User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Assuming good faith

Civility, maturity, et al require that simply leaving a less-than-elucidating edit summary in order to change a hatnote to feature, "For contemporary usage, see Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation." may seem obvious and appropriate to you, but not to others. If you take a look at the talk page, you may get a sense of this being a contentious article. In contemporary usage, active groups of cossacks take on many more forms than the one you have picked out. The IP who left an uncivil edit summary in reverting your edit left an uncivil revert summary. I have reverted your reinstatement of the addition to the hatnote with a comprehensive rationale for the reversion.

Should you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to respond here or, alternatively, start a section on the subject on the relevant talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is always the right approach. I did take a look at your user page, so I understand that you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than most people, certainly me! The reason I made the edits that I did were because I was stunned to learn that Cossacks were part of the security detail at the Sochi Olympics. In the past week or so, I have been engaged in various discussions about the current Olympics games in Russia and I must say, that everyone (and I mean everyone) I have met has been quite surprised to learn that there are Cossacks at the games. It is "common knowledge" (if incorrect or incomplete) that the Cossacks were routed by the Bolsheviks. The reputation of the Cossacks is legendary, as are The Gurkhas.

As is, this article has an excessively long lede, which dwells predominately on the historical record. It requires excessive patience to wade through and, even then, it is not clear what the legacy of the pre-Bolshevik Cossacks is today, and/or what legitimate lineage contemporary Cossacks have to their precursors. The subject IP who reverted my edits, went-on to purge the additional entries to the related disambiguation page. I can only speculate what his/her PoV is, but it certainly seems to include censoring / eliminating points of view that differ from their own. While I feel strongly that the article as is, is awkward, with an excessively long lede, and little or no description of the current title of Cossack and how that class or position was restored since the Bolshevik revolution; I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable or qualified to make such edits. I therefore recuse myself and hope that others more qualified can help to make the article more informative from a NPoV.

Enquire (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd guessed that the recent events in Sochi involving 'Pussy Riot' (ad infinitum) motivated your addition to the hatnote, having noted that your usual areas for contributions are not geared towards Eastern Europe. As I see it, by the same token the current events in Ukraine have also raised the interest in the Ukrainian Cossack identity (i.e., Kuban Cossacks, Zaporozhian Cossacks, and the Cossack identity in general). In this instance, I'd suggest that it is better not to make assumptions on behalf of readers as, aside from referring to the db page, they can find their specific area of interest through searching using the relevant key words.

Agreed that the article is ridiculously bloated... but it's difficult enough keeping up with the plethora of 'contributions' and making decisions as to what is relevant, neutral, etc. If you check through all of the main articles surrounding cossacks, you'll find that they're all war zones. Sadly, these are articles those of us working on Eastern European, Balkan & ex-Soviet satellite republics have put on the backburner as there are always new articles ripe for cite checks and cite kill to wallow through. I swear that I spend more time having to read comprehensive secondary sources in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus and Polish than English nowadays. So little time, so many articles that need a serious overhaul without triggering fresh outbreaks of edit warring! Cheers for the chat... and back to the grind. Happy editing, and a pleasure to meet one of the good guys! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna, I am wise enough to pick my battles elsewhere. I can imagine I could invest enormous amounts of time getting up to speed on this topic and still make little or no headway on such a topic fraught with so many contentious opinions. I would be better to invest my limited time productively in areas where I have depth of knowledge and understanding accumulated over several decades. Suffice it to say, that the subject page maybe fertile grounds for edit warring, it is confusing and lacks lucidity in its lede ... which is why I waded in to make what I thought was an innocuous and helpful morsel of information to assist other mortals like me who were stunned by the apparent resurrection of Cossacks at the Sochi Olympics.

Meanwhile, I had to laugh at your comment on your user page about carrying paper towels to clean seats on the bus. Just recently, I was taking a late night bus back into town here in Vancouver. There were just two empty seats near the back, facing another pair of seats where two young men sat, with their feet up on the empty seats. I just, very politely asked if I could sit on the vacant seat opposite them. They glanced-up and pulled-down their feet. Then, as I sat down, one said "oh, there is beer on those seats!!!" Well, by then, my rear end was well and truly damp... Fortunately, it was dark and the destination bus stop was just a block from my home. Maybe I should adopt your approach, examine the seat more carefully, and wipe as appropriate while uttering some exclamations!!!

