User talk:Iryna Harpy

List of sovereign states and dependencies by area

Hello. Read the official area of China and United States in United Nations. It is OFFICIAL area, not Encyclopedia Britannica or CIA World Factbook. USA: 9,833,517 sq km (3rd place) and China 9,596,961 sq km (4th place). You can fix the article. Thanks. Cgx8253. 8/13/2016.

Proper Decorum When Editing Articles' Talk Pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --anon (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! I know you've been a Wikipedia editor for several years now and have likely already read it, but, in case you haven't, I wanted to let you know about this essay: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines.

You recently edited the talk page for the article "Auction chant" by deleting the contribution of another editor (i.e. me), and that is the reason I am leaving you a message here.

It is my opinion that the always well-intentioned Wikipedia editor only edits articles with the intention of improving them and only edits articles' talk pages with the intention of helping other editors improve the respective articles.

Editing, moving or deleting another editor's good faith comments on an article's talk page in a way that changes their content/meaning is, imo, in poor taste and I believe not consistent with conventional Wikipedia standard of decorum when editing article talk pages.

That being said, I am not accusing you of any such; I choose to assume, in good faith, that you, accidentally reverted my comment on the talk page. I hope, if you do read my comment the talk page, that you might be able to understand how I, who happened to stumble upon an article I didn't think was especially well written, decided to check the talk page to see if I might be able to easily assist any editors who were trying to improve the article, and after corresponding with another editor on the talk page, left a message in hopes it might help them or any other good faith editor who might be interested in improving the article.

I happened to glimpse your Wikipedia user page, and I thought maybe that you might be one who prides themselves in being able to be objective, so I thought you might appreciate, as food for thought, this rhetorical question: Is it possible that some Wikipedia editors develop a subjective prejudice against edits made by 'IP editors' because, in fact, so many disruptive edits do come from 'IP editors'?

Although it's a relatively insignificant article, if you do have a little free time, you would impress me much if you took some time to improve Auction chant. In the little bit of time I spent looking, I couldn't find many good reliable sources, but it was easy to find some video examples on YouTube that really gave a good impression of what the 'auction chant' was, a much better impression than the one I got from reading the article. I wasn't able to improve the article, but I hope you can!

Best wishes and here's hoping Wikipedia keeps getting better!

P.S. No reply necessary. If you do want to leave a reply here,I will try to check back, and I will also try to check back on the article

--anon (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP 24.246.23.7. My sincerest apologies for reverting your comment there. Judging by my edit summary, I suspect that I had a number of articles open and reverted your talk page comment instead of some disruptive WP:SOAP on another article talk page... which begs the question of which talk page was being misused!

To be honest, I have my doubts as to the encyclopaedic value the article and would lean towards it being in the realms of "other stuff exists". I'm not much one for being a deletionist unless an article is obvious POV pushing or promotional material. On the other hand, it does need to be globalised if it stays, and it's definitely treading on the toes of "no original research" and WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I did notice you made a minor edit. It is a fringe topic, but I think it definitely has encyclopedic value and I don't think WP:OSE applies here; it seem that there are actual academic institutes that teach this long time subject and who knows, it might even be related back to other encyclopedia articles about other chants like Gregorian chants if there is any reliable sources in the future that examine acoustic similarities between such traditional chants. Since there are academic institutes that teach this chant there should be reliable sources, it's just a matter of how to access them and not really WP:NOR. --anon (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

SEP2016 update

Hi, I saw your comment, and I don't know what your working at...

My first impulse was that you might have a meat puppetry relation with My very best wishes, but I tried to consider your edits in good faith. Unfortunately you are contradictory in your claim that the image of the GRU building should be omitted: you claim that it is both original research and a copyright violation (with no basis provided for either claim), but if it is copyright by someone other than the contributor it cannot be original research.

There are many wikipedia editors, and maybe if you would abstain from editing the page, then you wouldn't seem like a puppet and a rational consensus can evolve. --anon (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! • DP •  ^{huh?} 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm finding myself wondering why you didn't reject this DRN after its being filed less than 24 hours from when the initiating editor first edited the article itself. The editor's first edit to the article was at 17:41, 24 August 2016; his/her first comment on the talk page was at 17:47, 24 August 2016; my first response wasn't until 21:52, 24 August 2016; s/he filed the DRN at 23:33, 24 August 2016. How on earth does that even begin to constitute 'extensive discussion'?

