User talk:Iryna Harpy

Looking for a city in Ukraine

Is there a city or town or fortress called Tavan below the lower Dnieper river north of Perekop that was constructed in 1492 C.E. by Mengli Giray? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: The only references I've been able to find are for "Тавань" (transliterated as Tavan'). Apparently, the fortress was captured by the Cossack leader Bogdan Glinski in 1493 (Ukrainian Wikipedia page, plus Glinsky is listed here in English Wikipedia). It's located in the Ochakiv Raion (you'll find a few short paragraphs about it in that article), although Meñli I Giray is only mentioned in the Ukrainian Wikipedia entry as having constructed the fortress. The fortress must have existed for some time after that as various forces tussled over it due to its strategic value. I have no idea of whether anything remains of it. The Russian articles have even less detail than that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I've found some more information. Although I noticed that there were a number of references to it being on the banks of the Dnieper, it appears that it was an island strategically located between two shores, and was flooded at a later date in history. Here's the map.

As an aside, be careful if you want to use the written Slavic word (Тавань) as a search term: unfortunately, Google confuses it with "Тайвань" (Taiwan), probably due to a lot of searches where people typing in Russian or Ukrainian mistype it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes yes, this is correct, it seems nobody lives there anymore, also Bogdan is a Tatar renegade from the Glinsky family, their coat of arms even have a tamgha on it. What is the admisntriation divsion of Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania in Ukraine in the late 15th century, I'm looking for Volhynia like the Kiev Voivodeship , but the one on Wikipedia starts very late, known as Volhynian Voivodeship (1569–1795) or maybe I'm confusing myself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was just reading up about it at the Kherson Litopys website, and it wasn't clear. I get the impression that it changed hands a number of times during that period of time, but I'll see whether I can dig up something more specific about the latter half of the century. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: It was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the 1432-1569 period), which tallies with what I know. None of the other candidates rang a bell with me in relation to what was going on in that particular region. Also, bear in mind that the area was very much a domain of the Ottoman Empire until the mid-1500s. Per the Kherson Litopys, entitled "The territory of Kherson region in the IX - mid XVIII centuries":

"In the XV century, the entire territory of the Northern Black Sea was part of the Crimean Khanate, formed in 1443, after the collapse of the Golden Horde. In 1475 the Khanate fell into vassalage to Turkey...

... The first reports reflecting the Cossacks raiding Tatars in Ukraine are from 1489 and 1516. Cossacks descended down the Dnieper in their boats ("Seagulls"), went out into the Black Sea, appeared at the walls of Istanbul, made trips to Crimea, destroyed the fortress, the enemy's fortifications, freed prisoners. Often trips were made alongside Russian warriors. In 1556 Russian soldiers and Cossacks captured the fortress on the island of Tavan'." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Iryna Harpy. When I saw the original question, I was intrigued, but I found nothing useful on WP, so I have been interested in what has been added since. All I managed to do was google "tavan ukraine" and this sent me here. What this tells me is that it is ruined, having been destroyed in 1695. At least that is consistent with what you are saying. Anyway, thank you for giving me a clearer idea about the Crimean Khanate, which was something very much on the edge of my consciousness. Interesting to see what was going on elsewhere in the days of my Valois Dukes of Burgundy and their Habsburg successors. LynwoodF (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That is correct I think that is the old Ruthenian word for Tavan (which is Tjahyn) that was used by Grand Duke Alexander son of Casimir in a letter to Mengli Giray in 27 June 1492.

