User talk:Iryna Harpy

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


WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification[edit]

Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) "Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Paul Robert Magosci, there is an ethnic group known in English as Ruthenians, but which self identifies as Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns. They do not self-identify as Ukrainians. In fact, they find the Ukrainian label offensive. You are hereby warned that continuing to refer to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged against you in appropriate Wiki forums.85.154.245.171 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. You're definitely not here to work on the Wikipedia project, are you, 85.154.245.171? Resorting to issuing very personalised warnings based on a guideline (not a policy)? Please note that, per that guideline, the issue is determined first and foremost by page consensus. How many more personal attacks are you planning on in order to be WP:POINTy? If anyone has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt they're motivated by WP:BIGOTRY, that would be you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mike VTalk 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: Apologies, but I'm at a loss as to where it is I've been edit warring per the article history. I've noted that user Galant Khan has left a message for you regarding my behaviour, but wonder whether you've seen the exhaustive interaction on the actual talk page here, here and here. Have you looked at Galant Khan's talk page history? The user has been warned about WP:POV content and WP:TE editing practices by other editors regarding the same material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Re-pinged --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

East-Central Europe[edit]

I saw your message and I believe I left out the map on East-Central Europe. The reason why I deleted the map is because it's inaccurate and does not translate into text. Croatia as a whole is in The Alpine-Carpathian zone, and even the text has a few mistakes such as naming Croatia and then mentioning inland parts as exceptions, which is very wrong. Abruptly deleting the map may be a mistake, but it was in good intention. I propose making a new (similar map) where the mistake is corrected and replacing it with the old one.

Tanper (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. As noted on your talk page by another editor, edit summaries are a good way of informing other editors of policy or guideline motivated changes, as well as brief explanations as to the accuracy of information, etc. In this instance, this is something that should be brought up in a new section on the corresponding talk page so that other editors can participate in a discussion of what is accurate and what is inaccurate. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP is branching out[edit]

He failed to get his way on various forums so is now going into other articles with his POV-pushing and original research: [1].Faustian (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Noted. The same goes for Polish census of 1931 on a grand scale, and using both of his IP addresses. The initial changes on that article began with this major edit using table 10 of this 1938 publication where he draws on the French translation of Ruthene (rather than the actual Polish Ruski) as WP:SYNTH. I'm sorely tempted to change the new 'list' to reflect the French: Polish becomes Polonais; Rosyjski becomes Russe; etc. This is pure tendentious editing by a POV single purpose account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you two should simply learn to read Polish so you can understand the original census? Please be advised that this correspondence is evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:CTDAPE and your continued course of conduct will result in referring this matter to the appropriate administrators.85.154.245.171 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at LittleWink's talk page.
Message added 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LittleWink (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Russia edit[edit]

IMF's projections have been erratic concerning Russia recently. They've been also proven wrong on it. World Bank data is more consistent and possibly less politically motivated. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you got what i meant. IMF's data is mostly estimation based on OUT OF DATE economic data. That's one of the reasons it messed up Russia's economic forecast. And Russia isn't the only one. World Bank is a more reliable up to date source. That's why i changed the economic data for Russia page.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I 'got' what you meant entirely. As per my second revert on the Russia article, I have left a message for you asking you to look at the "Russia" talk page here, here, here and, finally, the outcome of a dispute resolution that shouldn't have occurred here. Check across all of the articles for nation-states. It is IMF data which is used exclusively. If you don't believe that the IMF is a reliable source, please take it to the Reliable source noticeboard with your arguments. I'm simply abiding by that which has been established as the reliable source to be used across the board so if I don't revert you, another editor will. This isn't a matter for page consensus, but should be discussed at the appropriate venue. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What's your issue then? WB data is also used extensively, alongside IMF, and it's a reliable source. I don't get why it HAS TO BE ONLY IMF data, even when there are more reliable up to date sources?
PS: i don't care for ranking. My issue is with economic output. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Then take it to the WP:RSN. I'm not interested in edit warring with you or anyone else. Personally, I'm not concerned as to which system is used, so long as there is community consensus to use one or the other across the board for all articles about current nation-states. It's your hobby-horse, not mine: therefore it is up to you to present solid arguments to the community. Neither you nor I are the community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Marauding IP[edit]