This conclusion on your behalf reads as an indictment of my not wanting to engage in mediation. While it may be true that I wasn't prepared to participate in a DRN I don't believe should have been accepted because it blatantly fails "recently discussed extensively on a talk page", I was certainly not the only party invited to participate who had already joined in the discussion where it still belongs: on the talk page... and without participating in the DRN. In fact, how is it a dispute related to the Gogol biography when the filing party named an editor who has never touched the article, an editor who doesn't exist; tossed the Chekhov biography into the mix (I'm not involved in the Chekhov biography) is beyond me. By the time you closed, another two editors had involved themselves in the discussion (that's a total of 5 editors using the talk page to discuss the issue by day 2). So, could you please explain why you believed the DRN merited volunteering your services? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

About RfCs

RfCs can be closed by anyone, as far as I know. (But they should have good reasons, that is all.)188.174.88.23 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the prerequisite is that they are experienced editors. You do not have any traceable experience. It's not written into any of the RfC guidelines simply because it is WP:COMMONSENSE. Can you see, by any stretch of logic, why an IP with 3 edits to their credit (especially as you appear to be IP hopping or have a dynamic IP adding up to about 7 or 8 edits in total - and mainly reverting back your closure which has been reverted as invalid by a number of experienced editors) would meet with the requisite skills to interpret the outcome of an RfC, or that they meet with being understood to be neutral and uninvolved closers? Even assuming good faith, there is nothing to indicate that you have any idea of the nuances of closing an RfC, much less an RfC in an area that falls under Wikipedia sanctions. The RfC was submitted for official closure because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and because the editors who participated want the assurance that it will be closed by an uninvolved, experienced editor/sysop who has a known track record, and whose track record can be quantified and qualified by their editing history. Furthermore, there is no way of establishing whether you are one of the interested parties not logged into your account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine

Why didn't you give the same advice to Lute88? Why don't you start a discussion yourself? I see that you are both Ukrainians, are you working as a team? There are many biased statements in the article and my edit was a minor one. I am planning on making other changes so that the article reflect the sources more faithfully. --Mlc1968 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Take any discussion of content to the talk page of the article... and, no, we are not a 'team'. Please read WP:CIVIL and familiarise yourself with guides on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard; Talk:Abkhazia

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.188.174.88.23 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

message from massalama111 (talk contribs)

Hi, when I checked your talk page I thought the message at the top was vandalism so I removed it but maybe it was just accidentally misplaced so I re-add it here. sorry and please delete this section if it was in fact random vandalism. --anon (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is Masalama1111. 
Copts are not Arab. If you look at the requirements, Copts lack Arab admixture. They are genetically distinct from other Egyptians too. 
"Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence."	 
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996
Also, different behavior. Copts are distinct population. 
"Coptic tradition of secular education emphasizing professionalism seems to ... of all pharmacists and 30–40% of all doctors in Egypt were Copt (Chitham 82–86)."
https://books.google.com/books?id=-d6PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=copts+30-40%26+doctors+coptic+tradition&source=bl&ots=x0LBmUZERr&sig=qPWKU52yuS9fUQIVifgrn2fbQuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi73aeQherOAhWE7iYKHVg6BssQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=copts%2030-40%26%20doctors%20coptic%20tradition&f=false
"On this measure the most elite group in the USA, far eclipsing the Ashkenazi Jewish population, are Copts and Hindu Indians, with sixteen times as many doctors per capita in the USA than the average of the domestic population. "
http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/clark-paperHello. This is Masalama1111. 
Copts are not Arab. If you look at the requirements, Copts lack Arab admixture. They are genetically distinct from other Egyptians too. 
"Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence."
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996
Also, different behavior. Copts are distinct population. 
"Coptic tradition of secular education emphasizing professionalism seems to ... of all pharmacists and 30–40% of all doctors in Egypt were Copt (Chitham 82–86)."
https://books.google.com/books?id=-d6PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=copts+30-40%26+doctors+coptic+tradition&source=bl&ots=x0LBmUZERr&sig=qPWKU52yuS9fUQIVifgrn2fbQuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi73aeQherOAhWE7iYKHVg6BssQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=copts%2030-40%26%20doctors%20coptic%20tradition&f=false
"On this measure the most elite group in the USA, far eclipsing the Ashkenazi Jewish population, are Copts and Hindu Indians, with sixteen times as many doctors per capita in the USA than the average of the domestic population. "
http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/clark-paper
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalama1111 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 

"War in Ukraine"

