User talk:Iryna Harpy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Galicia (someplace somewhere)[edit]

  • After having read the extensive discussions on this matter, I realise that you'd been dealing with this matter for ages. By chance, yesterday, I came across the article whilst doing some work on Austria-Hungary articles, and found that it had been moved to disambiguation with "(East Central Europe)", despite a discussion on the talk page, and despite no clear consensus in favour of that move. I also note that "East Central Europe" does not exist, as far as I can tell. Hence, I got a sysop to move it back to the original title with "(Eastern Europe)". I hope that this has not been in anyway disruptive, however, I think that any move should only take place as part of an RM discussion, given the contentious nature of the debate. My own conclusion on the matter is that there is no worthwhile reason to move away from the status quo, as I said on that talk page. RGloucester 15:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your reverting the redirect entirely. There have been numerous identical moves which were not agreed to via past RMs here and here (not to mention blocks, sanctions, investigations and other arbitration cases where familiar names crop up arising as the result of WP:TE) practices). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Epic Barnstar Hires.png The Epic Barnstar
In recognition for your tireless efforts to improve the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and War in Donbass, with exceptional accuracy, balance, persistence and commitment to the Wikipedia rules

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's very much a team effort, and we're fortunate in having a number of excellent, neutral editors keeping the article content in check... so, keep up your end of the good work, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually had this idea of the team work when I was rewarding you with this barnstar, since I also gave it, at the same time, to RGloucester and EkoGraf. I'm looking forward to continue to contribute for these articles, in the best way I can. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please learn[edit]

UPA massacred Polish civilians in 1943 and you put the blame on armed marauders acting 1944/1945. Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled from IP[edit]

The Sam Parnia write up is NOT accurate.

No one had on OBE in a research area. Kindly STOP altering my revisions as they are perfectly fair, unless you are biased. You aren't, are you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from adding original research, WP:POV and misuse of abstracts for primary sources. Also, please stop blanking reliable sources because you don't like them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Per Anders Rudling[edit]

I have executed your wish. Please develop my humble contribution.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

With pleasure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been inducted![edit]

Ukrainian National Award.png Order of Merit of Ukraine
Thank you, Iryna, for hitting us all over the head with the bat of common sense. Your attempts to bring clarity to discussions regarding the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and the War in Donbass are always appreciated. For this, I induct you into the Order of Merit.
this WikiAward was given to Iryna Harpy by RGloucester on 22:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sweet! I was about to hit you with a barnstar for your remarkable editing skills. Now I can hit you with a bat. I suspect that I'm really just plain common, but the Order of Merit is, nevertheless, appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
We all need a good knock on the head every once in a while. RGloucester 20:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Escalation of the war in Donbass[edit]

I regret to say that I was informed about sources that are enough to indicate that there is now a a state of direct war between Ukraine and Russia, so I had to add the sources, accordingly, and also edit accordingly. I was hoping this would not to happen, but it's happening, unfortunatelly. If you have any reservation about anything that I edited be free to express yourself.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No dispute from me on that, my friend. It was only a matter of time before the 'incursion' scenario would be backed up by enough sources to suggest more. My only concern has always been that we don't jump ahead of the sources. The other superpowers won't step in., so now we'll see how far the RF is going to go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


BoNM - Ukraine Hires.png Ukrainian Barnstar
In recognition for your very valuable contributions concerning to the recent evolution on the events in Ukraine. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In honor of your ancestors[edit]

Herb Viyska Zaporozkogo (Alex K).svg Coat of arms of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for both of the honours. I'm touched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You're confused[edit]