Sorry I haven't been around to help counter the marauding "pan-Rus' people" IP. I have a feeling it is worth taking it to AE, though I don't know how that'd work with an IP. Either way, his behaviour is nothing more than WP:TE at this point. RGloucester 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Try actually giving academic references for your personal opinions, and don't just use bad language like you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia
Use the contemporary language for the people in history pages, not post-war Soviet nomenclature designed to hide ethnic cleansing, internal Soviet colonization, and ethnic homogenization. Don't hide from the British government's acquiescence to the same. Make an effort to maintain a NPOV. By all means notify AE that you want to use a British dictionary as the basis for your edits which are contrary to academic publications. 37.200.224.204 (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't make inflammatory and outrageous statements like "[he/she is] simply the product of a British culture which has attempted to distance itself from the results of its nation's approval of what we now call ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity", then. RGloucester 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
We are all products of our environment. Some of us can transcend it, but that first requires that we are cognizant of what our formative environment is or was. It is without question that His Majesty's government appeased first Hitler before, and then Stalin, during after the war. In the later, His Majesty's government condoned Stalin's actions in the region. Why was that? A failed attempt to keep a racist empire? Perhaps you might consider why your concept of the term Ruthenian was so completely different from the Latin origin of the word, and its continued usage in academics? In any event the rules here at WP don't change because the truth hurts. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, you Brits might consider not perhapsing so much perhaps?85.154.245.171 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes! I'm glad to be held responsible for the actions of a British government seventy or so years ago. I don't have any "concept" of the term Ruthenian. Words change over time, their meanings shift. I apologise if you can't handle that, but it is what it is. Ruthenian has not meant "all the people of the Rus'" in English since the 18th century, and reliable sources verify that. RGloucester 20:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry, but this is getting too funny for words. Claims of being able to 'transcend' their 'formative environment' by someone whose entire ontological security is based on the perfection and righteousness of the Poles throughout history? Just a quick look at the special contribs of 85.154.245.171 / 37.200.224.204 provides a definitive background to this IP's neutrality and conscientious attempts to bring THE TRUTH to the project.
Yes, an AE may be problematic for someone who uses two IP addresses, RGloucester. I think it might be appropriate to bring in one of the AE admins as a third party at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
He most likely has started using an identity :[2] in addition to the IPs.Faustian (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Identical issues being dredged up... and, obviously, trying to enlist editors for support. I'm convinced this double IP + new user is not a newbie. Any time I've encountered 'new' users who hit the ground running and appear to be confident of their knowledge of policies and guidelines, they've inevitably been found out for WP:BLOCK EVASION. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Any leads on a potential master, then? Best thing to do is go through the same pages and take a look. RGloucester 01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It could be one of many (we're not exactly in short supply). I've only checked through the history quickly, and noticed a resemblance to this user from last year who displays a very similar pattern of disruptive editing under a number of IP addresses, but then disappears when things get heated up. I haven't tracked back any further to other articles worked on, but Faustian may recall him/her. The IP addresses have long since been abandoned, but were apparently from the same location. The user we're currently dealing with is located in Oman, which would lead me to believe that the person works on contract wherever their job takes them. I've not done very much in the way of investigating due to being caught out by some dreaded lurgy (it is springtime in Melbourne), so I'm finding it difficult to focus over a headful of snot and a migraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, good catch! It is almost certainly the same person as the IP this user.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to go back further. There are a couple of users blocked way back, but who have regularly returned as short term IP users and under various user names identified as multiple socks. I'll run through them when my brain is functioning properly. Personally, I'd like to just make major reverts to the POV rubbish rewrites of a couple of articles, but want to ensure that my backside is well and truly covered when I citekill the cherry picked sources and OR interpretations of primary documents. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Close 2092 data Russia is 9th[edit]

Close 2092 data somebody posted 8th.Russia is according to the official IMF data only 9th behind Italy .Many times this number has been vandalized in the past times i noticed because the citation aside 2092 is wrong.Here is the correct source that testifies it and that should be citated aside 2092. List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal) . Could you restore this please?Thanks.151.40.29.113 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Hopefully, it's back to the correct data. There appear to have been a large number of unsourced changes to figures over the last couple of months. Please check and let me know. Cheers for the notification! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia with 2092 is 9th as nominanl GDP estimate by IMF in 2014 behind Italy that with 2171 is the true 8th.Thanks a lot!I hope you'll change that false 8th aside 2092.Not for me but for a right information).151.40.29.113 (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I only just received the notification of the change to the infobox for the Russia article and have reverted it. The issue has been discussed at length and clarified on the talk page there throughout the year. There are several editors aware of these changes, so one of us will pick up on it whenever the data is changed. Thank you for your vigilance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki should thank you.You'd merit a star.151.40.29.113 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Hispanic neighborhoods / Dominican American edits reverted[edit]