Enquire (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How gracious of them to inform you after the fact. No doubt, they thought it was incredibly funny and congratulated themselves on getting one over you. What's the vernacular? Oh, yes: "They're not taking up space." This is where the rolling pin I also carry around in my bag comes in handy. There are times I'd prefer to have a crowbar in there, but that's a tad on the illegal side.

I'd say that avoiding everything Eastern European is a wise move. Just take a look at the discretionary sanctions page! The greater picture for the areas hardest hit can be found here (and I work on Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Balkans, and others that only have the occasional outbreak due to a lack of internet presence from those communities). I like to take a breather by working on Israeli-Palestinian relations and Indian politics. Glutton for punishment? Who, I? Nah. I'm Ukrainian, and that means rolling up your sleeves and getting on with what needs to be done. It could also mean that there's a fundamental genetic flaw in our haplogroup. Either way, you can just call me Popeye. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, this has been an entertaining and unexpectedly tumultuous escapade. Well, I did (finally) get a better understanding of the contemporary status of Cossacks, but more from doing my own research and reading articles found elsewhere (see links I posed here: Contemporary vs. Historical Cossacks citations). I will not delve into further editing on this page, but I do feel that it would be helpful to the page readers (possibly people who are more at home editing quantum entanglement theory or the demise of the Dodo) to have a concise history of the Cossacks, with at least a modicum of discussion on the apparent resurgence of Cossack self-identity (of people with Cossack heritage) and of political vested interests in rehabilitation of the Cossack class (including, by people who have little or no Cossack heritage themselves). This would be both timely and informative, given the growing awareness that Cossacks have not been consigned to the history books and may, in fact, have a future role in Russia and other parts including, presumably, the Ukraine. All the best from up-over to down-under.

Enquire (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck on tidying the article up and am more than happy to support proposed changes. Hmm, perhaps a suggestion on the talk page regarding a section on cossacks in contemporary culture as a starting point? Watch out for pseudo-cossacks coming at you with big sabres! Cheers from the topsy-turvy world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

yanu whereabouts

Can you check on the article concerning his known location? I'm being accused of bad faith / lying / COI for writing his known location was crimea. This is....very common knowledge and confirmed at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

If I provide a reliable source for including those categories (and I do have a few), would you agree to restoring them?Evildoer187 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that no one can make an executive decision on such matters, I agree with Liz regarding the application of categories. I'd call it common sense. Liz, as this issue keeps rearing its head, I wonder whether it would of benefit to open a DRN discussion? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a possibility, Iryna Harpy. I brought up the matter on the talk page for Categories for Discussion because it seems like a question about article organization, not ethnic identity. But, I didn't get feedback that an RfC there would be the right forum for this discussion. Maybe DRN would be better. I'm reluctant to enter into another long debate but the situation is at a stalemate right now, with a small group of editors having polar opposite positions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I can empathise with your reticence, but it seems that the matter is not just going to go away. I really think it's a pity to have a number of quality contributors continuing to dedicate time and energy to banging heads over this matter. On balance, the amount of energy being expended on daily disputes would probably be better invested in dealing with it once and for all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If this can be resolved by providing reliable sources, I'd be glad to do so. But since this is a matter of consensus (or lack thereof), some kind of discussion needs to happen, although I'm reticent to dive head-in to yet another long and protracted debate. I'd rather it just go one way or another without any further headaches.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_Eastern.2FSouthwest_Asian_descent.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever discussion opens up, I'd appreciate being notified. Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Nishidani. I'd assume that Debresser and others who've been involved would also wish to be included (given that this is being dragged out on several user talk pages). I don't know whether Liz wants to present the issue to the DRN, but I'm willing to do so long as I'm provided with a list of those who are all prepared to participate in order that a discussion can go ahead, as well as those who might wish to be pinged so as they are aware that a discussion is taking place if they wish to put in their 2 cents worth. My own participation would be as a neutral - but interested - party. My position is that, as a reader, the category does not strike me as being intuitive or particularly useful as I don't believe these categories were created to accommodate DNA research, nor perceived of as being such. Let me know what you think the best method of opening a DRN would be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd be willing to do it (I initiated the long discussion on WikiProject Judaism) but since I've made my position clear and had editing conflicts with several editors, I am no longer seen as a neutral party. To prepare a report, you're going to want to look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32 discussion that ran from mid-November>early December. I think everyone was worn out when that wound down but, two months later, some editors (me included) have returned to the disputed topic under question. Just to highlight again, the original question was whether "X people of Jewish descent" should be further categorized as being "of Asian descent" or "of Southwest Asian descent". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about 'neutral parties'. I do have a personal interest. Several members of my families are of Ashkenazi descent, but are not accepted as Jews, either through indifference or because the descent is paternal and they have been told they are not 'Jews'. Whatever, they do not regard themselves as coming from the ME. The same point is made frequently in the serious literature. Vast numbers are of mixed descent, and if Costa and Richards et al. (Oct 2013 in Nature Communications) are on the right tack, we have mixed descent in overwhelming numbers (putting the suggested category on Ashkenazi Jews would require for balance adding also a cat of 'of European descent', creating a conceptual confusion) which is a nigh universal norm), and that is why I think privileging one line, while suppressing the others, is rather than POV (aside from the conversion factor - one third of the ex-Soviet bloc immigrants to Israel are not of Jewish descent in the rabbinical sense), more a political-instrumental use of the category. I'm no expert on wiki procedures. A cat like "X people of Jewish descent" is broad, generic and valid: to make a subcat, like "of Asian descent" or "of Southwest Asian descent". is highly misleading. 'Asian descent' is wildly out of the question since it generates misapprehensions, while 'southwest Asian descent' is question-begging since historically it is based on a mythistorical claim that all Jews hail from a highly specific territory in that region, in defiance of historiography. Cats should not be invented or introduced to lay a claim on articles which, by themselves, show how controverted scholarship is on these deeper questions of origins. As to procedures, I am dirt-ignarunt. Just open a discussion there, and things will sort themselves out. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I might add that "of Southwest Asian descent" would end up being splashed everywhere on articles re Lebanese, Palestinians, Cypriotes,Jordanians, Syrians, etc. That itself would show how pointless this exercise is.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Nishidani. I have a degree in Religion but am not a specialist in Judaic history so I stay out of editing articles related to Judaism. My introduction to this debate is because of my work with categories, specifically, I was doing work on organizing the "of descent" categories.

