User talk:Iryna Harpy

Section Deleting

@Iryna Harpy:You recently entered a discussion I had with Santilak about an article and, among other things, you told me that "nor do you get to shut down a thread you've started because you want to play at 'I can't hear you'" for having just said "Clearly this conversation is leading nowhere and I feel it would be better to discontinue it.", you then moved the discussion to the article's talk page, to which I have no objection. Now, after a few exchanges of posts between you and me, you got tired yourself and let me know that "this is the end of communications from me." That in itself would be fine, but you didn't stop there. You went on to delete the whole section without even warning me. Is this fair or polite behaviour? Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy didn't delete the section, they just just collapsed it, those two things are completely different. - SantiLak (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: The section is still there. There's no need for a protracted WP:BAIT and WP:BATTLE to feature there, so I've collapsed it. If anyone is interested, they can open it and take a look, and it remains on record without having to search through the history. Yes, I did ask you to take your content discussion to the relevant talk page, but it turned into a bloated WP:tl;dr about personal complaints. It's the wrong venue for blustering by any editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Finally we both agree. The exchanges were too long and, I daresay, clogged with jargon. Let's hope our future encounters will be both brief and civil and, above all, constructive. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: That's precisely the point. It doesn't serve anyone's interests in getting arguing for the sake of argument (and I accept that I was equally culpable in allowing it to escalate to that point). Wikipedia would just be Propagandapedia if editors always conveniently agreed with each other (or Zombiepedia?). The only way forward in making it a quality resource is by examining the minutia. I've found that the best editors are the ones who will disagree on certain points, but agree on others (which is not to claim that I'm a good editor). It's an ongoing project where spats are inevitably going to take place, and are healthy for the evolution of the project, although I'd be interested in finding some stats on how many of us have suffered strokes, nervous breakdowns and other health issues as a result of their participation!

I've never consistently agreed with any editors, nor do my interpretations of policy actually necessarily bring me any form of satisfaction. I'd even go so far as to say that a large portion of my time and energy goes into giving myself heartburn simply because those decisions run contrary to my own POV. I certainly don't take you for being anyone's fool, so any disagreements aren't personal, hence I'm also looking forward to constructive, fruitful interactions on content matters. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

Hi Iryna! I reverted one of your editions since you didn't give an explanation that would be (at least for me) satisfactory enough. I asked you a more satisfactory explanation. Are you of Ukrainian descent? I live in a country where tons of Ukrainians live, from both sides. Therefore I'm not a simple ignorant about this issue, and I want peace for all of you if you're indeed Ukerainian), both from Lviv, Ternopil, Mikholaiv or Donetsk (I've met ppl from all these places and given my profession I've helped some of them, including from persecutions by the former pres Yanukovitch). Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all fine, Viet-hoian1, but it has nothing to do with the content of articles... nor does my ethnicity or personal POV. I've reverted your revert as it is being discussed on the talk page of the article. This isn't a personal issue between the two of us, but involves other editors with regard to policy and guideline lead decisions as to what is appropriate within the constraints of the article, and what is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's nothing personal, but where is that discussion? I haven't discovered it so far. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions of the content in question (and any derivations of it) is all over that talk page, but you're free to start a new section dedicated to that particular change if you wish. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Iryna, if you haven't already caught on, that the above fellow is none other than Mondolkiri1. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed that some time ago. He's working from 2 accounts here (at the least). I wouldn't usually tolerate block evasion, but... well, he's getting nowhere fast. Hopefully, he'll just go away. Just check out this section. Exactly the same person: perceptions, English language idiosyncrasies, et al. To be honest, I couldn't be bothered starting an SPI despite having more than enough diffs. Maybe I'll template both of his user pages. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already submitted an SPI. Hopefully it will be dealt with in a swift manner. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

whatever that means, I have no intention about editing again about subjects like these on english wp, since I've seen how these topics are treated here, like in the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. My consciousness is clean and I'll proceed on Spanish wp, not here. Greetings, Iryna Harpy and Rgloucester whoever he or she is.