Hi Iryna, and thanks for recognizing my GF. I don't understand this, though. Many English speakers are not familiar with Donbass, and this is the only war in Ukraine right now, yes? So references to "war in Ukraine" would naturally refer to this. See, for example, this article from The Daily Beast. Now, in Wikipedia terms, this is a descriptive title, because the topic is literally a war in Ukraine. I'm not suggesting this is a proper name, like "World War II". So maybe it just doesn't need to be in the lede anyway. But as long as it is, I think it looks very silly of us to suggest the name isn't legitimate. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

War in Donbass at WP:POVN

Hey @Iryna Harpy: I've made a post at WP:POVN regarding the use of scare quotes at War in Donbass. I apologize if you think this is too precipitous, but I was surprised that you restored the scare quotes without comment on Talk:War in Donbass, especially given the several reasons I noted why they were inappropriate.

I hope you aren't offended that I believe the issue needs scrutiny from people in the wider community who don't edit in EE topics regularly. I think that editing with a sarcastic tone, and being unable to either recognize the sarcasm, or instead viewing it as appropriate, would constitute a significant concern. This would be especially problematic if there were a local consensus on those pages that such editing was neutral.

Glad to hear your thoughts here or there. Best, -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks

Stifan (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna I completely understand you got rid of my addition of famous Ukrainian-Australians but just wanted to add someone from the Bachelor who i thought showed Ukraine beauty and elegance. Her name is Olena Khamula and if you dont mind could you add her with a ciatation. Thank you so much for your dedication and work on looking after the Ukrainian pages and all of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.156.203 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia redux

New Wine into Old Wineskins. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: I nearly got caught out ready to flap my jowls. Let old bladders lie. Given a little time, the rancidity factor'll deflate 'em naturally. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Abkhazia.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abkhazia. Thank you.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Gogol

Thanks, I've requested a "Move" on the file to get F.Moller out of the title so no one else will be fooled! WQUlrich (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@WQUlrich: My concern was with it not being reliably sourced. Sources have been produced, so I'm fine with it. Thanks for the hard work you put into chasing it up. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I Was Contributing to and Continuing the Existing Discussion

There was a discussion on whether a person born in Ukraine should be considered Ukrainian. I decided to contribute an example of a Jewish person whose parents, though born in Kiev, considered themselves Russian and not Ukrainian. My personal interest in the topic is that, although my mother and I were born in the United States, she and her ancestors were Ukrainian.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, John Paul Parks. I realise that it can be tempting to make comments about a subject that is of personal interest, but Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the actual content of the article and providing reliable sources to back content up. I did understand that you intended no harm, but Wikipedia deals with a lot of sensitive issues, and you'd probably be shocked to know just how many trolls are out there ready to turn talk pages surrounding the subject of anti-semitism, anything to do with Eastern Europe, etc. into a forum-fest. The key to avoiding massive disruptions to pages is "Don't feed the trolls". I'd usually overlook generic off-topic comments, but I have enough experience to know what's potentially going to act as bait. Please don't misunderstand this as being intended as a personal affront, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About WP:RS

Hello User:Iryna Harpy. I have a question that I hope you can help me with. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However can I use Wikisource (which is a different Wikimedia project) as a source? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel 14:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hebel. Wikisource can be used for primary source material where there is relevant information for content already supported by secondary reliable sources. Although, as you know, it's preferable not to use primary sources, there are also documents there which are secondary by nature. As an example, take a look at the No Gun Ri massacre in the 'Background' section. Citation 3 uses the "U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report". The entire document is referenced multiple times. Hope this helps! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna for your information. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, sorry to bother you with another query. Would a government website in your opinion be a primary source? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: It's not a bother, plus it's an excellent question. From my experience, and for the purposes of Wikipedia, it's dependent on what sort of information is being presented. We can use primary sources for census data, constitutional, legal and other such material. It's preferable that it be tempered by secondary sources if there is anything disputed about the information. It's also dependent on whether it's that government's position about a war (i.e., the RF's or the USA's position as to what is going on). Context and COMMONSENSE should be the best indicators as to whether it's just that government's position, but is disputed by other reliable sources. Could you provide the context and the information you have in mind? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My editing