Also thank you Iryna and LynwoodF for the help. Also Iryna if you still have the book I gave it to you, by Paul Magosci, you can see Tavan on page 178 in the map. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Magosci map is very rudimentary, so if you were going by that, I can understand why it didn't make sense as being an island. His map is unclear for me, also, as I know none of the major tributaries of the Dnieper are located around there. The Tyahinka makes sense as it doesn't appear to be a tributary but, rather, flows into the Dnieper (although that's just a guesstimate: it could be a minor tributary). You can certainly see why Tavan' was such a desirable strategic vantage point to for building a fortress on the island. The word, 'Tyahinka', is a diminutive for "tyahat'" which means 'to pull', so it would probably be a reflection of its having good currents, but not dangerous ones (hence the name 'little puller'). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, LynwoodF. Thanks for joining in and assisting on this search for those details that bring history to life! I'm a history buff, and all of human history fascinates me... but there's something about this period of history that really tweaks my whiskers. The Ottoman Empire - in itself an intriguing study - has suffered from centuries of bad PR in Western historiography. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was actually interested in Tavan not because of the map but because of the destruction it received under Bogdan Glinsky. I didn't know what it was, I know only that Mengli Giray was building it. Also how about Islamkerman on the lower dnieper? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov In the case of Islamkerman, it was Ostap Dashkevych. See this reference (The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania: International Diplomacy on the European Periphery (15th-18th Century). A Study of Peace Treaties Followed by Annotated Documents. Chapter 2: On the East European Chessboard. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania in the Years 1523-1671). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I'm reading that book actually, but I'm a slow reader. Also you linked a perso named Ostap not a city Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Oh, I thought you were looking for the person (Ostap Dashkevych) who destroyed the Tartar fort at Islamkerman (see page 65). Are you trying to find where Islamkerman fort was located in modern times? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on mentoring

I appreciated your supportive words during the recent AN/I, and I thought I would give you a brief outline of my methodology which I attend to adopt.

• A holistic approach is essential. I have seen a lot of mentoring attempts, but they often degenerate into ad hoc, firefighting interventions which do not tackle the whole situation.
• An initial approach, and considerable discussion with the mentoree. Often behavioural "triggers" can be identified and honestly explored at this stage.
• A period of about a week, where no controversial editing is done by any party, a cooling off period. It would appear that those who aggressively wish to edit despite this during this period, are often causal factors for issues.
• Initial discussions in a safe space, not the article T/P, in order to gain understanding, trust and finally concrete consensus amongst all involved parties. The safe space will be my own T/P. All parties are welcome to participate but I shall be ruthless in deleting or ejecting material and/or parties who are completely unable to show a colleagiate spirit.
• When consensus is reached on an issue, transferring it to the relevant article T/P for the community to examine.
• A two month shadowing of the mentoree and significant other parties if necessary to monitor improvement.

From Krzyhorse's initial responses, I am confident that he is not using this as a ruse, but in fact has pertinent things to say on the subject, and calmly and rationally outlined his issues re sourcing and facts. Not one personal attack was made. The tone was constructive. I believe he is here to build an encyclopedia. I believe we can get a positive outcome from this. These are my initial impressions. I think Kh just responds poorly to perceived pressures, and feels there is some kind of deadline. He is very reactive, which I think he recognises. I have had to revert a couple of edits Buckshot made earlier, as I felt this would inflame the situation and bring us back to square one before the process has begun. He has not reverted and I sense he understands the situation. I will drop him a note some time thursday explaining my methodology. Please take a look at the comments I have made on Kh's T/P. Any comments are welcomed. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for passing on this info on your strategy, Simon. It's well thought out and, once Krzyhorse22 is past using your talk page an SP, he's welcome to use my talk page as an extension of SP when he's in need of using someone else as a sounding board. I, too, feel confident that he's HERE, but that bad judgement calls spiralled out of control into prejudging all other editors and attacking first. Mentoring someone who's here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and get to THE TRUTH is a waste of everyone's time, yet I've seen some strange offers for mentorship where the editor is so far off the mark that it's like trying to help someone from upside-down world to turn Wikipedia into upside-down world, and the mentor has no structure set out. Is there a little engine-room for mentors with a community generated 'manual' anywhere?

