image). Woof! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looool. Puppy power. :D EkoGraf (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone already created it Battle of Avdiivka. EkoGraf (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it was Yulia Romero. I've added it to my watchlist... but I haven't had a chance to read through it as yet. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Having read

...some of your contributions and discussions, you have a new fan, based on expertise, and your reasonable approaches in applying it. Cheers, look forward to an occasion where we might work together. Note, I am absolutely awful, for reasons of time constraints, and effective use of public service time, at dialogs of any sort here (avoiding at all costs, the tendentious and combative ones), but will try to look in at this place, in future. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Breach of agreement

Hi Iryna Harpy, hope you are well on your way to a good place to live! I am sorry to come back here to notify of the breach of agreement by Asilah1981, with no consequences whatsoever. I find that baffling, but anyway I reported that violation for an enforcement (request), turned down in the grounds that it is not the place. So, yes, there may be another ANI... Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you! :D EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, EkoGraf. You truly deserve it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruthenia

Name "Ukraine" as name for the essential central and western part of modern Ukraine appears for the first time in historical document in 1187, as well in a few historical documents in 1189, 1213, 1280, 1283 and later on. In 16th century it became common and was widely used in letters and documents within territory of modern Ukraine and Poland. Statement "With the appearance of the ethnonym "Ukrainian" in the 19th century..." is definitely wrong and non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czcau (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Czcau: Yes, you're correct. My revert was speedy in light of there having been no edit summary by you. I've self reverted to reflect that the 19th is a fallacy given that "Ukraina" appears in the Primary Chronicles, and certainly maps dating back to the 16th century specifically with reference to the current territory of Ukraine. Thanks for pulling me up on this error! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To apostrophe or not to apostrophe

I'd like your quick advice on whether or not Sevastopol’ and Sevastopol' (both are redirects to Sevastopol) are more than random typos. I was going to take them to WP:RFD, but it occurred to me that the addition of the apostrophe might be a language thing. I tried reading Romanization of Ukrainian, but couldn't glean anything useful. So I thought I'd ask you, who edits there and probably knows a little lot more about the topic.

Redirects are often created for typical typos and misspellings. Is this the case here? Thanks in advance for any comments you have. And no rush—I know how all-consuming and exhausting moving can be! — Gorthian (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gorthian. The apostrophe is a transliteration convention designating the 'softening sign' for the letter 'l' per Russian and Ukrainian spelling. As its WP:COMMONNAME is Sevastopol, I can't imagine that the apostrophe at the end would have any meaning to an English language reader: I certainly can't envisage it being used as a search term under conventional circumstances. My gut feeling is that the redirects should go, but there may be a number of reliable sources (as in English language ones) that use the convention. I suspect that if you asked other purists, they'd say the same. See WP:RUROM and WP:UKROM: redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think I'll take them to RFD and see what consensus there says. — Gorthian (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gorthian: It's time consuming, but an RfD is the safest way to go. I'm not aware of there having been any serious discussions of the convention in the past, but there may be some strong arguments for keeping the redirects. Drop me a line, or ping me when you've submitted the proposal. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

They're up at RfD now. We'll see what happens! — Gorthian (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of European diaspora for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

list of genocides by death toll.

Hello Iryna,

I appreciate your response and I agree that the Thirty Years War was religious rather than racial or ethnic. However, having read on the military conduct of various parties during the war it is clear that the Thirty Years War could fit the modern definition of genocide since it was an attempt to destroy in part, members of a religious or ethnic group. And even if we can debate and conclude that the Thirty Years War was not genocide it still would not justify being removed from the aforementioned lists of other atrocities listed as "non-genocidal mass killings". The fact is that even though the Thirty Years War may not have a scholarly consensus of being an act of genocide it certainly is an episode in history that involved mass killing. This is the reason why included it among the list of other "non-genocidal mass murders". If the Indonesian politicize and Great Leap Forward which are certainly not genocidal on ethnic or racial grounds can be mentioned then why not the Thirty Years War? Also, I would like to point out that there is no citation in the article supporting the inclusion of all the atrocities mentioned which are referred to as non-genocidal mass killings. Lastly, I'm not sure why nearly all those mass killings listed are from the Asian far east when there are so many examples of mass killings that have taken place throughout the world so I believe some balance ought to be implemented here. I certainly look forward to hearing your feedback Iryna. --Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Balisong5. Apologies for taking so much time in getting back to you, but I've been busy IRL. I consider your arguments to be valid and, yes, I believe a European example is justified for balance. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