I think there is a divide between editors who look at categories as an organizational tool and those who see categories as making a statement or being defining in themselves. I worked on many of the ethnic "of descent" categories (like Category:Brazilian people of Japanese descent, Category:German people of Russian descent or Category:Uruguayan people of Dutch descent, etc.) but, despite all of the sensitivity on WP over ethnicity and ethnic identity, I only ran into challenges with the "of Jewish descent" categories. I understand the point people want to make by tying any person with any Jewish ancestry to the Middle East, but it is just not how the "of descent" categories are organized and designed to be used. They aren't about DNA lineage through millennia but of proximate descent and reflect recent immigration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one could hazard a guess that the fuss reflects some shading of the usual 'Jews? Aah, now, let me too argue the point!' and that kind of unusual eagerness to pipe up whenever Jews are discussed does often come out of the penumbra of anti-Semitic attitudes.

I suspect often that whenever I touch the subject, editors 'on the other side' think that. As I see it however the problem is usually either (a) exceptionality in this area (and) or the distinctive conceptual confusion, admitted by all sources, in defining 'Jew', a confusion within that tradition between religious, ethnic, national arguments. You can see this quite clearly comparing the complacent and utterly contradictory intro lead to Jews, which I guess can't be touched, and the definition of Palestinian people which is edit-warred over endlessly. As a veteren I/P editor, I see a huge amount of mirror anxieties on articles about Palestinians, Arabs. Basically, the subliminal or conscious anxieties about Israel keep disturbing the serenity of editorial activity. In any case, when I see taboo areas, I walk right in, regardless of suspicions, because the liminal is always fascinating in the way conceptual confusion reigns, and I have a long personal interest in the epistemology of such discursive zones. I can only explain my own position on the point you raise, and have no idea where other people are coming from.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazim are multi-ethnic, but are no less Jewish than other Jewish sub-groups of Levantine descent. A majority self-identify as being ethically Jewish and as being members of a group whose origin is Levantine. After the Shoah, Jews were fearful of defining themselves as an ethnicity or racial group lest this definition poke the bear that is anti-Semitism. As we leave this fear behind, you will see more Jews, Ashkenazim especially, coming forward and fully claiming their heritage. Gilad55 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Help stop joined efforts

Would you help stop the joined efforts of two very aggressive editors on Category:American people of Jewish descent? Debresser (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:Canvassing. And if by aggressive, you mean I try to adhere to the rules and expect objectivity, then I'm guilty as charged. I have admitted to being wrong when I was. What have you done?Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to whether you're referring to Debresser or yourself when you invoke WP:Canvassing. As I mentioned Debresser in the section above (amidst others mentioned whom I know to be involved and interested parties, even though they are justifiably weary of protracted debates on the matter), I understand this section to be a valid response to my noting that I would be prepared to take this before a DRN once I've drafted as succinct a report of the bone/s of contention as I can muster. Getting upset at those who disagree with your perspective is not a constructive method of developing consensus, nor will it serve you well at the DRN once the issue has been presented there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Debresser. The fact that he is here asking you to participate in the edit war taking place constitutes canvassing.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How do DRN's work?Evildoer187 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I explained, I don't consider this to be canvassing by Debresser as, to my understanding, he was responding to my call out in the section above to comment on whether I should start a DRN and who would like to participate formally.