Well, I guess that we all have our little egos to bolster, and like to feel superior... and certainly don't like admitting that we've made bad calls, but learning to be self-effacing is probably the most difficult part of the Wikipedia editor's learning curve, yet is more crucial than knowing the policies and guidelines off by heart. I'll be checking in on progress, but I won't interact with Krzyhorse until he's ready to interact, or unless he wishes to interact with me. I'm sure this is all embarrassing enough for him without having to feel as if I'm enjoying being condescending towards him, because I certainly don't believe myself to be superior to any other editor. Happy - and productive - mentoring! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A great, thoughtful response Iryna. I have not looked for a mentoring essay. I don't think one exists. This could be a framework for one. Maybe i've found a vocation :) Regards Simon Irondome (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: I'm glad I could be of assistance in helping you to work out what you want to do when you grow up. I still haven't figured out whether I want to grow up. In all seriousness, I do think some outlines for strategies are worth developing. There are good editors around who obviously want to use their potential skills for mentoring, but they really don't have any grounding in how it should be tackled, or in how to eliminate the wrong candidates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not grow up! Signed 54 going on 3 aka Irondome (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, identifying unsuitable candidates is critical. A time sink. We should add that. Maybe we can get something together over time. Would be useful in ed retention etc. Simon Irondome (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The list of editors willing to act as mentors has dropped dramatically in a couple of years. It would only take one bad experience for anyone who wants to try their hand at it to blow the chance of another mentor becoming a stable on the list. Currently, it's a lose/lose situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could work together on a framework for an essay. No rush, I know you are busy, but hashing out something may be useful. Mentoring is a bit chaotic at the moment. It's a greatly underused resort. Maybe we can firm it up. Signed A.N.Infant Irondome (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm willing to help cobble an essay up. We'll bang our old heads together to see whether there's anything left to drop out when we both have some time. There may yet be gems encrusted in the clumps of dried out earwax. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounded good. But you will have to speak up.Its my ear wax issue :) Irondome (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You did? That sounds nice, luvvy. I'll check back in after I remember where I left my specs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrovsky & Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grigory_Petrovsky&curid=11363402&action=history check this out....--Galassi (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi: Hmm, there's been a resurgence of 'interest' in any articles related to the subject. Thanks for the heads up. I've added it to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You For the Concern

I appreciate your concern over the edits in the DPR article. I can understand why you would get the impression that I appear to be trying to force my opinions upon someone, but I assure you, that is not my intent. I am simply trying to prevent another incident like the Whole ISIL status debacle. The debate currently going on in the talk page is showing signs of becoming just as bad as that incident, I was merely trying to revert the article back tothe way it was prior to the debate. Quite frankly, I find the entire discussion to be pointless and idiotic, and I want no part of it. The only reason I'm involved is because they started changing the article without reaching a consensus. I believe that is against Wikipedia's policy, so I was trying to restore it to the way it was before this whole arguement started. Unfortunately, it seems that simply doing that is dragging further into the discussion. Honestly, I wish these people would just leave the articles alone until a consensus is reached, or better yet, just leave the article the way it is without starting unnecessary arguements that end up getting everyone in trouble, which inevitably leads to users getting banned, and especially when it is over something as ridiculous as this. Who wants to argue over a stupid infobox? The arguement has nothing to do with the relavency of the facts within the article. Its all a matter of opinion. Encyclopedia's are about fact, not opinion. To let opinion take precedence over fact makes the article biased, which makes it practically useless to the reader. But I digress. I simply wanted to explain my actions. I apologize if I appeared to be trying to start another edit war. Thanks for the warning. Anasaitis (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: There's absolutely no reason for you to apologise! I'm not taking this as being a reflection of any personal animosity between myself and other editors, such as yourself, who are HERE. Any comments I'd made about POV pushing were made earlier with regards to some other editors. My take on it was that it was a matter of consensus can change, and that the infobox being used had turned into this: no attribution and over the top. Again, per my comment at the RfC, I'd actually !voted for infobox 'country' in December of 2014. Since then, however, the situation has become less clear and the Minsk II protocols, the closing down of the Novorossiya Project, lack of any official recognitions, and the ongoing war still being ongoing have made an NPOV article even more difficult to gauge. The RfC is POV in its wording and, frankly, I don't believe it was the appropriate place for an RfC if the question is in regards to how multiple articles about unrecognised states and states of limited recognition should be treated for the sake of parity across Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First you thank me and now you threaten me? Why? Don't you get it? This is the same stupid arguement that started that awful edit war on the ISIL page! In fact, some of the same users who started that catastrophe are behind this one! That stupid discussion degenerated into an edit war that waged off and on for almost a year, maybe even longer. Several users were banned, some of them permanently! All because of some stupid infobox! Now, some of the same people from last time are starting exact same thing all over again! It was so frustrating that it even made me lose my cool, and the incident remains the only time I have ever been blocked during my time as a user on Wikipedia. All I am trying to do is to remove the appearance of favoritism towards one side of the arguement, which hopefully will prevent an escalation like last time. I don't want the same problem to rear its ugly head again. Anasaitis (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: As I explained in the ES in reverting you, I'd mistakenly thought your message on the LPR's talk page was in reference to retaining the military infobox until the RfC is over. I understand what you're doing but, whatever the outcome, there have already been edit wars over this on both of the articles, and nothing has to be 'remedied' right now. Wikipedia is not a race, and if you start another edit war up, you will be blocked. There are admins watching over the pages attentively, so just don't put yourself into a position where you could get yourself blocked. It's not going to stick at the moment, so why put yourself in such a position. Once the RfC has been closed, editors will have a clearer view as to how to proceed from there. At the moment, it's turned into such a mess that it's best to let things blow over. Just try to keep a cool head over the matter and things can be sorted in a fresh venue and without forum shopping. These are problems of parity across Wikipedia articles and it would be worth the while considering them via more discussion to avoid future edit warring. One thing at a time... and let the dust settle whichever way the decision falls. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I have no intention of starting an edit war. I was just trying to prevent another edit war resulting in the banning of multiple losers, all over some ridiculously trivial issue. I'm glad this was just a misunderstanding over intentions. I don't want to get in a fight with another user. We have enough of those already. I was just felt that leaving the war faction infobox up, which reflects the views of those users who want to change the article, gives the appearance, however unintentional, of favoritism towards one side of the discussion. I simply restored it to the way it was before this nonsense started, thus preventing any changes until a consensus is reached. That's all I was trying to do. Anasaitis (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: Yes, I know it was done in good faith. I think that the fundamental problem lies with the templates themselves. There are no clear recommendations as to which ones apply to what sort of entity. As noted by another user, geopolitical organisations actually refers to this. There needs to be some form of community discussion about these infobox templates as there simply isn't any clear delineation as to which suits what purpose. It may entail creating another infobox specifically designed for breakaway states/separatist states, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem

With the word German, I just wanted some sort of unifying word. Nazi occupied Europe isn't quite right, because it's not just Nazi occupied, its also puppet states, and states with pro-nazi fascist regimes... By the way, you're from the polish-Lithuanian commonwealth? That's pretty awesome. My family is from there too. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Well, technically, I'd count myself as being 'Ukrainian'... whatever that really means. Convoluted histories make 'bitsers' of all of us... and that, essentially, is the problem with finding a unifying word for an extremely complex ideology. 'Nazi' is hardly ideal, but I don't know of any existing terminology that describes the bigger picture in 50 characters or less. Anyway, I've responded on the article's talk page. Perhaps a bright spark amidst other editors might be able to come up with something better. It ain't easy being green NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have family from Ukraine too. They were from Odessa. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They left cause of this --Monochrome_Monitor 11:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I suspected that might be the reason considering that there had been a thriving Jewish community there. The Russian Empire was not a good place to be Jewish. In fact, it was not a good place to be anything other than a well-to-do Russian. Truly horrific stuff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, exactly. Serving in the Russian army was a bitch too, they controlled every aspect of their lives (like who they could marry) and demanded something like 15 years. Many of my ancestors were deserters. :D But I'm glad they left... because of this.

I think it's super cool you're descended from Cossacks though. No hard feelings ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(t/p/s) I don't think there were any in the first place MM :) Irondome (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say that there are monumental moments in history that I'm definitely not a fan of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, that's exactly what I was thinking of. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Debate