White people by country

Hi Iryna! I've seen you around doing great things so part of this is a friendly hello! I also wanted to ask a bit further about the AfD discussion on White people by country. I feel like this is for my own edification as opposed to relating to the deletion of the article, so that's why I'm not asking there. At risk of WP:OTHER, I'm curious why, if the term "White people" is seen as OR, other articles including the obvious White people doesn't face the same scrutiny. My guess would be, as described in this section, the definition isn't consistent across countries, but because it's sourced as such it isn't seen as OR. WP:MERGE aside, if you pulled that table out into it's own article and called it "White people by country" I really don't see why it would be deleted.

Now that I think about it, the fact that table exists seems like a sound enough reason to dump the article. Anywho, since I'm sure you have more experience than I do with these things, you're feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and again, hello! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [1] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I've responded there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers: Current edit warring

Dear Iryna Harpy,

I see that you are currently involved in a discussion stemming from an edit war on Holodomor genocide question.

This edit warring seems to have spilt over to Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers.

You have a lot more experience in dealing with these difficult topics than I do, so I would appreciate if you could consider some appropriate action also there.

Thanks.

Lklundin (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lklundin. Thanks for the heads up. Sigh, an IP hopper... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you just assume I was using an IP hopper to "hide"? Because clearly you have not heard about what a dynamic IP address is. On the other hand, this user by the name of 'Lute88' has repeatedly ignored my points, and has only reverted what I've done without giving any reason, of course, constantly reverting without giving a reason is not a valid action. What I did was re-phrase about the Holodomor being a "genocide that was engineered" (and this paragraph has no sources), into being neutral, as of course, anyone with basic knowledge (and I've told this user to read the page a few times) that the Holodomor being "genocide" is disputed, there is no consensus, and many historians do not consider it to be a genocide being engineered, and this is still being argued, so there should be no side being favored, because WP is neutral - Holodomor_genocide_question. I hope you understand this. So far, all I've seen from the user is favoring one side according to his contribution history. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Take it to the ANI below. Both of you have the same WP:POINTy gripe against me... on opposite sides of the fence. I'm busy IRL and am about to log out for the day... or perhaps the next couple of days. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - just to clarify: I (the user who has contributed to the Holomodor genocide question talk page's most recent section and who added the neutrality tag two days ago and then yesterday) am not the same as the user above.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That did not need clarification. You are both arguing that I am breaching NPOV regarding the same subject matter, but on opposite sides of the pole. Try reading WP:NPOV carefully. I don't believe that you actually understand the concept as it is applied to Wikipedia (or encyclopaedic resources in general). I've already explained to you that your proposal is flawed WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Media of Ukraine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did you even read the whole diff? L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Have you read WP:DTTR? Have you bothered to check anything (particularly the references used for the content = predominantly WP:SPS) ... and you're accusing me of sloppy use of rollback at the ANI? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've read and am familiar with DNTTR. Thats why I wrote down below the template. Did you check to see if your revert would leave the article in a better state than before, rather than just rollback all three edits? I don't care about the 3 edits made by the other fellow. I care that you didn't notice that your reversion now leaves the article with many misspellings and other errors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Which I will get to if I don't keep getting pinged every two seconds. The content has stood in its current state for ages. A couple of spelling errors and awkward grammar should not be usurped by POV and UNDUE development. New content must be up to par and reliably sourced. You may have a different outlook because your main role here is anti-vandalism, but I focus on the development of content from an NPOV and well sourced stance. To my way of thinking, you have your priorities wrong... but our personal opinions on minor spelling error is neither here nor there. I'm about to revert you reintroduction of POV and badly sourced content, then fix the handful of outstanding lowercase uses of Euromaidan and spelling errors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, L3X1. It wasn't my intention to be gruff with you, so I hope you're not offended. Thanks for pulling me up on the fact that the article could do with a good copyedit. I've made a start, but might not have time to do more for a couple of days. Nice to meet you, and keep up your good work! It takes all kinds of editors to make Wikipedia work... and work in a collegial manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you too, I now see I went about it in the wrong manner to begin with. It was to have met you too. Happy editing! L3X1 (distant write) 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