2 accounts... yes and i've explained to you why it happened. I lost my password on the wikipedia español, I created another and later I remembered the earliest one. I even give to you what the 1st one was and is: Marrakech. I'm tired of your dirty games, honestly. Do whatever you wish with that password. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Ending It

Thank you so much for ending that edit war! I can't believe it is finally over! Finally, no more arguements! No more endless debates! Words cannot even begin to describe my gratitude! I cannot thank you enough! Should you ever need my assistance, all you have to do is ask. It is the least I can do to repay you. I may not be the most experienced user on this site, but I will assist you in any way I can. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Anasaitis (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me too soon, Anasaitis. I'm hoping that my self-revert will discourage other editors from prolonging the edit war until an uninvolved administrator comes in to evaluate the RfC. That said, I will respect whatever conclusion the admin draws about the type of infobox deemed to be appropriate. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is to not retain infobox country. You are free to undo your self-revert as per the RfC. Cheers, Khestwol (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

equatorial guinea

I did not vandalize it, EG IS authoritarian and has one party-that rules all, just check out North Korea or China, one big party and a handfull of minor legal oposition parties, I am sorry but I did not know I did wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.218.26 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:August 2015

It was a copy and paste error, hence why I changed it back right away. I see your good faith skills are as non-existent as ever. FYI I was the one who originally added and removed Alexios, and there were no objections either time. So feel free to undo your edit or raise an objection, otherwise I will put it back. --Steverci (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Steverci: if you want to be treated with more assumption of good faith, then at least learn to use proper edit summaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Steverci has been asked to do so by other editors, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Added to that, Steverci, self-reverting is the best and most efficient way to restore articles to their prior state. I chose to roll back all of your edits as you'd glaringly left "Greek genocide" as "Greek Genocide" against MoS standards here. I wasn't about to spend unnecessary time in going through every change to ensure your hadn't left other errors. I'm not concerned as to whether you were the one to exchange Alexios: don't change galleries without edit summaries as to what you're doing and why, and certainly not without consulting with others who are involved in the development of the article. We've already gone through this on Talk:Romanians and Talk:Russians. It's become very annoying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to USFK article

Sorry about not having reference source. As a senior official in the USFK, the information I added is both current and correct. However, since I am unable to cite a refence to matters currently being held close to the vest for political reasons, I shall not add good and informative information from an insider source ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.77.32.226 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources, verifiability, and NPOV policies. Wikipedia in an online encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. We don't break stories or accept any information that is not confirmed through secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Saint Cyril and Methodius

Hello, I will provide source, but this source is in Slovak language. My claim is supported by some web sources, but all of them are in Czech or Slovak language. Surely there exist some English articles on internet confirming my change, but I did not find any so far. Seven saints are worshipped in some Catholic and Eastern churches together: Cyril, Method and five their disciples - Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Angelar and Sava. Three of them, Gorazd, Clement and Naum, were ordained as priest, and two of them - Angelar and Sava - were ordained as deacon in Rome in 868.Lucullus19 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lucullus19: That seems fine as a source. I've just cited the reference fully, and tidied you translation a little. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

• In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors

• In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences?

• News and notes: Re-imagining grants

• Featured content: Out to stud, please call later

• Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration

• Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Hello Iryna!

Just curious, why did you do this edit? Aren't external links helpful?

Also I'd really like to know where does the simplification rule comes from. --Amakuha (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amakuha. I apologise for not leaving a proper ES or starting a talk page discussion as I tweaked my back and had no energy (in fact, I have to take some more pain killers and lie down for a while... akh, it's boring).

Could you please start a discussion on the article's talk page and ping me from there? Essentially, WP:UKROM is a mess. For the purposes of Wikipedia WP:P-NUK is in place for geographic nomenclature, but is not noted there. Essentially, we don't have a parallel guide for Wikipedia's transliteration of Ukrainian as an equivalent to the Russian WP:RUROM guide. It was originally envisaged that the Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN transliteration table article would serve as such a parallel, and would take in Help:IPA for Ukrainian. I really do think that all of the articles on the Romanization of Ukrainian need to be cleaned up, but most specifically that a simplified version for a transliteration system as part of Wikipedia's MOS: should be easily found and accessible for both editors and readers. Чух-чух твою макушку! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your health... I hope it's nothing serious and you are feeling better.