I would not comment on the article talk page because that leads nowhere. But here is the problem as I see it. This is not a democratic country and not an ordinary politician. In fact, the decision to take Crimea (for example) was made by one person. It comes at no surprise that he is held responsible for making these decisions by the vast majority of RS. Therefore, all of that does belong to his BLP page. And his decisions are terrible: they brought Russia in economic and political crisis and isolation, made the crisis in Syria much worse, etc. However, there is a group of contributors who want his BLP page sill look like a panegyric, despite all these recent and extremely important developments. This is obviously against BLP and NPOV. Hence the disputes. Un(fortunately), giving my previous history, I would rather stay out of this. My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What ever can be said against Putin, but it is clear his intervention in Syria did not "make the crisis much worse", but rather managed in what the Western babblers had so miserably failed, i.e. turning the tide against the Islamic State. Dorpater (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is not what sources tell. But whatever. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Dorpater, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It reminds me of some 'left wing' commentators saying things like 'Better a small war now than a big war later' regarding the invasion of Iraq: reactionaries are reactionaries, whatever their purported politics are. I agree with My very best wishes: he's not a generic political head, but a cult figure whose cult status is growing. The vocal majority of the RF are enamoured of him, while the minority live under constant threat and danger. Now Syria has become a world stage on which to gain cult status universally, and it is unabashed opportunism. Make no mistake, I am deeply cynical about Western politics... but I don't fall for the 'opposite of Western' = 'good' for one moment. I believe it to be tragic that the RT generation find it convenient to pigeon-hole everything as being black and white, but I understand that people want to believe that there are easy answers encompassing the mire that is our global economic stage.

That said, I know that my reading of what is and isn't appropriate for the bio is going to be understood as my railing against consensus. I also know that battleground editors would have no problem in cherry picking diffs to 'prove' that I'm a Russophobe, despite the fact that I've also been accused of being a Russophile and Kremlin troll... and that, like MVBW, I'm not short of 'enemies'. Consequently, I'm not going to insinuate myself on the article or discussions any longer. The great thing about history is that his bio will be written based on academic sources long after we're dead, so there's no point in investing my time in aggravation I don't need. I simply don't have that kind of emotional investment in any articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Iryna, I do agree that his personality cult exists, however just to be objective, these users are not his fans. I know it because most of them did not edit his BLP page before (that is what all fans usually do). There should be other reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, that was probably something of a sweeping generalisation on my behalf. What they do have in common is possibly an AGF WP:POINT to make which isn't necessarily to do with being fans of Putin, rather that of striking a false balance as to Putin's role as head of state in comparison with other heads of state (that is, they're seeing parity in the role that Western heads of state - who get voted in and out, and are pretty much interchangeable - play in governance that does not manifest in the same way). Nevertheless, I do think that there's a pronounced confusion between an understandable cynicism about Western governments and sources and that which is significant about Putin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think these users stated very clearly what they actually wanted in their arbitration request, and this is not improvement of the BLP page. But that's fine. I do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: They have the physical numbers to form consensus, and the tenacity not to allow anything they don't like past them, therefore there's nothing to be done (whatever their motives are). I may not like it, but it's not worth losing sleep over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I guess it came to the point when I really should not edit anything political (or probaly should not edit anything at all) because my account is no longer anonymous. But perhaps I occasionally will edit something. Good bye, My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I, for one, would be sorry to see you stop editing. If your anonymity has been blown, would it be worth considering WP:CLEANSTART? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be probably #2 (privacy concerns) of legitimate uses, rather than fresh start account (#8). Since I do not have any editing restrictions or bans on my current account, that might be an option. Interestingly, #2 tells not about switching to another account, but about using an "alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions" in certain subject area(s). And the overall idea behind all these rules is pretty simple: to contribute positively to content and do not disrupt the project. As long as someone does just that, no one suppose to complain. But here is the problem: if I start editing something in EE or other subject areas under discretionary sanctions, someone is going to complain. On the other hand, if I edit something else, this could work just fine. Thanks, I will think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, legitimate concerns was the rationale I was thinking of... Well, when it comes to editing EE areas, it's always going to be precarious. I do understand your concerns given the fact that we have a number of tendentious editors who have 'embedded' themselves in a manner that WP:CRUSH is the only way to describe their editing behaviour. It's impossible to even start a case against any one of them because any ARB submissions are automatically hijacked by those editors with the objective of turning them into yet another HUNT. Honestly, if I have to look at the same assortment of diffs and accusations again, I'm going to scream. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even a whiff of something they could construe as being impropriety could raise a posse of pitchfork-shakers. But, then again, it might not.