DRN's are a method of resolving ongoing disputes in order to reach a consensus which everyone involved is ready to abide by. Unlike ANI's and other such noticeboards, the objective is not to block anyone, or air grievances against anyone. It is purely about content disputes and an administrator is assigned in order to mediate and (hopefully) guide/assist the contributors to work out the best course of action. It is understood that the content dispute is a good faith dispute. The person who submits the case (let's assume it will probably be me) provides an outline of what the dispute is over, then names those involved in the content dispute. A section is provided for each of those named to present their arguments, and all of those named need to report or the mediation cannot continue. Discussion ensues on the lines of that which you'd find on a talk page.

The best way to familiarise yourself with the procedure would be to take a quick look at the DR/N page. There isn't much activity there at the moment as cases being guided are awaiting all the participants to respond. Take a look at some of the archived pages and it'll give you a better sense of what DRN's aim to achieve. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I referred to what he did as canvassing because he went onto the pages of editors that he knew agreed with his position (i.e. you and Liz) and asked them to revert.

I am uncertain that a DRN will make things any better. Not only will this revive an old debate (which was draining enough the first time), but the admin that is sent to watch over it (whoever it may be) could be pre-disposed to a bias himself/herself. I have been made aware that there are several of these admins on Wikipedia. If it's not too much to ask, and if such a thing is possible, please ask for an admin who is not particularly active in this area to mediate it, because my experience has been that this is a contentious area and those who are active in it are likely to have an ideological slant.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a DRN is not a disciplinary forum. Its function is to provide an experienced contributorediter/administrator to assist in mediating and there is no guarantee that there will be an outcome other than bouncing the ball back into our court. In fact, I've just recently been involved in one where no one wanted to take on the role of mediating because they felt the subject matter was too specialised for them to be able to provide good, unbiased assistance. I have no control over who takes on the assignment, but I can vouch for the fact that they are people who have proven themselves to be capable of being objective and interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the spirit of the project, not based on their personal biases.

The current co-ordinator is Transporterman, although someone else may be assigned to the case, or may assign themselves. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I don't wish to see this escalating into edit wars amongst a group of contributors I consider to be valuable, intelligent, good faith editors. If the current dispute is picked up by another party, it may end up before an AN/I where the undesirable may happen (that is, blocks and sanctions could be imposed on those involved as POV pushing, etc.). I know everyone is tired but, to my mind, it's probably better to nip this in the bud before it escalates again.

The only other suggestion I could make is that the parties involved agree on a moratorium for X amount of time on the understanding the currents status quo - being sans the categories proposed as the moratorium consensus - before revisiting the subject after the determined amount of time has elapsed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand all of what you just said. My only concern is whether or not the admin sent to mediate our dispute will have a political axe of his own to grind. I have seen this happen before many times. I won't name them by name, because I'm sure they already know who they are. I know there is not much that can be done about this, and my only intent was to find a way to ensure that this is resolved in a fair and just manner.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, a mediator is not necessarily an admin. Second, they could potentially have a bias for either side or some perspective that is not even represented by the involved parties.

