User talk:Iryna Harpy

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


Happy Christmas[edit]


Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Eid Mubarak![edit]

list of genocides by death toll.[edit]

Hello Iryna,

I appreciate your response and I agree that the Thirty Years War was religious rather than racial or ethnic. However, having read on the military conduct of various parties during the war it is clear that the Thirty Years War could fit the modern definition of genocide since it was an attempt to destroy in part, members of a religious or ethnic group. And even if we can debate and conclude that the Thirty Years War was not genocide it still would not justify being removed from the aforementioned lists of other atrocities listed as "non-genocidal mass killings". The fact is that even though the Thirty Years War may not have a scholarly consensus of being an act of genocide it certainly is an episode in history that involved mass killing. This is the reason why included it among the list of other "non-genocidal mass murders". If the Indonesian politicize and Great Leap Forward which are certainly not genocidal on ethnic or racial grounds can be mentioned then why not the Thirty Years War? Also, I would like to point out that there is no citation in the article supporting the inclusion of all the atrocities mentioned which are referred to as non-genocidal mass killings. Lastly, I'm not sure why nearly all those mass killings listed are from the Asian far east when there are so many examples of mass killings that have taken place throughout the world so I believe some balance ought to be implemented here. I certainly look forward to hearing your feedback Iryna. --Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Balisong5. Apologies for taking so much time in getting back to you, but I've been busy IRL. I consider your arguments to be valid and, yes, I believe a European example is justified for balance. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To apostrophe or not to apostrophe[edit]

I'd like your quick advice on whether or not Sevastopol’ and Sevastopol' (both are redirects to Sevastopol) are more than random typos. I was going to take them to WP:RFD, but it occurred to me that the addition of the apostrophe might be a language thing. I tried reading Romanization of Ukrainian, but couldn't glean anything useful. So I thought I'd ask you, who edits there and probably knows a little lot more about the topic.

Redirects are often created for typical typos and misspellings. Is this the case here? Thanks in advance for any comments you have. And no rush—I know how all-consuming and exhausting moving can be! — Gorthian (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gorthian. The apostrophe is a transliteration convention designating the 'softening sign' for the letter 'l' per Russian and Ukrainian spelling. As its WP:COMMONNAME is Sevastopol, I can't imagine that the apostrophe at the end would have any meaning to an English language reader: I certainly can't envisage it being used as a search term under conventional circumstances. My gut feeling is that the redirects should go, but there may be a number of reliable sources (as in English language ones) that use the convention. I suspect that if you asked other purists, they'd say the same. See WP:RUROM and WP:UKROM: redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I think I'll take them to RFD and see what consensus there says. — Gorthian (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gorthian: It's time consuming, but an RfD is the safest way to go. I'm not aware of there having been any serious discussions of the convention in the past, but there may be some strong arguments for keeping the redirects. Drop me a line, or ping me when you've submitted the proposal. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
They're up at RfD now. We'll see what happens! — Gorthian (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of European diaspora for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

White people by country[edit]

Hi Iryna! I've seen you around doing great things so part of this is a friendly hello! I also wanted to ask a bit further about the AfD discussion on White people by country. I feel like this is for my own edification as opposed to relating to the deletion of the article, so that's why I'm not asking there. At risk of WP:OTHER, I'm curious why, if the term "White people" is seen as OR, other articles including the obvious White people doesn't face the same scrutiny. My guess would be, as described in this section, the definition isn't consistent across countries, but because it's sourced as such it isn't seen as OR. WP:MERGE aside, if you pulled that table out into it's own article and called it "White people by country" I really don't see why it would be deleted.

Now that I think about it, the fact that table exists seems like a sound enough reason to dump the article. Anywho, since I'm sure you have more experience than I do with these things, you're feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and again, hello! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard[edit]

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [1] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I've responded there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers: Current edit warring[edit]

Dear Iryna Harpy,

I see that you are currently involved in a discussion stemming from an edit war on Holodomor genocide question.

This edit warring seems to have spilt over to Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers.

You have a lot more experience in dealing with these difficult topics than I do, so I would appreciate if you could consider some appropriate action also there.

Thanks.

Lklundin (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lklundin. Thanks for the heads up. Sigh, an IP hopper... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you just assume I was using an IP hopper to "hide"? Because clearly you have not heard about what a dynamic IP address is. On the other hand, this user by the name of 'Lute88' has repeatedly ignored my points, and has only reverted what I've done without giving any reason, of course, constantly reverting without giving a reason is not a valid action. What I did was re-phrase about the Holodomor being a "genocide that was engineered" (and this paragraph has no sources), into being neutral, as of course, anyone with basic knowledge (and I've told this user to read the page a few times) that the Holodomor being "genocide" is disputed, there is no consensus, and many historians do not consider it to be a genocide being engineered, and this is still being argued, so there should be no side being favored, because WP is neutral - Holodomor_genocide_question. I hope you understand this. So far, all I've seen from the user is favoring one side according to his contribution history. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good. Take it to the ANI below. Both of you have the same WP:POINTy gripe against me... on opposite sides of the fence. I'm busy IRL and am about to log out for the day... or perhaps the next couple of days. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - just to clarify: I (the user who has contributed to the Holomodor genocide question talk page's most recent section and who added the neutrality tag two days ago and then yesterday) am not the same as the user above.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That did not need clarification. You are both arguing that I am breaching NPOV regarding the same subject matter, but on opposite sides of the pole. Try reading WP:NPOV carefully. I don't believe that you actually understand the concept as it is applied to Wikipedia (or encyclopaedic resources in general). I've already explained to you that your proposal is flawed WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