I just want to clarify, my argument is that the article itself isn't internally consistent – so it's not so much that I'm on one side of the fence or the other, as I think from a neutral perspective the article fails. (I responded to your SYNTH suggestion, with the reliable sources you requested, to no response.) You also accused me of vandalism, which you fundamentally cannot support. Regardless of that, The following are both true:

1. The vast majority of academics consider the famine to be a genocide, Tauger himself acknowledges this.
2. There is still a sizable subset of academics who do not consider the famine to meet the definition of genocide, and using Tauger as a stand-in for this viewpoint doesn't make sense. Again, the article mentions Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft as critics of Tauger, but it does not mention that they do not consider the famine to be a genocide. The article mentions James Mace's view ... but his view has been notably inconsistent through his articles, as the Bilinsky piece points out.

This is an article on the "question," so the above deficiencies aren't really acceptable, and they do compromise the article's neutrality. What I'm trying to detail is that the article can acknowledge the consensus without being biased, but it does not currently do that.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that the article is problematic. We have another article (Denial of the Holodomor) which is equally problematic. The content overlaps and, in both instances, there are serious POV problems. My thinking is that the 'denial' article is essentially a reiteration of the same subject matter, and that they are WP:POVFORK articles trying to fly under the radar. Initially, they were treated as separate questions, but mass refactoring of both articles has made two versions redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I'm glad we can agree on the NPOV issues. I absolutely agree that the articles seem redundant. I'd suggest merging Denial of the Holodomor into Holodomor genocide question, simply because I'm not sure (following the Bilinsky piece) that there's enough academic consensus to call the null hypothesis "denial," but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to make that decision. That'll be a really tough discussion, but it probably is worth having. I'd like to add {{context}} {{POV}} and {{condense}} to the Scholarly Debate section of the latter article. I will be very clear that I do not mean to suggest that we should have a 50/50 split, only that one side isn't adequately represented; I apologize that I did not do an adequate job of articulating that earlier. (The other templates only being added for the fact that context is necessary for the quotations; I think ideally we could have two sections outlining general reasons for acknowledgement / skepticism over the claim, and then lay out specific authors who are particularly notable.) I'm also striking the ANI seeing as it sounds like we've come to a solid agreement; sorry it was such a rough go getting there.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced tag

Hi there, I wanted to touch base about the question of unsourced BLPs as I've been working through the (daunting!) backlog. A critical function of the unsourced BLP cleanup tag is that it indicates which BLPs are eligible for the special BLP deletion process, BLPPROD. I don't know how much, if at all, you use BLPPROD and it's a legit complicated process (which I naturally got wrong the first time I tried to use it, despite reading the directions repeatedly!), but in short, a BLP is only considered unreferenced and a candidate for BLPPROD if it has zero references of any kind, good or bad. So if you could please tag BLPs that have any source at all as needing more sources (or more reliable sources, or sources independent of the subject, etc. as applicable) rather than tagging them as unreferenced, unless there's truly no reference whatsoever, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

How can you say my edit was not constructive? If Armenia is not geographically apart of Europe and historically has no connections with Europe other than in political aspects (since 1920), how can you call Armenians "European-Americans"? That literally makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzazaian11 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page formatting

I'm a bit puzzled by your request to not use "blank indents" to format a talk page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists, list items (including indented comments on talk pages) should not be separated by empty lines in the Wiki markup, as this disrupts screen readers. The guideline recommends adding colons in place of empty lines, as I did at Talk:Stolen Generations. See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Layout.

Also, I have seen no policy or guideline against using {{reflist}} on talk pages. I would appreciate it if you could point out such a guideline. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

RGloucester — ☎ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

Seryo93 (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Eid Mubarak!

Salam aleikum (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why revert my question?