But mostly, they mediate, that is, keep order, they aren't a judge and jury. If you want to see who might choose to mediate this case, here is a list of current mediators: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer187, I don't know who or what you mean by 'axe to grind' as I'm only aware of your activities as related to this specific discussion. You keep alluding to 'fair', yet I find myself reading 'how can I ensure that the person in charge is on my side' as being the true subtext of your concerns. Are you actually concerned with 'fair and just', or is it the fact that you perceive other contributors understanding of the use of categories in this manner to be seriously problematic to be an obstacle to what you believe to be correct. The only case you have to present is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. If it is, you should have enough material to make this clear without feeling that you have the right to contest who mediates. (Yes, apologies, Liz. My boo-boo. I've corrected editor to read as contributor.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that I am correct, just as much as Debresser believes he is correct, and Gilad believes he is correct, and so on. If I didn't, I would not be spending so much of my time on this particular issue. However, if the arguments provided against me are fair, as I've said, then I won't contest it. I was only concerned because I have, in the past, seen some admins take actions regarding Jewish and other Middle East topics which strongly indicate that they are not neutral parties.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. My interests are of a different nature, and it seems that it has come down to an impasse, therefore a DRN. I need to disengage before I'm too exhausted to initiate an attempt at resolution. Ultimately, if it's any consolation, no contributor worth their salt has lasted without the occasional sparring session, meaning that it's equally as likely that the mediator will have a political/philosophical/what-have-you bone to pick with anyone called to the DRN (including myself). May the best argument win. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I might note that this dispute involves definitions. I see no evidence of several parties providing verifiable definitions or definitions which survive closer scrutiny. When you have a dispute of this nature, arguing abstractly is pointless: proffering personal views is irrelevant. On wikipedia, one looks at usage, evidence and definitions in RS which, as just a few examples I gave show, indicate the great complexity of defining Jews. I could offer numerous other examples: the problem is, once this RS is mentioned, it is talked past or over by editors who have a point of view. RS evidence please! and if the RS sources conflict, so what. Finally, what Evildoer and Gilad appear to be doing is trying, on the analogy of Ukrainians, Russians, French, German, to establish a topological identity of provenance (Jews hail from Palestine, now Israel). That analogy is mistaken because people of Ukrainian, Russian, French, German, descent etc. come from recent historical states, after the rise of a nationalism which defined identity in terms of belonging to a state and its territory. Take Alain F. Corcos, The The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View, ‎2005 pp.15ff., where he, a French person of Jewish origins escaped the Holocaust, and naturalized as an American, and refuses as a biologist to self-identify as a Jew, which for him means professing Judaism. His brother however sees himself as an ethnic Jew. One brother is French, the other Jewish, because their definitions of what constitutes Jewishness differ. Alex Corcos sees himself as of French origins, because that is where his forefathers lived. Examples of this are extremely numerous in the literature.

Jewishness is defined not in terms of the soil, but in terms of matrilineal descent (religious), self-defined selection of one ancestor with Jewish ethnic roots (often patrilineal), self-identification with a culture and set of beliefs, acceptance of one part of one's ancestry's heritage as the defining characteristic of one's identity. etc.etc. This order of complexity does not apply to the compared terms, and since the definition is vexed, to introduce a cat which papers over the difference is misleading (and political).Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, Nishidani. Simply on the level of common sense (a principle at the heart of Wikipedia policy), categories were not intended to include spurious haplogroup research interpretations. It also runs contrary to the concept of what I would consider to be a fundamental human right: that of self-identification. As you've illustrated, nation-states are a recent reinterpretation of 'belonging' to an ethnic group tied to a defined territory with defined borders. At the risk of using a simplistic analogy, whereas the Jewish populations are amongst the earliest historically documented examples of ethnic/cultural/religious groups living in territories outside of that of their origins, the parallels in more recent history (where so many populations have migrated, yet retained a dualistic or multiplistic sense of identity) are found in diasporic populations around the globe. I've had to intervene on quite a number of bio's where there has been intermarriage and you'll find contributors squabbling over whether the notable is Dominican, Italian, Albanian or Irish.

Unless a person self-identifies, it is not up to bystanders to claim them as their own. When going back many generations, where is the 'use by' date on the timeline?

The alternative is to create DNA specific categories, which is opening a can of worms that makes me shudder. The prospect is unwholesomely reminiscent of eugenics as, from my reading of how various interest groups wish to introduce the subject, it is definitely not in the name of empirical scientific data. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The arguments for inclusion do not rely exclusively on genetics. That is a straw man. My position also relies on history, self-identity (more on that in a second), culture, language, and ethnic origins. In light of that, it's not hard to see why many have opted to put Jews in the Middle East descent category. Regarding self-identity, Jews have traditionally, and presently, defined themselves as a nation in direct descent from the Israelite tribes of the Middle East. This self-perception is not limited to religious Jews. For example, Albert Einstein did not see himself as a German. He saw himself as a Jew, and considered all Jews (and even the Arabs living in what was then the British Mandate) as his "brothers". In fact, the entire (overwhelmingly secular) Zionist movement is built on the millennia old premise that Jews are a nation whose historical roots are in the Levant. The only arguments I see against inclusion are A) blood purity (i.e. if someone has mixed ancestry from non-Near Eastern sources, it nullifies their Near Eastern heritage) and B) pushing some sort of political agenda, neither of which I am sympathetic to.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop speaking as though only me and Gilad are in favor of inclusion. I can point to several editors who have come out in support of our position. Why you and Debresser are focusing on us to the exclusion of everyone else, I have no idea, but it raises WP:GRUDGE concerns.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:48, 2 March

