User talk:Iryna Harpy

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

Dispute at Russia[edit]

Change at Armenia[edit]

Have you seen my comments at the editor's talk page? Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, I did. That's why I just added a template warning for the editor as a 'heads up' for you as to his/her continuing substantive changes without edit summaries, and wielding a BATTLEGROUND approach to other editors.
I'm going to leave a talkback notice on his/her page. Hopefully, when their block has expired, I'll try to calm them down and stop assuming bad faith, personal attacks, etc. The lack of editors of Armenian descent whose English is more than basic is a problem. As so much of the information on various Armenia-related articles is poorly sourced, I'm predisposed to encouraging potential editors to work on their contribution skills. Yerevantsi is a well established Wikipedian therefore, rightly or wrongly, I'm prone to favour his content over that of a new contributor who's behaviour smacks of NOTHERE. I guess we can only see how it goes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


There are two sockpuppet investigations into the users who were edit-warring on Russia. (I wouldn't have noticed that edit-war except for the shouting.) Gladio4772 is at least thought to be a sock-puppet of a blocked user. (As you know, that is another way to become a blocked user oneself.) There appear to be two sock-puppet farms, one pro-Russian and one anti-Russian. Gladio4772 is alleged to be one of the anti-Russian sock-puppets. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Robert McClenon. Despite his/her call out for assistance above, I haven't interacted with the user since clearing up the fisticuffs regarding GDP statistics. I have zero interest in working with, or siding with anyone who can't contribute civilly, despite the fact that they were correct about a minute detail in the content. I would have preferred to ignore that skirmish, but the DRN forced my hand in trying to sort it out. Cheers for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really want to be involved any more than I can either. As an American, I have no personal interest in that part of the GDP ranking. I just thought you might want to know that he appears to be a sock-puppet and that we have two sock-farms. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hardly anything new for Eastern Europe. I suspect that they're in competition with the Middle East for cornering the sock exchange. Bad puns aside, I'm used to it. While it's best to avoid stepping into their lairs, I'm certain more of my time and energy is spent on fighting off POV pushers, discussing use of sources at the RSN, and staving off edit wars by encouraging the use of article talk pages than in improving the quality of articles. I must have a back-burner list as long as "War and Peace" by now. It's a yuck job, but someone has to be masochistic enough to do it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Kyrylo Rozumovskyi[edit]

Iryno, I am turning to you for advice. I am having trouble with some editors who groundlessly reverting my edits and deleting all references. Many of them do not want to acknowledge Ukrainian transliteration of Rozumovsky's name even though it is available in English sources which I do provide. According to historical sources, it seems that children of Hryhoriy Rozum adopted the Russian-like name Razumovsky when they accidentally were granted the nobility title. Interestingly, the Ukrainian wikipedia provides information about Kyrylo's mother Natalia Demeshko who after the first marriage carried the last name Lemesh (note: village of Lemeshi). Please, visit the article when you will have time to review it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Aleksandr Grigoryev. You would have noted that I'd been active on the article, but haven't had time to revisit it as I have an illness in the family taking up much of my time at the moment. I'll get back to it ASAP! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation of some minor importance[edit]

Recently, an article was created: International sanctions during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I'm not opposed to its creation, as it is an important topic, but at present it is quite bare. Most of the present text is a duplication of the older List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. As such, I've noticed that the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia has a decent article on these sanctions. If you have the time, perhaps you'd consider translating this into English? It would make more sense to translate the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article, rather than write one from scratch. At least, I think so. Ta! RGloucester 01:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article, and it appears to be well referenced, RGloucester. It shouldn't be too difficult to find English language parallel articles where sources may be considered dubious. I'm currently tied up with 'stuff' IRL, but will start on it ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! RGloucester 02:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles about the Ukrainian community in Portugal[edit]

Dear Iryna, here are some articles about the Ukrainian community in Portugal which, given that it is the 2nd largest here, after the Brazilian, may be a reason to eventually start a Wikipedia article on it, which I would be glad to do, and I'd be glad if I could have your help.: ; ; ; ; ... Well... There are plenty of articles. These are all in Portuguese, they're all in Portuguese, but you can use Google Translate to translate them. Notice that most of the Ukrainians living here are from Western Ukraine, so I guess what positions a lot (but not all) have about this conflict. Though I've also known a couple of Russian speaking Ukrainians here. And the articles I've chosen, I found them interesting but they might not be, necesseraly, the most reliable ones, and there are far more with plenty of statistics and information. When you wish, you can reply to me. I'd be very glad to edit an article, both in Portuguese and in English (in Ukrainian, I'm afraid I can't, but I'd be glad I could), about the Ukrainian community in Portugal!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you on this matter sooner, Mondolkiri1. You left a message regarding creating an article on the diasporic community a couple of weeks ago, but I've been tied up IRL. I'll take a look at these articles, but I'm not certain that I'm the right person to involve myself in a neutral capacity. I've withdrawn from contact with the Ukrainian diaspora in Australia due to having become exasperated with the neoconservatives who are strangling rational discourse within the community. Unfortunately, diasporic communities don't elect their representatives... they're self-appointed and very, very pushy. Let me think on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll see what I can do by myself about the Ukrainian community in Portugal. I'd be glad, as I said, if I could have your help, but there are a lot of sources, in Portuguese, about the Ukrainian community here, which, as I said, is the 2nd largest after Italy in Western Europe (I don't know why, since this is almost like Greece now, there must be a reason). Well, I'll start a page, in Portuguese, Spanish and English, and I'll ask your opinion, then (when I have it started)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svgHello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.[edit]