I asked about why rye toasts the way it does because that's what I came to the article to learn, and didn't find it. I figured that if I wanted to know, others would too. And, if you don't approve of my asking, you can always add a comment, as I've seen hundreds of times in different talk pages. Removing my question seems more than a little bit heavy-handed, considering the number of forum-style comments there are on talk pages. Not, however, that I'm not reversing your changes; if that happens, it's much more appropriate that you do it. JDZeff (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JDZeff. After I'd reverted your question per WP:NOTFORUM, I noticed that most of your contributions are queries and responses of a similar calibre and have not removed any of them. You're welcome to restore your query, but I won't respond to it on that talk page simply because you're asking about things outside of the scope of the article. The article is not a scientific analysis of the subject, and cannot address every potentially interesting question ever asked. While there is a lot of WP:SOAP all over Wikipedia talk pages, such comments and observations do not enhance the development of the article. My apologies if you took offence, but Wikipedia talk pages really aren't general discussion pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your observations about my Catherine the Great comments! Sorry I am just now writing you back. I am going to try writing and editing Wikipedia articles again. Sincerely, Christopher Moore Ctmuva2000 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ctmuva2000: You're most welcome. I still haven't had time to search out a copy of Montefiore's latest book, nor to go through for overuse of Rounding, but I'll get around to doing so once my current hectic IRL commitments have eased off. If you have any queries, or want a second (or third opinion) on any other articles, please feel free to ping me. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Hey how are you?. I just wonder what was the wrong to add (63%) in the text, this figures are from the source itself that supported in that text. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jobas. I'm well, thanks. Hope you're the same. I was just thinking on the phrasing of that sentence. It isn't clear that this refers to those who are believers, or the entirety of the Ukrainian population (which it doesn't). I think it should be amended to reflect that, of those who have religious affiliations, 63 percent are Christians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm well. Based in the survey 63% of the surveyors the been interviewed are Christians - so it's refers to those the Ukrainian population that been been interviewed not only to those who are believers -, 23% does not claim a religious affiliation, 1% adheres to other religions, 6% did not unanswered and 7% are Unknown. (so in totall all are 100% of Ukrainian population not only of those who have religious affiliations).--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas: Could you please read my introductory comment here again. I've gotten myself confused (again). The 2016 polls shouldn't be used in any articles until they've been broken down properly. It took a couple of years for the entire breakdown for the 2006 poll (here), but the latest one hasn't been broken down to show the entirety of those responding as yet. Please compare the two sets of results in the old survey as opposed to the results of the most recent survey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I will, Thanks for your respond. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice?

Hello Iryna. I know I have broached this in recent weeks but it is high time this project moved on with regards this "related ethnic groups" nonsense that plagues so many articles. You are familiar with the conversation on Talk:Czechs but this for me has taken place amid an equally bitter debate on the same issues on Azerbaijanis (see Talk:Azerbaijanis#Ethnic group). I'm up against a deadly duo that are able to double-team to avoid 3RR whilst the only other editor who approved my revision found himself blocked for violating 3RR when the fantasy version was being constantly reinserted by the deadly duo and some suspicious IPs. The page is now protected and the duo can no longer depend on their "mystery friends" (or edit while logged out) which means they have to vandalise the article by themselves!!! Anyhow, I'm not going to get anywhere attempting to discuss a topic with editors who resort to profundly inconclusive "ethnogenesis" arguments. I can see no better solution than to have the "related people" section wiped permanently from ethnic infoboxes. It is a can of worms. Our definitions versus theirs. The damn thing impels WP:SYNTH. According to your own story regarding your acquaintance, Greeks and Ukrainians are related because a woman with Greek parents identifies as Ukrainian. Can you remind me again where to launch a discussion or where you know this may have already been taking place. I'll lead the way because I am not prepared to compromise my account by further engaging with the deadly duo. Thanks in advance! --OJ (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We're obviously a deadly trio[2][3], not duo. Even something this simple is apparantly way too hard to grasp, tsk tsk. On a serious note Iryna, this "user" is absolutely WP:NOTHERE, and his removal numero 8, continuous WP:FORUM-like commentaries without sources, instant removal of warnings, and battleground-loaded commentary ("Deadly Duo", "Vandalise", "cultural fascism"), attest to it. No surprise to see that we can add a violation of WP:CANVAS now to that as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I still haven't read your source to show that every Azerbaijani person has traced his roots to an Iranian ancestor. You stick to your fable and we'll manage the encyclopaedia. --OJ (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Note there is no CANVAS. I am looking to have the section removed, not just your falsehoods you like to add on SYNTH grounds. This means I intend to raise a discussion, and if this happens on an independent platform project page, then you will be the first person I notify. Then I will draw it to the attention of all other individuals that I see promoting fantasy (except the IPs). So how's that for canvassing? --OJ (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comment here to Iryna is an outright violation of CANVAS.
"I still haven't read your source to show that every Azerbaijani person has traced his roots to an Iranian ancestor." -- Where on earth you have read that every single person of ethnic group "Y" needs to have ancestry from group "X" in order for "Y" to be related to group "X", is completely beyond me, and a complete misinterpretation of the verifiable facts, in every sense of the word. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I will draw it to the attention of all other individuals that I see promoting fantasy". Nice additional personal attack. Just wondering; got more? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what canvassing is so I will elaborate. Here is what the opener states:

• In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
• However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

By informing the likes of you and the editor who is helping you evade 3RR of a discussion, it is not "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". Even so, I would propose a removal of a section as a solution to a conflict which is totally different to what I have been hitherto doing. There is no attack full stop.

Going back. I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars. Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done. With regards the rest of your remarks including all mentioned in summaries, you seem to focus purely on my "disagreeable to you" conduct but never once have you discussed the topic. If my assertions were wrong, that is fine, just prove them wrong. I don't need links to articles which attack the straw man where you're concerned. But the other editor hit the nail on the head when he stated that I should "get consensus" for my proposed revision. Consensus? Now I follow. A "community" will decide to whom a nation is related and to whom it is not. It seems everywhere else, facts speak for themselves. Even if you reached a consensus that Zenica is the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I will continue to remove it and reinsert Sarajevo because facts speak louder than petty local agreement.

With regards this remark, "Where on earth you have read that every single person of ethnic group "Y" needs to have ancestry from group "X" in order for "Y" to be related to group "X", is completely beyond me, and a complete misinterpretation of the verifiable facts, in every sense of the word.". If a member of ethnic group X has no ancestry in ethnic group Y, then how the heck are you saying that he is related to them? That's what I mean by "inconclusive". Obviously by your definition, Bosniaks and Turks are related because one of my Bosniak relatives is married and has children from a Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina wife. --OJ (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars."

Actually, you can template "regulars" when said "regular" reinitiates an edit war.

• "Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done."

Which is why you arrived, after Sebebineydiki was blocked for edit warring, and continued the same edit war???

Have you read the article, Azerbaijanis?

Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."

Even something more interesting is stated on the Origin of the Azerbaijanis article.

• "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".

So, does Oranges have source(s) that refute these academic sources??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Oranges Juicy does. I will not continue here though, but on my own talk page. --OJ (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Users playing with numbers in articles about religion in Slavic countries

The recent concerted activity of Отрок 12 and FrankCesco26 in religion in Russia and religion in Ukraine, and other articles, further strengthens my suspects about a relation between them and other accounts. To me, their edit activities are too similar to one another to be unrelated. Unfortunately an attempted investigation was archived without results.--82.48.11.193 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I note that you included Jobas as a potential sock (with which I thoroughly disagree). I've had a good working relationship with him for a long time, and there is nothing of the strident POV-pusher about him. He works collaboratively, constantly consults with other editors, and is a rational thinker. As for the IPs and the others named, if it isn't sock puppetry, there's a distinct smell of WP:MEAT about them. As soon as I have time to get more pro-active about the articles, I'll be reworking the Religion in Ukraine lead to exclude the 2016 results and correlating pie chart. Thanks for keeping both in check until such a time as there's an opportunity to focus on the well documented issues illustrating the lack of consensus for these 'alternative' versions. It's a matter of matching persistence with persistence, and I'm still stuck with logging in sporadically until IRL circumstances have settled. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Request of Help