Regarding the «Чух-чух твою макушку!» I hope it wasn't a personal attack against my surname :) --Amakuha (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I couldn't help myself. My mother was addicted to having the crown of her head scratched... If you have a "chub", that would make for easy access. My back problem is the result of forgetting how old I am and deciding I could climb a tree just as easily as I did when I was young. Now that's embarrassing to admit. There's no fool like an old fool! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this, Amakuha. I'm temporarily caught up in areas of Wikipedia and will respond to the section you've opened on the article's talk page as soon as possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

2,000 dead Russian soldiers

I highly contentious issue has arisen at the War in Donbass talk page in the section Casualties and losses and continued into the subsection Comment. I feel you as a committed editor of the War in Donbass should take part in this discussion and maybe propose a compromise that has not been thought of so far. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me a note, EkoGraf. I was expecting this to come up since the so-called leaked reports, and noticed some edit warring without any real discussion a couple of days ago, but I haven't returned to it since. I'll take a look at the arguments and join in. I don't particularly like it but, then, I don't particularly like the sensationalist nature of the Azov Battalion article... but what the RS say is what the RS say (even if they're just mimicking each other). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem here is they are only reporting a claim by a dubious media outlet, they are not confirming the claim. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it reminds me of the purported documentation 'found' by the Moscow Times last year. The problem is that, when enough RS report on it, it's used as a pretext for a COATRACK... and it's difficult to argue against using it because it always comes back to the "we can't ignore that RS are reporting on it, therefore it merits inclusion" argument. I still need to think on how to deal with it before I make any comments on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems at this point virtually everyone except Marek and Wishes are against the inclusion of the figure. However, now they have started arguing for the removal of the number of separatist dead and Ukrainians captured on the basis it was done via OR or Synth, although it was actually done on the basis of WP: CALC and sources are provided. I have attempted a compromise edit and elaborated on it in the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You know I've been following your use of CALC for the last couple of years on these articles alone, as have other regulars as regards your specialised area of stats as reflected in the Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis article, aside from the other articles you work on. I'd prefer to find a resolution outside of a DRN which is going to attract the 'usual' POV suspects and turn it into a fiasco, or an RfC which bring in uninformed, POV blow-ins, socks and meatpuppets. I think that, in order to expedite a solution, it may be productive to use my talk page as a venue. It's not something to be resolved as a compromise, so I'd encourage discussion here. Under the circumstances, I'm going to ping Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, RGloucester, Toddy1, and Ritsaiph before it becomes a complete tl;dr fiasco that no admin or volunteer wants to touch (as if anyone in their right mind has wanted to get involved with such articles in the first place). This doesn't mean that there's anything 'chummy' or 'cabal-like' in the manner in which we address this: simply that we try to make respectful, NPOV arguments for inclusion or exclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I wanted your opinion on something. Should we maybe move the 400-500 Russian soldiers killed (per State Department) from the brackets beside the 1,213 dead (confirmed per the graveyard image) and they be listed separately in the row bellow the 1,213 dead? And we note 400-500 is Russian soldiers and 1,213 is militants. Because as much as I have been reading other RS, it seems most of the alleged Russian soldiers killed are transported back to Russia and not left in Ukraine, so that graveyard most likely is just of native Ukrainian separatists. And the source itself calls it a separatist graveyard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I'd prefer to defer discussing how best to present casualties figures until we've come to some sort of agreement on what does and doesn't belong there. At the moment, I'm with RGloucester's bold move in removing that infobox section altogether, although I think it should be restored as soon as we've worked out what is relevant for the infobox. While slashing info can be appealing as a method for avoiding what are essentially unknown quantities, it serves a limited function when there are official stats. There are plenty of things it would be desirable to do away with because it can be justified as not being as relevant as other reliably sourced and known quantities, but not everything can be done away with on the pretext that it isn't important. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ekograf, in addition to adding your own original research to Wikipedia articles, using deceptive edit summaries, conducting talk page discussions in bad faith, you are now clearly engaged in WP:CANVASSING. It's annoying and bad faithed. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, thanks for pinging me on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Volunteer Marek. Personally, I don't construe this as canvassing. Ekograf knows that I'm involved in these articles, that he and I have a reasonable working relationship on various articles, and there's nothing wrong with bringing interested editors into the picture in case they're unaware of developments. By the same token, I could just as easily be accused of forum shopping and canvassing. I'd rather that we use this as a venue to work through differences of opinion between editors who have experience and some semblance of mutual respect for their abilities to work through issues collaboratively in respecting NPOV. While none of us always agree on issues, I certainly respect the integrity of the editors I've pinged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