My contributions to these pages weren't test edits. I'm also confused as to why my edit was tagged as "not constructive". I'm using the sources from the 2010 Census already given there. The list originally had some cities that did not match up with the Census at all. I was fixing those. I also noticed that it was reverted because it was unsourced? That whole page lacks sources, why was my edit the main focus in that? If that were a legitimate reason to revert my edit then that whole page should've been deleted. 209.6.194.232 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you felt that I was targeting you specifically. In both instances, I asked for sources for the changes in my edit summary. What I placed on your page are standard templates, an are not intended as indictments.
Both articles have been developed without sources and, as such, I think it is time to par them back to stubs, or tag them for deletion. If you have sources, it would be greatly appreciated if you could add them. If you're truly interested in developing them as genuinely informative, encyclopaedic articles, it would be worth opening an account. I'll leave a template message for you on your talk page in order for you to evaluate whether you'd prefer to have an account. There are also additional resources available through Wikipedia if you wish to develop these articles with sources (such as Resource Request and the various google tests. Cheers, and good luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spetsnaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Troops of Russia|Russian Internal Troops]] (VV), successor to the Soviet [[Internal Troops]]) paramilitary units to combat internal threats to the government, such as insurgencies and mutinies.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Additional bracket removed. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Dear Iryna Harpy, thank you for your recent teamwork effort. I really appreciate it and hope this barnstar brightens your day! With regards, AnupamTalk 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Anupam! Working on articles which are POV battlefields as I do, it was a rare pleasure to be able to work constructively with an editor whose aim is to improve the Wikipedia project. Warm regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with editing[edit]

Hi Iryna, you may remember me from my (unfortunately wasted) efforts at combating bias and POV-pushing in articles related to Poland. It looks like someone else has taken up my cause, but he is facing the same resistance of edit warring and refusal to accept change as I did. Would it be possible for you to review the content of this discussion and see whether anything can be done to moderate the behaviour of users Xx236, Boston9 and Poeticbent as well as letting the first sentence of the Poland article see some much-needed (and long overdue) change? If you do not have the time and/or authority on Wikipedia to assist us in this, I would be very grateful if you could pass this on to someone else who could see it through (feel free to quote anything I wrote in this message). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember you. I've taken a cursory look at the 'discussion'. No surprises there. Rather than weighing in, I suspect that the best I could do for the integrity of the article is to take the issue of 'Eastern or Central Europe' before a WP:DRN while I'm still uninvolved. In fact, because this has been an ongoing and contentious issue, it may be better to take it before the WP:ARBEE. Let me think on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Have you ever considered becoming a sysop? I imagine it is a bit of a drag in some respects, however, you seem like the perfect candidate. You have a good knowledge of policies, a level-head, an ability to compromise, to deal with problem editors, to help resolve disputes, and so forth. Your ability to mediate disputes as a sysop would be a great help to the project. I've noticed the dearth of proactive sysops around, as I'm sure you have, and we really need more who are willing to step into the fray. As such, when I was reading the administrators' noticeboard for the sake of some other matters, I noticed this thread, where TParis said that he'd like to nominate someone for adminship. Of course, it is up to you as to whether you'd be interested in this "no big deal" affair, but I do think that you'd be a great help to the project. RGloucester 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do a review of your contribs for candidacy. I won't hold the Russell's teapot userbox against you - too much ;) --v/r - TP 02:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A funny thing happened to me on the way to work one day. I received a call asking me to see the Vice Chancellor of my uni before i took my first seminar for the day. I was told that I'd been nominated by a few Deputy Vice Chancellors for an Honorary Doctorate in Logistics and that, after consulting with the staff of several faculties, he had endorsed it. I found it embarrassing but, under duress, ended up at the next postgrad ceremony in the robes I'd technically earned only to be greeted by a standing ovation I didn't fully believe was merited. In the minds of my colleagues, I was the one who didn't fall apart; understood the big picture as well as the details; did not shirk my responsibility; did not play at favourites (even if it was at their expense because I could always justify my position despite its not being my preference).
Now to the not-so-funny part. Had someone other than RGloucester suggested this to me, I would have taken it as an insult to my intelligence, knowing that the person suggesting it was thinking about guarantees that they'd always have someone on 'the inside' taking their side. As it was RGloucester, I know there can be no such expectations from an editor who develops content following policies and guidelines despite their own political/moral/personal compass.
I started working on Wikipedia as a challenge to my many years of having a free hand to interpret research and throw myself into a new learning curve demanding the opposite of me. I had pretty visions of developing articles on visual artists. Instead, I've spent more and more of my time dedicated to that which takes precedence for me: POV pushing and blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. As I've evolved into taking on the role of watching articles (ex-Soviet areas in particular) under attack from the escapees from current affairs articles, it's become the mainstay of my work on Wikipedia. The question, then, is whether I like this role. I loathe and love it because I must follow policy above and beyond my 'self'. Whether I am made of the right stuff to be a good sysop is a question I can't know the answer to without trying the hat on. I would assume there would be reliable supervision and plenty of constructive criticism from the outset if I were regarded a reasonable potential candidate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@TParis: You're welcome hold BR's T against me as much as you wish to. In fact, I have quite a large number of articles on religions on my watchlist in order to halt POV refactoring of content. The duties of a Harpy are clear, so just consider me a benign lower deity, despite religion being the opiate of the masses. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's my presumption, Iryna. RfA doesn't appear to be the most friendly process, but imagine that TParis is more knowledgeable on these matters than I am. I do think that your comments above reinforce my personal opinion that you are suited to the task, and I hope others can potentially agree. I suppose his evaluation is more useful than mine, and hence, I shall leave it up to him. RGloucester 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've only ever observed RfA procedures, but am aware of how tough the process is. If I can't withstand that atmosphere, I don't believe I'd be a good candidate. I have no illusions as to being Ms Popularity. That's no how I perceive the function of being a good contributor, much less a good sysop (not to imply that being overly hard-nosed is desirable). I'll see what TParis has to say on the matter. It could quite simply be that I still need broader experience, and that suggestions as to how to broaden my experience of applicable prerequisites could be improved in order to apply at a future date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no illusions as to being Ms Popularity. That's no how I perceive the function of being a good contributor, much less a good sysop (not to imply that being overly hard-nosed is desirable). - that right there gets you my vote. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to establish that I didn't accidentally click on the 'thanks' feature, VM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that was a good edit.[edit]