I guess I just find it morally repugnant that the same names (that is, including ours) are constantly being brought up as being linked to a cabal and OWN. How can (literally) a handful of editors OWN articles that, at their lowest traffic rate, have dozens of editors watching and contributing to them? The only thing that comes close to resembling a cabal is the same groups of editors who suddenly pop out of the woodwork to rail against RS and consensus because their only objective has only ever been POV, and to 'win'. Oh, well, I doubt that this is making it any easier for you to make a decision. I'm just tired of having to fight for NPOV articles, but I'll keep at it because that's how I'm wired. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I can provide an advice, but consider this as example. I made a minor and non-controversial edit: removal of small segment of text that is simply not about subject of the page. Suddenly, two people appear, one of them from Moscow [1], to strongly object the obvious change, with walls of text and personal insults [2] that are simply not true (I started the argument from stating that content is irrelevant for the page). What should I do? My reaction is to simply stay away of the page and of at least one of these contributors. Same reaction as with the page about P. If he/she/they follow your edits on other pages, that could make them a subject for sanctions. Would it work for you? Anyway, thank you for discussion and good bye! My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know there's no advice you can give to help out, just as I can only act a moral support for you. The fact is that there must be hundreds of people following these articles who are well aware of who has a profile on Wikipedia, and who they consider to be their personal enemies. We're all 'followed' around: which is attested to by the number of IP editors and throw-away accounts who'll suddenly start trying to change content and write tirades against the 'enemies' of THE TRUTH as they see it. Unfortunately, that's par for the course when it comes to being an active editor who works on controversial topics. It is what it is, and there's no getting around the fact that people will try to cause as much grief as possible.

Ultimately, I started editing here as an academic exercise. Most of my life has been dedicated to research, so I thought it would be an excellent challenge to discard the dictates of OR. Usually, I'm not bothered by those who have an emotional investment in subject areas, but sometimes it gets to me: we are, of course, humans, not machines. On those occasions that it gets to me, I step away until I'm prepared to enter the arena again. If I get any more philosophical about it, I'll probably bore us both to death. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GfK poll

In this edit summary you said "Rv It has been discussed thoroughly on this and surrounding articles." Can you point me out to the discussion, as I cannot see any on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Thanks. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Bakharev. You'll have to allow me a little time to find the various discussions. Articles were being moved, merged, and overlapped on information at such breakneck speed that I'm going to have to dig around. Thanks for bearing with me while I pull a couple of years of diffs together. Sigh! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, I may have to wait until tomorrow to start casting the net around. I'm about to log off for today (although I might find time this evening to start on it). My apologies if my reaction seemed blunt. It was most certainly not aimed at you, but I just want to make that clear in case it was misunderstood. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, take your time. I have seen mention of this poll somewhere in a Crimea-related article, but I do not remember which one, nor what were the arguments for and against inclusion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue with user

You seem to have handled a Neutral Point of View issue recently. I stumbled over the same user because of some really biased edits. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[3]] and [[4]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). This is all in line with the critizism mentioned in this Neutral Point of View notice board issue which you seem to have closed. Did you consider all these edits or just the ones about the Washington Post issue? What is the appropriate way to act here? I have notified the user and his discussion page seems to indicate more of these issues. Shall I "reopen" this neutral point of view notice (if this is possible) or discuss this somewhere else? I am pretty new to the English wikipedia (I actually just opened an account to track these issues) so any help would be appreciated. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Yes, I retained the user's talk page on my watchlist due to a feeling that there's something not quite right about their editing habits, and noticed your warnings. Having checked through the diffs, I'm feeling fairly confident that, even if the editor is not a POV pusher, there's either a WP:COMPENTENCE problem, or that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Most of his/her contributions appear to be minor, yet there are significant changes lurking in these minor changes in as much as there are instances of the removal of legitimately placed tags for citations... coupled with the fact that the editor doesn't provide edit summaries for such significant changes.