bad faith? This coming from a man who chucks insults, accusations and generally hostile comments at fellow editors on a regular basis? Canvassing? I in no way did solicit Iryna's support when I sent him my message to get him involved on the issue, I asked him to come and look at the issue and perhaps propose a compromise (middle ground) that we hadn't thought off. And I also had no prior knowledge of his opinion about the issue before contacting him. Same goes for RGloucester. I contacted them two, not knowing what their personal opinions are on the issue, because they are two editors highly involved with the War in Donbass and in the hopes that they will have a solution to our argument and help both of us bring the matter to a close. EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, you are once again confusing things. "Bad faith" means hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules. Like using dishonest edit summaries. Insults or direct accusations are not hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME. In this instance there is no insults, although there are accusations of you behaving disruptively and in bad faith. Which are true and well substantiated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on, guys. I know we're all get worn out (and down) by the POV-pushers whose only aspiration is to turn articles on current affairs into journalistic, op-ed trash, but could we try not to personalise this, please? Once good editors fall out over maintaining the integrity of content, articles are dead in the water and the most tendentious editors swoop in to feed on the carcass (okay, I like to throw a bit of melodrama into scenarios, but that's essentially what happens).

The fact is that we have RS reporting on a report which may be true, but is not worth its salt unless/until it's tested and verified by independent sources. That being the case, it's still true that it has been reported on, therefore ignoring it becomes a problem because other editors and readers are aware of it, hence it is DUE somewhere. The question is where it is due.

Personally, I'm against the figures being used in the infobox and should only need a mention in the "casualties" section of the article if the details are described more comprehensibly in the "Casualties..." article. In any of these cases, I can't see any honest way past intext attribution. If that truly means that between us we determine that it's an imperative to create undesirable infobox clutter (that is, more 'according to' and 'estimates ranging from x to y'), then so be it. That's an issue that can be redressed further down the line once it becomes clearer as to whether the 'leaks' are substantiated as being the real deal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Each war/battle/offensive infobox has its casualty figures to inform our readers. RGloucester's removal all the casualty figures (including the UN ones) on the basis they are disputed and not serving any purpose, while a discussion on the figures is still ongoing is inappropriate. WP policy dictates that a status quo needs to be preserved while a discussion is ongoing before any changes are made. EkoGraf (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If more substantion is given to the claim (2,000 dead) about its reliability (which it lacks at the moment) I would have no objection for the figure to be an upper estimate compared to 400 per the State Department. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Addressing the removal of the casualty figures from the infobox, since no one seems to want to talk to anyone else, I'll leave a request for RGloucester to self-revert here. While I stand by the decision in principle (on the proviso that casualty figures be reinstated immediately after discussions here) not liking sourced information is not a valid excuse for deleting it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I already reinserted the figures. A total blanking of the infobox section while a dispute is to be resolved does not serve anyone any good, especially our readers. I would have maybe understood the removal of militants or Russian soldiers killed or Ukrainian POWs, but the removal of the overall figure provided by the UN or the official figure of Ukrainian servicemen killed provided by the National Museum wasn't appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am seriously considering the removal of the numbers of POWs from the infobox, since this seems to be one of the more sticky points. However, I am having trouble removing the numbers of POWs since prisoner exchanges have been really notable in the media. This would of course lead to the removal of the figures of defectors and wounded. Thus leaving only the numbers of dead and missing. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it all, I removed the number of captured militants, the number of captured soldiers (although the source clearly stated the figure), the number of defectors and the number of wounded. The dead and missing only remain. As for the 2,000 Russian figure, I'm still standing by everyone else that the RS, although they reported it, did not verify its reliability or that of the source and than the only sensible step would be to mention the report in the Casualties section. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