We were not discussing the many ways in which Jewishness is defined, but whether Jews, ethnic Jews specifically, consider themselves to be persons of Middle Eastern descent. The answer is yes, we do. If we are religious, we believe we are the children of Avraham - the father of many, the first Jew to settle in Canaan. If we are secular, we point to the archeological record which tells us that the Jewish presence in Israel is not less than 2,700 years old and perhaps older. If we are secular, we point also to genetic studies which affirm that all Jews are in the order of third and fifth cousins if they are not already related by blood. By the bye, genetics bears no relation to eugenics. The former is the scientific discipline that gave us the Human Genome Project and revolutionized medicine. The latter was a pseudoscience embraced by a cult. To conflate the two is to display an ignorance of science. Gilad55 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I should not even bother to dignify your comment, "To conflate the two is to display an ignorance of science." Please read what I have stated in context. A) DNA research is still in its infancy and, if you check the numbers of participants in the study groups, you'll find that they represent a tiny portion of any ethnic group being studied; B) I've already had to citekill and remove insidious use of self-identification figures being misrepresented as if they were DNA findings on a number of articles from Slavic related articles to white Dominican figures. There are many, many articles which have virtually no one monitoring them via watchlist: even less where editors/contributors have the time or inclination to carefully check purportedly cited information. Much of the time, so long as there appears to be a source or sources, they're allowed through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• We were not discussing the many ways in which Jewishness is defined, but whether Jews, ethnic Jews specifically, consider themselves to be persons of Middle Eastern descent.

Gilad55, you do not decide what we are or are not discussing, you also don't define how the "of descent" categories are to be used. Category policies, guidelines and precedent, along with consensus, determine the basis of categorization and WP:CFD is normally where disputes are resolved. You can help your case by reading WP:EGRS and WP:Categorization. Categories are a way of organizing articles, not to assert a POV about ethnic identity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain "joined effort" to me. Gilad55 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Michael Rimmer

Hi, Iryna - sorry about that, should have added a valid reference. The reason for my edit was I recently met with a bunch of guys from LPS and that's how they referred to the bloke. Appropriate, in my opinion, but yes, un-attributable. Regards, Pete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.0.235 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Pete. Not a problem. I've had chats with groups of people about sportsmen and women, as well as politicians, and there's often a nickname attached (usually one which constitutes libel!). If it isn't attributable, it can't be used in a Wikipedia article.

Mind you, you could try attributing it to Boffer, Dazza, Gazza, Mick and Goose down at 'The Pig and Whistle', but I doubt it'd fly. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia and Maidan protests

I am interested in learning more about any ties between those two. Would you be able to point me to any pages about those topics (English or Ukrainian), and to English-speaking Wikipedians who may be able to do the same? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can pull up for you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you looking for parallel articles (possibly for alternative citations and alternative slants to the English versions) specifically? At the moment, the ones I've found are also subject to serious POV jostling. If alternative takes on the subject and escalation are what you're after, I'll need to read through them carefully. If there are any obvious and striking divergences in the presentation of the issues, I can let you know quickly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, my interested in this is academic: as a sociologist of Wikipedia and social movements, I think English readers of sociology journals may be interested in reading an article about how the Ukrainian Wikipedians became involved with the Euromaidan (you can see an academic article I wrote in this field here). Unfortunately, I do not speak Ukrainian, hence I am looking for an "in" to the Ukrainian Wikipedians interested in those issues - perhaps one of them is a grad student/researcher interested in becoming a coauthor on this subject, or could direct me to someone interested. I thought I'd start my research by trying to contact some active Ukrainian Wikipedians interested in those topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, understood. I should have simply asked for clarification instead of making up scenarios in my own mind!

That certainly sounds like a potentially fascinating and edifying project. I probably won't be able to start exploring until Thursday or Friday, having a couple of urgent matters to attend to IRL. I'll take a look at Ukrainian Wikipedia and see who's been working on relevant articles, as well as whether there's any form a group there who are sociologists (or interested in sociology). There's probably a board somewhere where I can post a notice regarding the proposed project and find out whether there are English speakers who'd be willing to translate and post survey questionnaires, then translate back again.