Given the overall behavioural patterns, this is really something to be taken to the WP:ANI, not the NPOVN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall I report this? Or do I have to wait for some time and see whether my notification does provoke any response or change in behaviour? LucLeTruc (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: I'd actually like to see some form of discussion between editors regarding content. As it currently stands, the editor has never involved themselves in any discussions: per this talk page summary, you'll note that talk pages have only been 'visited' twice since creating their account, and then only to change the project class template, plus to remove vandalism. To that end, I've started a talk page section regarding content for the Poggenburg article. Let's see what happens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your constructive and communication focussed approach. The censorship behaviour, however, does not seem to stop. I have send some more escalating warnings but I doubt that they are actually read. At least there is no response. I have written warnings directly in the revert comments so there is no way the user does not see this. If there are some more edits like this without interaction I will report this to the board that you mentioned, correct? LucLeTruc (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: You're welcome. Given that the editor has actually responded with an attack from the outset of his/her communications with anyone, I'd say that another one or two exchanges without a change in attitude would clinch it for an ANI. Should you open a section there, please feel free to ping me from there — i.e., use {{ping|Iryna Harpy}}. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Little green men (Ukrainian crisis)=

Oh, come on Iryna — don't tell me you didn't laugh when you saw the "soldier with cat" monument! Something like that should be preserved for the future generations! Cloud200 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cloud200: The Russian Defence Ministry's weird-pride laser beam show is pretty high on the mirth scale, too... but I'm not here for the laffs. If there's an argument for inclusion, take it to the article's talk page. Talk about a good argument for not letting someone anywhere near your pets or livestock. "May I fit for your sheep for gumboots, ma'am?" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan War

So I added the citation using the prove it box, but its by itself at the bottom of the page. Also I can't seem to get it to move up with the references and cite in the infobox at the top of the article. Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Wikieditor101, I think I've worked it out. Is the Max Boot book you introduced here the reference for the 'dissolution'? If so, do you have a page number/page numbers for it so I can set up the reference to the statement in the infobox? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Russian.

I stumbled on this page that needs some translation love. Can you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army

Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikieditor101. I've added it to my 'hopeful' list. Unfortunately, I've given up on 'to do' lists as I'm far too interested in so many areas of Wikipedia to even dream of improving the content of every article I'd like to get my teeth into in one lifetime. Sigh. Too many pies, not enough fingers.

You have, however, inadvertently reminded me that I have a stub for the Great Patriotic War I'd promised Buckshot06 I'd pull out of my sandbox and set up (including templating it for expansion from Russian Wiki). Given that I'm likely to be developing the article and getting drawn into other articles surrounding this area, I'd say that the Soviet Army article stands a good chance of going from 'hopeful' to 'so enthusiastic that I have to try to get it up to par'. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help

Hello Iryna, I noticed you are a heavy 8 hours a day, editor. I was looking for a paid wiki editor possition and I assumed you may be able to help. I live in Sankt-Peterburg and my friend told me about the place on ul. Savushkina may be looking for English editors. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about you, maybe you can send me other users you know about. Regards Gladstonemoscow (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Kozhedub

Dear User:Iryna Harpy, there is a discussion about Ivan Kozhedub's place of birth on the talk page [5], the matter concerns the problem of status of Ukrainian SSR. I would be very glad to hear your opinion! Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna. Do you know anything about this dispute? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: ). Neither side comes out looking good, but I'm unsure if there is an admin action I could take that would help anything. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I took a brief look at it yesterday and was going to try to intervene with a compromise. I'll take a look at a couple of tertiary sources and weigh in at the ANE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Okay, I've left my 2¢ on the article's talk page. Ушкуйник can dig his heels in on aspects of articles, but he certainly does discuss content and work collaboratively. It's really an issue of the prominence of a technically, so I don't think any admin action is going to help to resolve this. Hopefully, we'll be able to work out a consensus solution. Maybe a warning to Viggen is in order. I am, however, concerned about another editor having crawled out of the woodwork after two years. Ah, well. We shall see. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dugin

I'd be inclined to keep that info. It really speaks for itself, regardless of Dorpater's intentions.--Galassi (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ne personal assaults in the ES's.

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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 [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.

By claiming I advocate in favour of someone who is described as Fascist in the intro is a severe personal assault. If you repeat it, I'll have to report you. Thanks. All my edits reflect NPOV, i.e. neither in favour of the subject nor against, i.e. no advocacy. --Dorpater (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)