You claim that the editor was referring to the North Ossetia paramilitaries, when in fact they were referring to Right Sector, as being one of many paramilitaries in Ukraine. Not including Right Sector has already been established, your problem with North Ossetia is separate. DylanLacey (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the relevant article's talk page, not my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts[edit]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is quite a mess. In fact, I personally believe it is a disaster of an article. Its prose is horrid, as is its organisation. It conflates various events, gives WP:UNDUE weight to various minor reports, and essentially serves as WP:COATRACK. A recent deletion/merge discussion failed to produce any positive outcome toward addressing these problems. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article, and see if there are any good ways to move forward: either to rewrite and improve it, merge it, or whatever. I really don't know what to do, but every time I look at the article it gives me a headache. Look at how long the lead is, for instance. I've refrained from trying to fix it, as I simply don't know where to start. Regardless, if you've got some thoughts, I'd appreciate it. RGloucester 02:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a catastrophe. I haven't read it for some time and, just in having cast an eye over it, I feel the urge to get a economy sized bottle of valium. The POV editing has spread to child articles and beyond. I'm at a loss as to how to salvage it without serious merges in light of its being based on WP:RECENTISM.
I'll take another look when my stomach settles... plus have dragged myself out from numerous articles on the history of Ukraine and Russia being mobbed by users whose contributions have been rejected (read as sanctions and blocks) on the current affairs articles. I'm seeing 'redact, redact, redact' as the only solution. Just for starters, there's far too much content that's been introduced based on Ukrainian and Russian POV sources not backed up by any other WP:RS. It's not the only article that's been usurped by POV-ers. Given another few days and there'll more 'information' in Wikipedia surrounding events surrounding less than a year in Ukraine than than there is on WWI in its entirety. I've got my blue pencil ready, but am tempted to take my eyes out with it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A sockpuppet?[edit]

You might not have time either, but I'm getting somewhat suspicious that the new guy on the UPA articles, User:Cathry, is the long-blocked user User talk:Jo0doe. The English is better, but he would have had a few years to improve it. but behavior is similar. I don't have time to figure out the check-user request process but if you do, or know how it's done, could you look into it? I think it's not a clear-cut case, but it's more than mere fishing to look into it. I've wasted time with Polish nationalist sockpuppets in the past and this has a similar flavor.Faustian (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As you know, it's difficult to get a case started for sockpuppetry on suspicions alone, although I've already picked up on a similarity here (Jo0doe) and here (Cathry). I'm a little bogged down IRL, but I'll see whether I can dig around for enough parallels to submit a case for investigation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tags should be removed NOT immediately, but after a civil discussion and attempted consensus[edit]

Iryna, please conform to Wikipedia policy regarding POV tags. The official policy is emblazoned on every such tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I look forward to engaging in a civil discussion with you and others at (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Haberstr: My response can be found on the relevant talk page where you have posted the self-same complaint against the removal after your tag-bombing expedition on several articles simultaneously. Tags were removed by different editors on each article. Please keep discussion on one talk page rather than reiterating them in a number of forums. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Callanecc. Could you please clarify which article/articles this relates to and how I have been out of line? I find these discretionary sanctions notifications confusing as they imply that I have engaged in questionable conduct, yet purport to be informational and do not imply misconduct. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No misconduct, only informational. It was 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine where I came across your username. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Callanecc. I've actually assisted in getting a few POV-ers topic banned (not that I consider it something to be proud of, rather that it is unfortunate that Eastern European articles have been the subject of horrendous edit warring and biased editing over the years). Actually, while I have your attention, would you be so kind as to weigh in on a discussion started above and being continued on RGloucester's talk page here. Any advice from a third party would be appreciated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I generally try and avoid anything non-admin in this topic area so I know that I'm not involved if I need to use discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: I believe Iryna was referring to the possibility of a DRN, as she said at my talk page "raised by an uninvolved party". RGloucester 06:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly the matter I was hoping to address. It wouldn't necessarily require your becoming directly involved, Callanecc. Even some advice, or suggestions as to who might be willing to present a DRN case would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"toned down" Merkel[edit]

Just to explain the origin of what you "toned down", this is abstracted from the google translation of the cited article: "The Journal also reports that have previously Chancellor Angela Merkel took the floor and worked furiously. Putin is moving towards a military escalation, it is cited." So I translated "worked furiously" to "emphatically warned" or some such. So maybe something was finally lost in translation. Ho Hum...Layzeeboi (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Layzeeboi. I read the article (good find!). My final take was simply that "fruitless" is ammunition for the POV-ers to cry WP:WEASEL. Merkel's deliberations could probably do with being elaborated on with some direct quotes, but I've been worn down trying to keep a lid on bad faith editing on a multitude of related articles over the last year and don't have the energy to think on it for the moment. Nice to have some fresh blood join the ranks of good editors. Welcome aboard! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed the deletion of "fruitless". I thought I was directly paraphrasing the article: "Yet positive outcomes from those ties have been nonexistent." I think it is unrealistic to hope to find public quotations on this subject directly from Merkel. Her entire approach has been the quiet private diplomacy described in that article: 25 to 35 phone calls to Putin in 9 months. Unfortunately fruitless.Layzeeboi (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem with paraphrasing from a comprehensive analytical article. Picking out the salient information and paraphrasing it in a neutral manner is always problematic... and, yes, as she's playing her cards so close to her chest, finding direct quotes is going to be impossible at this point in time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