I just want to clarify, my argument is that the article itself isn't internally consistent – so it's not so much that I'm on one side of the fence or the other, as I think from a neutral perspective the article fails. (I responded to your SYNTH suggestion, with the reliable sources you requested, to no response.) You also accused me of vandalism, which you fundamentally cannot support. Regardless of that, The following are both true:

  1. The vast majority of academics consider the famine to be a genocide, Tauger himself acknowledges this.
  2. There is still a sizable subset of academics who do not consider the famine to meet the definition of genocide, and using Tauger as a stand-in for this viewpoint doesn't make sense. Again, the article mentions Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft as critics of Tauger, but it does not mention that they do not consider the famine to be a genocide. The article mentions James Mace's view ... but his view has been notably inconsistent through his articles, as the Bilinsky piece points out.

This is an article on the "question," so the above deficiencies aren't really acceptable, and they do compromise the article's neutrality. What I'm trying to detail is that the article can acknowledge the consensus without being biased, but it does not currently do that.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that the article is problematic. We have another article (Denial of the Holodomor) which is equally problematic. The content overlaps and, in both instances, there are serious POV problems. My thinking is that the 'denial' article is essentially a reiteration of the same subject matter, and that they are WP:POVFORK articles trying to fly under the radar. Initially, they were treated as separate questions, but mass refactoring of both articles has made two versions redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay! I'm glad we can agree on the NPOV issues. I absolutely agree that the articles seem redundant. I'd suggest merging Denial of the Holodomor into Holodomor genocide question, simply because I'm not sure (following the Bilinsky piece) that there's enough academic consensus to call the null hypothesis "denial," but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to make that decision. That'll be a really tough discussion, but it probably is worth having. I'd like to add {{context}} {{POV}} and {{condense}} to the Scholarly Debate section of the latter article. I will be very clear that I do not mean to suggest that we should have a 50/50 split, only that one side isn't adequately represented; I apologize that I did not do an adequate job of articulating that earlier. (The other templates only being added for the fact that context is necessary for the quotations; I think ideally we could have two sections outlining general reasons for acknowledgement / skepticism over the claim, and then lay out specific authors who are particularly notable.) I'm also striking the ANI seeing as it sounds like we've come to a solid agreement; sorry it was such a rough go getting there.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Media of Ukraine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Have you read WP:DTTR? Have you bothered to check anything (particularly the references used for the content = predominantly WP:SPS) ... and you're accusing me of sloppy use of rollback at the ANI? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I've read and am familiar with DNTTR. Thats why I wrote down below the template. Did you check to see if your revert would leave the article in a better state than before, rather than just rollback all three edits? I don't care about the 3 edits made by the other fellow. I care that you didn't notice that your reversion now leaves the article with many misspellings and other errors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Which I will get to if I don't keep getting pinged every two seconds. The content has stood in its current state for ages. A couple of spelling errors and awkward grammar should not be usurped by POV and UNDUE development. New content must be up to par and reliably sourced. You may have a different outlook because your main role here is anti-vandalism, but I focus on the development of content from an NPOV and well sourced stance. To my way of thinking, you have your priorities wrong... but our personal opinions on minor spelling error is neither here nor there. I'm about to revert you reintroduction of POV and badly sourced content, then fix the handful of outstanding lowercase uses of Euromaidan and spelling errors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, L3X1. It wasn't my intention to be gruff with you, so I hope you're not offended. Thanks for pulling me up on the fact that the article could do with a good copyedit. I've made a start, but might not have time to do more for a couple of days. Nice to meet you, and keep up your good work! It takes all kinds of editors to make Wikipedia work... and work in a collegial manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you too, I now see I went about it in the wrong manner to begin with. It was to have met you too. Happy editing! L3X1 (distant write) 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced tag[edit]

Hi there, I wanted to touch base about the question of unsourced BLPs as I've been working through the (daunting!) backlog. A critical function of the unsourced BLP cleanup tag is that it indicates which BLPs are eligible for the special BLP deletion process, BLPPROD. I don't know how much, if at all, you use BLPPROD and it's a legit complicated process (which I naturally got wrong the first time I tried to use it, despite reading the directions repeatedly!), but in short, a BLP is only considered unreferenced and a candidate for BLPPROD if it has zero references of any kind, good or bad. So if you could please tag BLPs that have any source at all as needing more sources (or more reliable sources, or sources independent of the subject, etc. as applicable) rather than tagging them as unreferenced, unless there's truly no reference whatsoever, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

How can you say my edit was not constructive? If Armenia is not geographically apart of Europe and historically has no connections with Europe other than in political aspects (since 1920), how can you call Armenians "European-Americans"? That literally makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzazaian11 (talkcontribs) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page formatting[edit]

I'm a bit puzzled by your request to not use "blank indents" to format a talk page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists, list items (including indented comments on talk pages) should not be separated by empty lines in the Wiki markup, as this disrupts screen readers. The guideline recommends adding colons in place of empty lines, as I did at Talk:Stolen Generations. See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Layout.

Also, I have seen no policy or guideline against using {{reflist}} on talk pages. I would appreciate it if you could point out such a guideline. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)