That guy does follow my edits, and not only him. What should be done about it? Well, in my case, I simply should not edit here. This is waste of time. The only reason I am still here is my addiction. I would ask an admin to block my account, but it was nasty when I did it last time (an innocent contributor was blamed to be my sockpuppet account, etc.). So, I would rather Just Say No at some point. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I was in a position of having my hand forced as a matter of AGF in apologising to the user, but that doesn't mean that I truly believed this editor didn't follow you around, nor have I changed my mind about believing them to be a sock. The problem is that the burden is on us to establish who he's a sock of (I have my suspicions). I'm equally frustrated at being unable to stop someone who had already honed their knowledge of policy and guidelines, and has become an expert at gaming the system. We know that without any apparent negative record, as compared to users like ourselves who already have an easy history to track and use against us, it feels like a no win situation. My position remains the same: I can't sit back and watch them rewrite history by using articles as coat racks. I truly wish that I could just say no, but I'm far too determined (read as pig-headed) to be able to do so. My heartfelt sympathy/empathy goes out to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! We had some disagreements, but it was pleasure interacting with you. One important factor for me to consider is that my account is not really anonymous. That might be fine, but there are some new laws in Russia that create potential problems. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Well, our disagreements were always as they should be: about content, and most certainly not personalised in any shape or form. I have great respect for you, and I hope you can keep contributing in some capacity. I'll be sorry to see you go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That does not look good. Note that the user does not hide where his IP came from (geographically). Well, not editing here for a while is actually a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It has escalated from feeling personalised towards you since July to very, very uncomfortably personalised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• The pair of you might at least want to notify me of what appears to be a long-term collective oppo-research project (wp: harassment in other words). Your aspersions are beneath comment and hypocritical beyond belief, so I won't argue the case, but at least I now understand some of the reasons for your interest in Talk:The Black Book of Communism and associated disruptive editing. I also see why it has been next to impossible to remove the crap on Coplon from Holodomor denial. Its personal for both of you, got it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As of now, G. reverted every single edit by me on this page. Why? His arguments are bizzar in response to comments that are clear and standard [1]. I think this is either a case of "I do not hear" or possibly something else, given that the user followed my edits on a number of pages. My very best wishes (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Guccisamsclub, there is no 'long term oppo research' going on here. Neither MVBW nor I have actually discussed your editing until this section was started. Everything to be seen is available here, or on various article talk pages. I'm afraid I can't help it if I think there's been something a little too specialised and precise about your interests and editing behaviour since you started in earnest earlier this year. You do actually remind me at least one blocked editor, but I'm not pursuing it because I've never been that concerned about good editors/editors who know their stuff re-emerging unless they start up with the type of really disruptive editing behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. Whatever the situation, my only gripe is that I'm finding you annoying (and missing some obvious points in your arguments), just as you're finding both MVBW and myself annoying (and missing some obvious points in our arguments). In fact MVBW and I have had really, really, really lengthy discussions where we disagreed with each other and tried to explain the obvious points being missed in our arguments the other was missing. These things happen on a regular basis on Wikipedia, and I'd hate to think that there are any editors who always - and invariably - agree with each other about everything. I have to confess that my health has been shabby for a while, so I don't have the energy to formulate arguments with the precision I'm capable of. Whatever happens, hopefully the end result will be that at least one shabbily written article will end up a better article for the discussion (even if we're all run ragged by the end of the process), or that the next lot of editors to tackle it will be able to better identify the problems in the presentation of content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest here, I do not really care that much about these subjects (Holodomor, Black book, etc.). I simply tried to improve them as pages on any other subjects (biology, literature, whatever). If I had more time and a really anonymous account (unfortunately, this is not the case), I would edit subjects related to modern Russian politics. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Iryna Harpy: I need to know why you reverted my edit on AG article today. Diranakir (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been explained to you over and over on the article's talk page. I have now explained it again on the talk page of the article. Please stop pestering me incessantly on my own talk about a consensus (and self-evident to boot) decision made months ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Holodmor edits / dodgy sources

I have brought up the discussion of why Robert Conquest material should not be treated with skepticism on wikipedia articles relating to Soviet history. Not only was he a member of a branch of the British secret service dedicated to spreading disinformation, but he is a fraud who mislabelled photographs taken from Russian in the 1920s and relabelled them as Ukraine in the 1930s. Like I have already said on the Holodmor wiki page, Imagine if a Japanese historian took photographs of Pearl Harbour and relabelled them as Hiroshima, we would rightfully label this historian as a fraud. So why don't we apply the same standards to historians who are highly critical of the Soviet Union? His book The Harvest of Sorrow contains excerpts from the Chicago American, a newspaper owned by fascist media giant William Randolph Hearst (a personal friend of Hitler) which was infamous for spreading open lies about the Soviet Union. It may be difficult but if we believe that frauds should not be tolerated than we should think twice before citing him