It seems that any attempt at bringing order into this morass is pointless. The deletion discussion was closed as no consensus, and the closer did not even address whether the article was a PoV fork or not. In this case, we are left with an unworkable mess, and no clear way forward. No resolution whatsoever, and the closer even admitted that "there is no clear solution". He could've enacted such a solution, but, instead, he left us with a mess. In this case, I feel as if we might as well cease work on these articles, for there is no point in trying to do something that has "no consensus". I tried a deletion review last time, where I was promptly routed. I'm not going to waste my time again. RGloucester 20:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it. I've just spent the day trying to squash POV and various disruptive edits to articles surrounding the subject with no idea of why I was even bothering. I note that Kudzu1 is equally as frustrated and has opened an RM to change it to Russia's role in the war in Donbass. To be honest, I don't know whether this will pose greater problems than rectify them. It's something I need to think on before I make any informed decision. I'm still feeling far too obstinate to accept the utterly deplorable mess that's been made of all the articles and refuse to be beaten down into submission. I just wish someone from admin would step in, recognise that it's high time to reorganise, and present the substance of the replica articles in question at a DRN.
For the moment, I'm simply going to sleep on it and let whatever grey matter remains in my skull regroup. Maybe stepping away and allowing everyone to edit-war themselves into being blocked, then step in, is a strategy in itself. Nope. I couldn't sit back and allow that to happen as the first ones to go would probably the best and most honest editors (whether I agree with them or not). Conundrum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The thought has crossed my mind. As I've expressed previously, while I do think it is the correct decision to keep the article, it needs major work, edit-warring has become a very serious problem (with both pro-Kiev and pro-Kremlin partisans repeatedly inserting hyper-POV language, unsupported assertions, and inappropriate references), and the title and arguably scope are problematic.
For now, at least, the article is here to stay. As editors, we have three options: 1) try to fix the problems, hence the RM and attempts I have made to improve the page and give it some sort of focus that doesn't involve trying to assert a "Russo-Ukrainian War"; 2) work within the present scope and hope that the broader community eventually guides it toward a higher level of quality; 3) avoid it and let others either work its issues out or run it down, whatever happens. Right now, my preference is somewhere between the first two options, but it's going to be very tiresome if I'm up single-handedly against a group of editors who just use it as yet another proxy space for the information war, without regard for how it fits into the WikiProject or Ukrainian crisis coverage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:KIBOSH is an essay, not a policy, and honestly, I think it's the lazy approach in 99% of cases. We know there needs to be an article covering all aspects of Russian interference in post-Euromaidan Ukraine (including Crimea and the Donbass conflict), we know there needs to be a daughter article of War in Donbass covering Russia's role in the conflict (whether certain editors want to believe Russia is directly involved or not), but we also know that the existing articles have some problems right now. They aren't irredeemable; they can be fixed; it's just a matter of how much effort we actually want to put into them, especially considering we will be dealing with the hordes of tendentious editors and SPAs that Eastern Europe topics always bring out. But that wouldn't be any better if we blew both articles up and started from scratch -- which, it is already clear, there is no consensus to do. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about consensus among "hordes of tendentious editors and SPAs", because that's what consensus amounts to in any of these discussion. I care about consensus in guidelines and policy. That essay, WP:KIBOSH, embodies my opinion on the matter. We need to put the kibosh on the crap, essentially. Until we close the tap, it will keep pouring out. I don't agree that we need two articles, and will never agree to that as such. This article is tainted, and presumably always will be. Fine, let the "hordes" have their little battleground of PoV. I don't want any part of it. Hopefully, when the war ends, we shall be able to properly sort this mess out. RGloucester 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As I've said before, I don't understand the whole "tainted" thing, and honestly, you sound kind of loopy when you start in on it. Right now, we have two articles and no consensus to delete; we can either work with it or walk away from it, and what you choose is up to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is one thing we can do, though, and I'm starting to think it is a good idea. We can appeal at WP:AN for general sanctions to be imposed on Ukraine-crisis related articles. I'd request that all such articles be placed under WP:1RR. This would go a long way toward helping us combat PoV pushing and edit warring. We don't even need to go to Arb Com. Merely draw a well-worded proposal as to why we believe such sanctions would be appropriate, post it at WP:AN, and attempt to gain consensus. RGloucester 17:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I hope that the article can be renamed, since Crimea was already invaded in February, therefore, the name Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) doesn't make any sense, if it only concerns to Donbass. The present name also implies that either Crimea wasn't or isn't in Ukraine, or that there was no invasion in Crimea. If the people who created that article had in mind any bias towards the Ukrainian side, they shot themselves in the foot! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel as though they've been swept up by a POV tsunami and have spent the last year in denial, of the absolute conviction that they're moments away from being delivered safely on terra firma (i.e., the COATRACKS are going to go away)? I'm still still waiting for my toes to touch the ground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I feel being swept by a huge POV tsunami concerning to these Ukraine-crisis related articles. The rest, not yet so much, since I guess you've been an editor here for a far longer time than me. I guess the same must be felt by people who edit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance. It was quite peaceful for me while I was editing about airlines!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems we are having a new "wave" of problematic IPs and users. Not sure how to handle it, at this point. RGloucester 02:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, reliable information about an open letter by US intelligence veterans who had also rightfully warned about the forged "evidence" for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was removed. I find quite remarkable that US/UK media suppress such information, you can hardly find it with English google news other than at Russian or German websites. Please familiarise yourself with wikipedia rules, and consider if it is just your own point of view that makes you think the information should not be there. The whole article is horribly biased, already the title that presents something as a fact that is still not proven. Galant Khan (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see my response per the section I've added on the talk page of the relevant article: which is where discussions regarding content should be started. Along with the fact that one of the sources considered reliable (and not WP:BIASed or plain questionable outside of being op-eds by unknown journalists/bloggers per your initial efforts) actually dismissed the think tank responsible for the letter to Merkel as being uninformed.