He did it. He removed it again. All of it. Marek. He removed it on the basis its OR and SYNTH. UN source clearly says 6,829 (2,500 civilians). Museum source clearly says 2,540 soldiers. And the other two refs clearly show/say 2,213 and 273. And he did a massive revert of everything I edited, including other textual changes in the article that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. EkoGraf (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I understand this to be the most desirable outcome for the infobox as, even if there are RS speculating on various numbers, we represent only confirmed dead and missing according to official reports (even if they're biased). Any information beyond what has been 'officially' confirmed by either side is unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose. Again, the "Casualties" section is only a summary of the main article on the subject. The article on the "War in Donbass" itself has grown to the point of being a 'broad concept' coverage article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Your last edit was highly inappropriate. You removed on the basis of OR and SYNTH the official Ukrainian figures of dead and missing, as well as the UN figures, not to mention you mass reverted several of my other edits elsewhere in the article. Only because you consider the number of militant dead to be OR and SYNTH. So when it comes to everything else, this was unjustified. As for the militant dead figure. You ask how i know its 2,213 and not possibly 2,215? Its because it is clearly seen here [1] in the second source on the graveyard that was removed during this edit warring. And for an even more larger version of the same image follow the Livejournal blog link in the source. I will add the source where the number is clearly visible. You speculate there may be other graveyards or plates running higher than 2,213? Fine, than we add the words at least. There another attempt at compromise, I would expect some from you please. Finally you asked how I know these are only soldiers and not civilians? Because the source said its a cemetery for fighters. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My last edit was entirely appropriate as it removed your unwarrented and faulty original research and synthesis. This has been explained to you. And now you're just being stubborn.

And Iryna's talk page isn't the place for this discussion. I'd appreciate it if you made your comments in the appropriate venue, the talk page, since talking here may give the impression of you trying to exclude other editors from the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I am talking here because Irina has pinged and called upon all involved parties to discuss the issue here at his talk page (so they are not excluded as you say). And removal of properly sourced information (UN figures and Ukrainian military figures) and removal of a whole sourced paragraph for the sake of removal of a potential OR is NEVER warranted. EkoGraf (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you're talking here because this is where you came to canvass. Discuss in the appropriate place please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I am here because Irina called us here. Before he called us I was discussing at the talk page. And in regards to your, at this point silly, canvass accusation, both me and Irina replied to it. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek And I see you again reverted/removed my paragraph on State Department casualties, my new sentence on the numbers of missing, and the latest figure of current active Russian volunteers in Ukraine, even though this has nothing to do with the issue you are contesting. And you also AGAIN removed the numbers of dead Russians, per the State Department, as well as the official Ukrainian figures of their war dead even though its properly sourced. And now I see you have started accusing Irina of being canvassed since he now agrees the last version I made to be the most optimal solution for now. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to any comments here any further as I feel that having the discussion here is tainted by canvassing and is aimed at excluding other relevant parties from the discussion. Further comments posted here will be ignored, and per Wikipedia policy will not be taken into account in the decision making process with regard to the article. If you wish to have your opinions considered, please use the appropriate venue, which is the article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek You don't seem to take any opinions made by me, Irina or anybody disagreeing with you, so whats the point? I've been asking you 3 or 4 times now why you removed the UN, Ukrainian and State Department figures without any reply. EkoGraf (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In any case your edit which removed the Ukrainian dead and missing, along with the state department figure should be reverted at once and that information and sources be reinserted immediately, since those have nothing to do with your complaints. EkoGraf (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Volunteer Marek (and EkoGraf). Let's leave this section and use the article talk page. I was hoping we could reach some form of consensus here before taking it to the article's talk space before it turns into a protracted sparring match there, but it has obviously failed. Let's just drop this thread as 'tainted' and continue in the public venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Order of Merit of Ukraine
		Awarded to User:Iryna Harpy for making Wikipedia a better place for everyone, one small action at a time. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Iryna Harpy by Poeticbent talk on 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Poeticbent! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of WP:POV map "Russian military bases 2015"

Thanks for your comments & understanding with removing disputed map from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad Appreciate if you can also remove this map for the same reason from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces (not sure how to do it myself properly). Thanks again & kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulsioner (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Not a problem! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed Text

Hey, I just saw you just removed the text which i added to the article Racism in Poland, I am just translating the information available on internet and adding it to the article , as i feel if we talk about racialism in Poland we should also show the recently data available on it. Please help me with how i can do it on this article by showing me an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalSpartans (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