Good call reverting the attempt to sweep under the rug that, despite Vlad's on-again off-again denials, he actually laid legal groundwork for the Anschluss in Ukraine ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine&action=history

Rather a bit of a red herring to suggest it was "never acted on". <trying hard not to laugh given the tragic nature of the situation> but a red herring of a new sort...red piranha maybe. Wikidgood (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, herrings don't have the teeth to growl and intimidate with. Red wolf-fish, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

My own prize for peace[edit]

Peace dove.svg

From what I've seen you do about the crisis and the war in Ukraine, and not only ... This white dove, which I don't have, I would donate to you immediately if I had one. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Peace[edit]

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Peace

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Derianus. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Grodno Region because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Derianus (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [3]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [4]

Information icon Hello, I'm Derianus. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [5].

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence: [6].

One more of these and I'm taking you straight to an WP:ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User_talk:Derianus can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Derianus (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC) - Evidence [7].

Harassment, nonsense insertion[edit]

Please stop your harassment as you did on Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine. Also don't insert nonsense in articles like you did on Grodno Region. Derianus (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to point out where the nonsense is that I've inserted into the Grodno Region article?... Please demonstrate this via use of diffs, and desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I just come from writing what could be an answer for your question: Talk:Grodno Region#Controversial changes to the article. Cheers and good editing. Derianus (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to see how you quickly obfuscated the red links you'd created in the Brest article I'd noted here. As for removing my comment twice from from Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine, you'd better familiarise yourself with what is and is not acceptable according to WP:TPO. Further advice: posting complaints (particularly when you are deliberately misrepresenting the context) is known as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. An example, this is a prime example. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not obfuscate anything. Instead you did obfuscate content/context, by not distinguishing between province and region. And I did not post a complaint. You misrepresent the case. If anyone did forum shopping it was you, because you went to an unrelated article talk (Oblasts of Ukraine) to spread word about edits on Brest Region. Brest is not Ukraine, that's it. Maybe you better edit articles in an area where you have more knowledge. Derianus (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

You seem pretty up on these things I wonder if you can offer advice on how to fix this very subtle POV in the presentation of Stephen Cohen as a belaguered underdog. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I'll weigh in when I get a moment. I've noted some goings on surrounding that article on a couple of noticeboards. I'm currently a little bogged down in other issues (whiffs of POV pushing are floating around all over the place at the moment). Cheers for the heads up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh THAT'S what that smell was...Wikidgood (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. All articles surrounding Eastern Europe have been tricky territory, but the last year of events in Ukraine have stirred the compost heap... and attracted a new layer of disgruntled contributors. Watch where you tread: you never know when a big bit is going to pop up and thwack you in the face. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)