Note, also, that I do not believe that the article should exist as it is a replica of an existing article. I would suggest that you spend a little time familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Indignation is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guideline. In fact, it is antithetical to the project and may end up reflecting badly on you if you don't make a concerted effort to behave civilly. It's also useful to acquaint yourself with other editors by checking their user pages, talk pages and their history of contributions before making assumptions about them or whether you're qualified to tell them how Wikipedia works. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss the topic at the article discussion page and refrain from posting more fake warnings on my talk page. I have been editing at wikipedia since 2001 and once was among the most active wikipedians before aggressive users like you made me think I have better use of my time. I know the rules very well. Excluding information because one doesn't like it is not part of the rules. You may not know Süddeutsche Zeitung but it is one of the highest quality newspapers in Germany and the article was no op-ed or commentary. Your understanding of the article is very poor, I guess because you don't speak German well. I don't speak every language either but I don't accuse others of misrepresenting information that I don't understand myself. The author was obviously not convinced by the veteran intelligence professionals but that changes nothing about the fact that it is worth reporting. We also cover information about other involved parties who make declarations we may or may not believe like NATO, the Ukrainian army or the rebels. Galant Khan (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You deleted valuable information about the open letter to Angela Merkel based on wrong claims. Since there is an edit war both at Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014 and at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity I ask for an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I guess it's best if we find uninvolved users who decide without previous bad feelings. Galant Khan (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
By all means, you're welcome to an RfC. You'll find my comments regarding your 'reliable sources' there, as well as under the earlier section I started in order to discuss reliable sources. As regards your accusing me of being WP:UNCIVIL, perhaps you should re-read your above comment, point out where I have attacked you, and explain to me why you are directing your anger/frustration at me, "... before aggressive users like you made me think I have better use of my time ..." That doesn't sound terribly civil, nor does is it in line with WP:AGF. The fact that you started editing in 2001 only qualifies you as someone who has edited on and off (mainly off for a number of years): it does not attest to your having been, nor to being, anything other. It most certainly does not attest to the quality of your work or your ability to make reasonable judgements as to what is due or undue content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Irina, what do you know about me? I wrote you that I started editing wikipedia in 2001, I didn't tell you when I stopped and how much I contributed altogether. Please reread your own comments to me and tell me if you really disagree that you behave in a condescending way. The fact that you deleted content numerous times even though many users added it again and explained there position on talk pages, justifies the attribute aggressive. I didn't want to participate in this, that's why I asked for comments rather than engage in edit warring, There is more than enough war in the world, I guess at least about this we agree. Cheers to Australia. Galant Khan (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If you were genuinely concerned about the importance of the content you wished to introduce, why did you (and the other editors who wanted to introduce it) resort to escalating to edit warring rather than following WP:BRD. No attempts were made by you (or others) to create a section on the talk page in order to present a case until I created the relevant section. Consensus is not reached through edit warring. The entire approach has been that of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As regards how much you've worked on Wikipedia in the past, I can't gauge. Your global accounts show you as being a newbie. If you have been around for such a long time, why is there no mention of that fact on either of your user pages (German account or English)? No link to your old account/s in order to inform other users that they may have encountered you in a previous incarnation? Resultantly, you are offended and consider that I am being "condescending" because, according to your history, you present as being a newbie? Well, then, by all means, please tell me and other users "who" you are by letting us know that you've been around, and providing links on your user pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I requested comments and am not responsible for other users who engage in edit warring. Also, there always need to be two parties for an edit war, don't you agree? I find very unjust that you criticise me for asking for comments for both articles. Both are affected by the same question, so what would you have done? Regarding my old account, that is just none of your business. I stopped using it, among other things after I had a discussion with wikipedians who said that from their histories they can say what users are interested in, often where they live, and even when they go on vacation. Also a lady had investigated about me up to even finding out my phone number and called me, nearly crying, because other users had ridiculed her on the wiki where she had used her real name and she was afraid that it would affect her job life, and she hoped I'd support her getting her name deleted from the wiki. I realised there are extreme restrictions to privacy if one uses wikipedia intensively and I thus stopped doing that and just drop by once in a while. Galant Khan (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking that you reveal your prior accounts as I'm well aware of 'disappearing' and other issues. That said, by the same token, you are in the wrong in getting huffy if other users assume that you're a newbie and treat you as such. A simple indication on your user page and talk page that you've been editing on and off since 2001 would at least make others aware of the fact that you're not a newbie. No details need to be supplied and, as you'd be aware, pushing you to reveal any private information is a strict policy no-no. If you choose not to reveal anything, jumping down other contributor's throats isn't a positive manner in which to start afresh.
As regards the RfC, I encountered precisely the same situation earlier this year, and most certainly done in good faith. I simply suggested to the user who'd posted the duplicate RfCs that they inform the community on both RfCs that the same subject matter was being addressed on another related article with a link to the other RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, ok, so i am taking it to talk page. Can you explain me why are you still reverting some of my edits? Text is very related to article and must be included. Image is presenting much bigger event. What is wrong with May text? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that I've taken it to my talk page. I've taken it to the relevant article's talk page (the relevant article being Russia, so you'll find the discussion here. Please provide policy and guideline based arguments for the inclusion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Proper Nouns[edit]