I was sorry to find out that you didn't get the admin position. Personally, I think you're made of the right stuff to be the kind of administrator Wikipedia needs. Best of luck on you next application (and I do hope you don't give up on applying)! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, take your time - this is not a time sensitive project, and I am sure many Ukrainian Wikipedians are still busy. But I'd certainly appreciate your assistance in finding interested editors/academic collaborators. And thank you for your kind words about the adminship. One day I may try again; through I don't think it will happen this year. If you watchlist the future RfA page, you'll see if or when I change my mind (2015, perhaps?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've added the RfA page to my watchlist. As regards finding Ukrainian Wikipedians to work with, I'll start looking around but, as you've noted, one would expect that they're preoccupied with other concerns at the moment. I'll let you know when/if I make any headway. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reverting user Gerixau at Viktor Yanukovych

Cpacibo bольшое for catching this. It saved me the hassle to go manually undo what he did plus sort through whatever other REASONABLE changes may have been made in the interim. I brought this matter of his substantive stealth editing under the always two-word description "tidy up" with Gerixau on his talk page after about the fourth or fifth time he did it. Although he made a polite reply to me (unlike his reply to an editor who took him to task about an edit of his in the heading above mine) he's back to his old tricks. I specifically pointed out that the two Mezhyhirya sections are for different purposes and appear in different contexts (i.e., one is to describe the sudden departure and its aftermath, the other a key part of the festering background/buildup b/h VY's demise as UA leader). Apparently Gerixau found that unpersuasive but also felt it utterly unnecessary to enlighten the community with his own reasoning or even thoughts on the subject. :-) Best, Paavo273 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Не за что (or прошу дуже), Paavo273. I've been following Gerixau's efforts in changing content POV with interest. To my mind, you're being extremely gracious in referring to his/her response as being 'polite'. It reads as being evasive and antagonistic - reflecting the nature of his/her editing technique. 'I iz eruditer than yoo' (non)responses are as uncivil as flaming/expletives, and merely demonstrate a lack of good faith in establishing any form of civil interaction and genuine attempts to collaborate with other contributors. No attempts have been made to actually explain the rationale behind substantive changes, additions to, and redaction of content. Stealth editing in such a manner is, in effect, stealth vandalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal Russian teacher

Iryna, I am happy to be your personal Russian teacher! ;) Natasha Brown 09:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I might just take you up on that! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got e-mail!

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN

Any developments regarding the DRN? Gilad55 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I have a couple of commitments IRL, but will submit ASAP (before I get dragged in any further and am unable to be neutral). I was taking time going through the copious discussions, but have come to the conclusion that it's probably best that I submit a general account of what's been going on as pertains to categories.

Any disputes as to detailed research surrounding DNA and self-identification will end up being brought up by individuals participating in the DRN as a by-product (and probably require a separate DRN in order to do justice to the issue).

The first priority is not to scare away any potential mediators by plunging them into an academic discourse they don't want to touch as it will only end up being tossed back to us to decide... which will end up in edit warring, the expending of more precious energy and intellect to no avail and, worst of all, inevitably results in ANI's being opened. To my mind, ANI's are for troublemakers to be sanctioned, not for constructive contributors to be punished for having disparate opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Iryna, are you going ahead with this? No pressure, I have just held back from editing certain talk pages, trying to detach myself from the debate. Thanks for all your work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely am. I've been putting it off as I was getting tangled in the web myself. I needed to disengage (erhem, and a little bit of wishful thinking was involved, i.e. no activity for a while = it's burnt itself out).

The question I find myself asking is whether it should be tackled as purely category-related. That'd be far more straight-forward. The reality is that the category issue is overspill from the Ashkenazi Jews DNA OCD which has resumed. Problematic. Does one treat one of the symptoms with the knowledge that the rest may possibly emerge via the discussion, or is it duplicitous to drag an innocent mediator into a convoluted issue they wouldn't have been prepared to take on? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have tried to keep my edits to the "X people of Jewish descent" categories though I have weighed in on other talk pages for different ethnic Jewish groups. I have kept away "Jewish X" categories although that would get at the heart of the disagreement.