• Gallery: Being Welsh

• Featured content: Killed by flying debris

• Op-ed: DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity

• News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article

• Traffic report: Mass media production traffic

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Bitola

I noticed you made the following edit[2]. I couldn't quite comprehend the summary wording but it looks as if you doubt the party to which Vladimir Taleski belongs. I am aware anyhow (no source required in my case) that Taleski is indeed from VMRO-DPMNE. Here is an English language council seat report[3], so the edit you reverted was legit. --OJ (TALK) 06:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling me up on this, Oranges Juicy. Wow, I've really become jumpy of late. It's been one of those protracted periods of time where edit warring and POV pushing send me into spasms of 'no source, no inclusion'. Anyway, I've self reverted (but got rid of the red link until someone creates an article on him). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, I'm another one that finds red links a pain. I think somewhere there is a policy guideline for where red links may be provided but I'm not clued on it hence the reason I avoid that area. In this case, I'll gladly leave it to you as you know what is best. --OJ (TALK) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REDYES and WP:REDNOT. Just for a general overview, take a look at WP:RED. It really needs to be looked at in context, although his existence meets WP:V, I very much doubt that Vladimir Taleski is notable enough to merit an article (due to RS and a lack of editors likely to develop such a bio for someone at this level of the political food chain). If someone is going to develop a bio, it can be linked at that point. There are so many red links around already that leave in place, but I don't see the point in leaving a newly added red link unless there's an evident importance in someone developing an article at a later date. Ultimately, he just doesn't meet general notability guidelines at this point in his career. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me tell you something Iryna. There is publication out there that confirms the man's notability and I am every bit certain that if I created an article on him, it would not be deleted. However, given Taleski is someone that I know, and someone who knows the real me too, I can assure you he is not a person I am about to be giving satisfaction of further publicity. My background is sport, volleyball to be precise, and just before I launched my Wiki account, I had been living in Bitola training 14-16 year old females. I know Taleski, and I know plenty of others - all love the publicity, but they're not getting it!!! :) --OJ (TALK) 10:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All the better, then. Leaving a red link might encourage someone to create an article and pander to his ego. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Hello. This is your paging service. You have a message at User talk:77.11.38.141. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay, Drmies. Does this mean I get to spread my idiosyncratic brand of Wiki-lurv? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a free world--you can do whatever you like. Ha! (I'll mention you in class this afternoon; we're doing the Aeneid 7-9.) Drmies (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sweeeet! Now that's what I call context! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Open a subthread

Regarding this: I've found that ===BOOMERANG for Settleman=== usually works. Nishidani and the majority of the ANI regulars know why I'm not doing it myself and won't post there if someone else does it, but for the record I fully support such action given the massive IDHT and CIR issues on display. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has opened the subthread, Hijiri88. I'll comment/!vote once I've had a chance to sift through all of the edits in more detail. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_NPA.2C_POLEMIC.2C_POVPUSH.2C_CPUSH_of_by_Nishidani.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

• Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

• News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

• In the media: Is there life on Mars?

• Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

• Traffic report: Another week

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting for no reason

I spent quite some time improving an article that was in a poor state. Now two people have undone all my work with a click of a button. You didn't have the courtesy to explain why you reverted it, but you still had the fucking cheek to accuse me of leaving an inaccurate edit summary. No-one's that stupid so you were plainly just out to provoke me. Well fucking well done, consider me fucking provoked. I guess you didn't even bother to look at the changes before you put all that shit back.

• Self-arrest refers to various maneuvers employed in mountaineering
  • It doesn't "refer" to that; it is that. You want to say "Paris refers to the capital city of France" or "Nile refers to a river that flows into the Mediterranean"?
• sliding down a snow or ice covered slope arrests (stops) the slide
  • You think readers are too stupid to understand what "arrests" means in this context?
• himself or herself
  • You think the single word "themselves" is some how better expressed in three words?
• and/or ice axe
  • You never bothered to read WP:SLASH?
• These potentially life-saving techniques must be practiced frequently in order to maintain proficiency
  • This website is called wikipedia, not wikimanual. But you never bothered to read WP:NOT, did you?

That's just the first five, I made many more, I left the article looking considerably better and more encyclopaedic, but then you came along and fucked it all back up again. Do you feel proud? 186.9.130.34 (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)