Just came across a comment that you directed at me on the Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe) page. To wit:

I think you need to take some refresher courses in English grammar, Federalist51. "East Central Europe" is not a proper noun, any more that "West Central Europe", "South Central Europe", or any other convolution thereof. The only acceptable form for such a unique presentation of compass points would be "East-Central Europe", but that would be rejected per WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was in the context about whether or not East Central Europe is a name of the region in which Galicia is situated. I won't respond to the ad hominem part of the comment, but feel compelled to point out that any name used to identify specific region is, in fact, a proper noun. As I pointed out, the region in question is frequently referred to in published literature as "East Central Europe", without a hyphen. See, for example, the home page of The Institute on East Central Europe at Columbia University, which notes that it "actively cooperates with other units within the University as well as other institutions in the United States and in East Central Europe to provide the best possible training opportunities." (emphasis added). There's actually an academic journal called "East Central Europe" (no hyphen). I don't have an opinion on whether or not it is the most common name for this region, but it is clearly a name that is used for this region, making it a proper noun, whether or not you think it should be. Federalist51 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Note the description of the journal you are pointing to as an example: "East Central Europe is a peer-reviewed journal of social sciences and humanities with a focus on the region between the Baltic and the Adriatic It aims to stimulate the dialogue and exchange between scholarship produced in and on East-Central Europe and other area study traditions, in a global context. Special issue 38.2-3 (2011) on Musical Countercultures in East Central Europe." It isn't even consistent in its treatment of the naming convention. Sorry, but a couple of recent examples of its use does not sway me as to its being a proper noun. It certainly doesn't make it common enough to meet Wikipedia's WP:TITLE norms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fedir Lyzohub[edit]

Iryno, please, meet one of the greatest representatives of Lyzohub family and the Ukrainian politicians, Fedir Lyzohub. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the introduction! I've added Fedir Andriyovych to my watchlist and will get around to some copy editing when I have a moment. It would be useful to find a couple of refs just to kick off developing the article further. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Article about the Ukrainian community in Portugal on Portuguese Wikipedia: started![edit]