I've sent you an e-mail, so I can send you an attachment with a pdf of the chapters about UPA. best Faustian (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the user Black Future[edit]

I've already expressed my concerns to RGloucester about what I perceive as being, in my opinion, somewhat disruptive edits, and I quote what I said:

  • I think Black Future has been posting some edits that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive to me, unexplainably deleting sources, adding unsourced figures and distorting quite a lot the content of a source that he added, and I 1st deleted and I added again with the right information that is in that source. Do you agree? Should he be warned?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, there are some edits from this editor that seem to me to be somewhat disruptive. In one of them, in the summary of the edit, the editor made the following accusation: "Convenient when sources are blanked, content changed, and when content is re-inserted, "it's not in the sources" is used as an excuse to blank again". Well, now Black Future added the source (concerning to the 80% of eventual Russian volunteers)! But it wasn't there before. Therefore, I didn't blank any source stating that there might be 80% of Russian volunteers. Now it's correct (since, later, this editor added the source that actually says that). On the other hand, he or she is removing sources, without any explanation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) End of quote.

I've also addressed Black Future personally about the edits on 8 August. What is your opinion about this, Iryna?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not respond to your query because I usually prefer not to get involved in that type of thing. RGloucester 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester:In my opinion, he or she is disruptive about the edits in Wikipedia, concerning the situation in Ukraine. He/she has not been as stupid as others in order to engage in actual vandalism behaviours (that's what I guess). But making false accusations, while he/she is actually deleting the sources without providing any explanation, distorting the content of an article in particular, that I kept there, but which stated something completely different than what the user wrote in the article (and I edited the article according to the content of that source, later changed by RGloucester about the phrasing and grammar (I guess) but without distorting in any way the content), ignoring any calls for discussion in the Talk Page before the article is changed by him/her, and replacing information in the article without proper sources provided... I think that's enough for me to consider this user as disruptive.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cut & paste from my user page[edit]

Response to a message received from Iryna

I am at a loss. I changed "played a substantial role" to "perpetrated," because no one else beyond the Ukrainian Insurgent Army was involved in the massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943 and this is supposed to be my "personal analysis?" Snyder and Davies do not mention any other perpetrators and there is no footnote to show the source of the view that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army played just a "substantial role." The same goes for the "similar actions," while despite atrocities, there was no policy of ethnic cleansing of the Ukrainians living in post-war Poland. There was a policy of deportation which is clearly attested to by Snyder. With your changes, the article becomes misleading.

As to the Volhynia article, I agree, I did not cite a source, though there are plenty. Who do you think was there before Vladimir took over? Still, what is neutral? I am sure that you would not agree with the Russian take on Kievian Rus.

Pernambuco1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, read Neutral point of view, Words to watch (particularly WP:WEASEL). As to Snyder and Davies being the only sources, that is contestable, except for the fact that, thanks to WP:POV pushers (which your content changes currently reflect on you as being), other sourced material has been removed during edit warring. Even where there are a couple of sources selected out of many, many more potential sources, please try to abide by avoiding WP:WEASEL in paraphrasing the material.
The remainder of your first paragraph here also indicates your WP:BIAS of 'no policy'. No policy does not mean that ethnic cleansing did not occur (again, there are sources which, through edit-warring, have been removed). This is an online encyclopaedia, not a nationalistic narrative line depicting good guys vs. bad guys.
My personal take on the "Russian take on Kievan Rus" is that Wikipedians follow the policies and guidelines. All articles are written assuming good faith, and the article on Kievan Rus' has been written collaboratively, with discussions taking place on the corresponding talk page. That's what talk pages are for. If you care to follow my editing work and discussions on talk pages and work out my personal position on any subject is, you'd be the first person to do so. So far as I'm concerned, that means I'm doing the right thing in following the spirit of Wikipedia.
As you are new to Wikipedia, I hope you stay on and join us as an editor. Please familiarise yourself with policy, guidelines and get a general sense of how Wikipedia works. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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)