Hi, I'm FrankCesco26 and since recognizing your experience on Wikipedia I wanted to ask if you could help me with a problem. The problem is that the user is a dynamic that repeatedly change the article on Religions in the Ukraine doesn't want to stop reverting the page and he menaces me reporting to the administrator several time only becouse I remove his data from the article. Since I am new, could you help me with this subject, perhaps by announcing it (I don't know how to do it). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

I think the gallery sections should also be removed from wikipedia articles for exactly the same reasons discussed here. Clear OR. Does it require a new RfC or can editors simply remove them based on the same policy? 85.110.178.202 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you discussing the massive gallery of churches in the Religion in Ukraine article? If so, no, the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES ruling does not apply. What does apply is WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:PERTINENCE. Per WP:TITLE, it is about the broad scope subject of religion in a particular country/nation-state, not a List of cathedrals in Ukraine, an article about Wooden churches in Ukraine, or any other form of architectural features. There are ample images illustrating various sections, and the appended gallery looks like a travel brochure for church buildings. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No no. I am discussing the gallery sections on ethnic groups' articles. 85.110.178.202 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There are some of the higher level ethnic group articles doubling up with both text and gallery, and some which just have a gallery. This is problematic in that the NOETHNICGALLERIES ruling applies to infoboxes, not the body of the article. Once we get to diasporic communities, there are a hefty number using both. Where there is both a list and gallery, it becomes an issue of doubling up on links, therefore I've been trying to remove the galleries as redundant. While this is fine for articles where most of the content has been developed by inexperienced editors or one-off IP edits, I've been removing the galleries per WP:BOLD and explaining guidelines and redundancy issues on the corresponding talk page. Long standing versions become consensus versions after a while by default but, according to WP:CCC, actually making a rational argument for removal requires other editors to make a compelling argument for keeping the gallery. Arguments revolving around, "but other similar articles use them", and WP:DECORATIVE don't cut the mustard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War general sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The appeal to cease edit warring doesn't work if you accompany it by a revert that continues the edit war. Please discuss, same as with everyone else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Yes, quite right. I miscalculated the extent to which the edit warring keeps escalating on that article. Consider me ashamed to need to be admonished for stupid behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to make mistakes, difficult to step back and learn from them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks, but I'm not going to make excuses for my behaviour. It was sheer stupidity on my behalf. I've had more than enough experience to know that it's an article I should steer clear of (which is what I've been doing for ages). Given my past history with other editors working on that article, my presence will aggravate the situation rather than assist with ameliorating the tensions. Time for a self-imposed TBAN... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My apology. I should not ask the question [4]. I guess this has little to do with the subject because all the same people suddenly appeared on the same page. Given that, I would rather go away than be engaged in discussions that result in nothing. But what a funny new name this user selected! This reminds me old Soviet comedy Gentlemen of Fortune. A hero comes to a prison cell, and a hardened thief in law presents himself: "My (nick)name is surgeon!". Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You have nothing to apologise for. I'd already established what I was walking into from having the article on my watchlist. Any fall-out is a direct consequence of not exercising the caution I should have... namely, staying out of it. As for the moniker, I thought it amusing (black humour, of course) for similar reasons. It reminds me of gangster and WWII genre parallels from around the world. Guaranteed to send a shudder up ones spine! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the one who made the revisions on the article about the Moldovan language (shared IP adress). Out of curiosity I read the article, some of the revisions made from this shared IP adress and your user page. If I understood correctly, you are competent in Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Belarusian and English. I think you should know Romanian to be qualified to judge the neutrality of those revisions. I'm romanian. I once saw a clip on youtube from a Moldovan language news program in Transnistria and apart from a little accent, it was plain Romanian (of course, this cannot be cited in Wikipedia, but is verifiable :). I don't get it how "Moldovan is so distinct from Romanian in terms of lexicon". It might be different because of the Russian borrowings, but certainly it couldn't be said it is "so distinct". To me it seems that your reversions are biased, sorry, or at least you "allowed subjective preferences to override" :) Wish you an easy house moving ;) (Sorry if I post this somwhere it doesn't belong, I'm not into Wikipedia and stuff. If it happened, please someone delete it immediately, because I know Russell's teapot won't help) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.10.30 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen

Some anon removed content from Stephen F. Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here with an ES of 1) Cohen's religious identity has NOT been establish by a valid reference. Wikipedia is always on the hunt for Jews and tag them as such but in this case their over zealous ambitions in this regard remain unfounded., 2) Assertion is based on phony reference; it does NOT specify his religious identity., and 3) This is the English version of Wiki. Foreign language references should not be used.. I reverted the last one which escalated to abuse and the anon being blocked. Is Cohen Jewish? I can't figure it out from the refs. (size 3 hat). Should the info be replaced or left out? I saw you had edited the article... Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jim1138. Apologies for the delay, but I'm translating the Lithuanian article cited. It certainly attests to his being of Jewish descent, but I have to muddle through the details in order to establish the Lithuanian parentage issue. I certainly didn't have any doubts as to his ethnicity as I recall watching a public seminar given by him where someone put the question of, "But, as a Jew yourself, don't you think... [something or another about the Holocaust]." I suspect that he's a Jewish atheist, but that's WP:OR on my behalf. The English language article is pretty convoluted as a reference in itself, but I think it's fine in tandem with the Lithuanian interview with him. As for the IP, s/he is a rude little so-and-so who may be correct about the Lithuanian connection, but is just being disruptive to make a point. Talk soon. (Aspiring to size 3 hat in my dreams). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Forgot all about it (see above). It appears that the anon has not touched it since. Thank you for taking a look at this. Best regards Jim1138 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Control-Patrol

Hi Iryna! I would like to ask you to patrol this page, Teotlalpan, it lacked clarity and contained information without verification. This page was deleted in Spanish, now he wants to write the same personal ideas here in English. Maybe this original author is going to commit to putting his version, I do not want to debate with him, that's why I ask you for help, you have experience as a wiki-user and you will know what to do. (I also asked for help from Ymblanter) Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Akapochtli. I've added the article to my watchlist, but it may take me a couple of days to get around to checking through the content carefully. Thanks for the heads up, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we keeping in touch. --Akapochtli (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, I make changes in this article, I'm the first autor, Do not delete the information in form arbitrary, it's necessary to complement and format with new information, is not correct to erase, that is why I put notes and I have got with the books in case to required references. Knowing all the case, this lends itself to manipulation and beginning of a new war. Thank you very much for patrolling, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited this article by first time, English version was the first, comparing with Spanish Wikipedia version, I live in this area and I have got books about this theme, I'm very happy by Akapochtli's editions, but I'm afraid this will serve another dirty war.--Marrovi (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want any war. Here we don't let you your personal interpretations, the page is alright, let it thus. --Akapochtli (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryda, I can notes and references inside the discution page or talking in Teotlalpan and Talk:Teotlalpan, we make science no personal interpretations, if you want, you can to look the analysis the all references and bibliography about Teotlalpan area. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marrovi: It's irrelevant whether you were the author of the article or not. Please read WP:OWN. As observed by Akapochtli, it's also irrelevant whether you live in the area: your observations, and what you believe you know are WP:POV. Finally, let's keep content discussions on the talk page of the article where they belong (for the sake of transparency and for the edification of other potential editors). I'm not going touch the article until I've had the time to read through it carefully, check the sources, and look for further reliable sources. For the time being, I've checked Google scholar which doesn't actually yield much to substantiate the article you've written. I'm not a Spanish speaker, so I'll be pinging a few trusted fellow Wikipedians (who are) to see what they make of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching the article and reviewing the references, see you.--Marrovi (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna! I have allowed him a period of one week to present his version. From Thursday or Friday, with arguments I will reverse all his issues. So far he has not contributed anything remarkable. I'll be waiting for your comments. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I put vigilance in this article and i'm reading references put in by Akapochtli, here we work with community working, not politics, I 'm working in my university, I have got many work with my students. I looking books and pages about Teotlalpan and I take pictures and notes in this case by the vandalismus and teasing, thank you Iryna.--Marrovi (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We need references, texts, bibliography when we can read his notes; no periods, it's a trap for to seek political helping; He don't delete information about this theme, to delete by arbitrary or personal reasons is vandalismus, all is asked and referenced in talk portal, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)