Hello, Iryna! I've started today to edit the article Ukrainian immigration in Portugal (pt) (on the Portuguese Wikipedia, later I'll also edit it on the English Wikipedia). Fortunatelly I found very good sources with a lot of good information. Could I eventually have your help if I need to translate something from Ukrainian to Portuguese? Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Good for you! I'd certainly be happy to assist with copy editing and translations. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! It's already done on English Wikipedia too! Ukrainian emigration to Portugal. But I still want to improve both the Portuguese and the English pages. Cheers!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me for this request, but could you copy edit, or do you know anyone who could copy edit this page to the Ukrainian Wikipedia? Thanks!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't had cause to speak or write in Ukrainian for well over a decade, therefore know for a fact that my grammar has become appalling. Usually, I would have suggested Yulia Romero as someone who could at least assist in finding someone who'd like to do so (but he's taking a bit of a Wiki burn-out break), so perhaps Aleksandr Grigoryev or Faustian could make some inquiries on your behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, there is already page in the Ukrainian wikipedia on that topic. It is only called as the Ukrainians of Portugal (uk:Українці Португалії). Would it be ok to connect it? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it deals with precisely the same subject matter (number of Ukrainian migrants in the 2012 census, etc.). Definitely should be linked. It will also allow for an exchange of references and development on both articles. I'm happy to copy edit the English language version and cite check. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to Iryna Harpy and @Aleksandr Grigoryev:! I hope these pages I created (in Portuguese and English) may be useful to add some information in the Ukrainian page, as well! But I'm sure it can still be improved, with further information. If there is anything in the Ukrainian page that there isn't in the English and Portuguese pages, I'd be glad that that information could be added in these 2 pages as well!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Yes, of course you can (and I'm glad if you do so) connect the Ukrainian page with the Portuguese and the English page! Thank you!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, I want to point out that the Ukrainian Wikipedia has many well developed articles on the Ukrainian diaspora across the world. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I just read it for the first time (cheers for the clean up, Richard) and find myself genuinely interested! Nice work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Oh, you are Richard! I'm Nuno Miguel!... Nice to meet you! Thank you very much for the extra reference and for the clean up. It will be useful for the improvement of the article!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I'm not Richard in a "real" sense. Merely that my assumed persona here is based on Richard, Duke of Gloucester. So, I am "Richard" in this context, if not in others. Regardless, nice to meet you too. RGloucester 02:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Well, we've already met here a lot of times, for a fairly long period. My name is actually Nuno Miguel, and my username is dedicated to a tribal region where I have been, in Cambodia (there was already one Mondolkiri, so I decided to use Mondolkiri1 as my username). I've watched, many times, actually, the Black Adder series, by Rowan Atkinson, and I got the idea that Richard III was not such a great king. But, anyway, it's only a comedy series, and I don't actually know anything about Richard III.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess Blackadder gets around, then? Never knew it was a big export, but it is a favourite of mine (especially the fourth series). If you want to test your English ability with regard to Richard III, you could always read the play or watch one of the many films. I like the 1995 film best. I'm a Scot, though, so I suppose I shouldn't be talking about English history. RGloucester 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the airing of the first series, I can't think of a time where Blackadder has been off air on Australian television for more than a few months at a time. As regards Richard III, I think suggesting reading the play (no matter how well annotated) would be somewhat intimidating, so don't let Richard tweak your nose with that challenge, Nuno! I can't think of too many native speakers of English who'd get past Act 1, Scene 1 without their head imploding. I adore it - what an amazing piece of PR work on behalf of Tudor interests. Personally, I'm a Macbeth enthusiast... and nothing can beat the Polanski rendition! Lang mey yer lum reek. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Who would say that the actor that plays Baldrick is actually a "Sir"? Sir Anthony Robinson!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


I've watched several times this video: [1] on youtube. It is really a beautiful city, by what I see there, but now I guess it needs huge repairs to become again like it used to be.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia - Nominal GDP[edit]

Hi Iryna,

Saw your revert & just wanted to get some clarity around the ranking used in the main article. I've read through the discussion page, but it is very convoluted, and I couldn't follow the logic, especially that of the multiple IP editors.

In this article/list (, all 4 sources clearly state that Russia is 8th in terms of total nominal GDP for 2013. It was my understanding that said list was verified and confirmed.

Having gone through the sources, it seems to be accurate. Which brings me to my question, where does the 9th place come from? ie. I'd be great to see the IMF source, and if it is indeed correct, to use it in the above-mentioned list as well.

Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)