I just conferred with other people who work in categories and, while it's not written down, they consider "descent" to go back 3 or 4 generations (not 2000 or 3000 years). So, there is less cause to bring in DNA evidence and tackle ethnic identification than for people who self-identify as Jewish. While other editors might tackle enormous issues, I think it would be more productive to limit the scope of the discussion to this area of dispute. But that's just my suggestion to keep the mediation on track. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue of categories is also my preference, Liz. I didn't have a chance to check in properly yesterday, so I haven't caught up with the fresh outbreak of frenetic editing on the Ashkenazi article. Have you noted recent activity of category additions to inappropriate pages? I don't want to start a DRN only to have it knocked back because there hasn't been ongoing activity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there hasn't been much activity with categories because a few of us tried making some edits in February and almost got into an edit war. So, there is a stalemate. Any change by one editor on the subject of whether people of Jewish descent are or aren't also of Asian descent will be immediately reverted. There isn't currently any activity because it was heading towards an edit war. Hence, the need for dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it'll only take one person to trigger it off. DRN for the categories issue it is, then. I'll keep it short & sweet and note that all parties involved are GF, as well as articulate enough to present their arguments. Trying to point to every talk page is redundant in light of how convoluted the discussion has become. Just a few salient points, links to discussions and pages where what are deemed to be inappropriate categories have been added. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion among a couple of editors who work with categories is at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Of descent categories. I specifically didn't want the discussion to center on a specific ethnic identity and instead consider what the common understanding of "descent" is among editors who most commonly assign categories and nominate categories for deletion, renaming and merging.

WP:EGRS is an area that can be fraught with conflict but after spending a lot of time working with the entire range of "of X descent" categories, this has been the only one that has been so controversial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out additional discussions which ought to be included in the submission. Whereas DNA/Genetics has reared its head in various venues (i.e., Archaeogenetics of Europe has now been sensibly redirected to Genetic history of Europe), common sense has been applied to keep a lid on the use as proto-groups in order to keep flag waving and spurious claims to direct lineage down: see the careful with which categories have been selected and proscribed for the purposes of the article.

I'll give my head another scratch and think about the presentation. Keeping it terse, succinct and minimal is still my priority. My take is that those who wish to use categories in an unintuitive manner (that is, reasonable expectations as to what one would expect to find in searching a category would not result in finding this are flying their arguments under the banner of WP:ITSIMPORTANT and is just unfortunate if everyone else's expectation does not include hundreds of years, if not millennia ago. Those of us against usage of ethnic categories are objecting to it on the grounds of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:Reasonability. Oh, I'll use Archive 32 as it is edifying. Any other discussions relevant that spring to mind? Gawd, here was I feeling guilty about procrastinating. My sense of guilt has completely washed away. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Central/Eastern edit war

Hi there! I was involved in an edit war in late January and/or early February regarding the universal (on Wikipedia) categorization of Poland as a country in Central Europe (it's not as simple as that, but I guess that's what it boils down to). In an effort to settle the matter without further squabbling, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Of course, those who kept reverting my edits on Poland probably did not even look at it - thus ruling themselves out of the discussion and appearing like vandals, but others have gotten interested and left some replies. I've provided many valid arguments to support my editing there and two others have shown support (only one person involved in the discussion is opposed to my idea), yet I am powerless to take any action because whatever I do will be reverted like it was before - usually by someone who is not even taking part in the discussion and often no reason is stated. I've tried to reverting it back to my version and inviting them to the talk page, but they refuse to listen. I think you are a veteran Wikipedian and have some authority on this website, so I'm turning to you for help in this matter. If you have the time and will, please have a look at: Talk:Poland#Central.2FEastern_edit_war and take whatever action you deem necessary. I would really appreciate it if this matter was finally sorted out. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for not responding earlier, but I'm seriously caught up in a massive number of issues on Wikipedia at the moment. I've added the page to my watchlist and will read it over carefully. I'd prefer to reserve from commenting at the moment. I'm not certain as to whether you are aware of it but, as the result of a certain user creating a multitude of sock puppets POV pushing the issue last year (and continuing into this year), the general Wikipedia community still has its hackles up, and I honestly don't feel that it is not likely to be receptive to looking at the issue kindly for some time. At a cursory look, it seems that the proposal is being nipped at the bud before it explodes into another situation like the one to be found on the Galicia talk page.

I'd suggest that you have a careful read through the Galicia talk page in order to get a sense of what happened, as well as the fact that the issue has been brought up in various virtually on a yearly basis.

My advice would be to keep accumulating reliable sources demonstrating Poland's being identified as Central Europe as a project under development in a dedicated page in your sandbox and ask interested parties to comment, add and discuss there. Inviting those who have shown interest in the subject can't be construed as WP:CANVASSING, and it will provide a venue where well formulated and supported arguments can be put together before presentation to the broader community. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. No problem, there's a lot to read through on Poland's talk page as well. When I have the time, I will sit down to read Galicia's talk page. Also, just to clarify regarding Poland: I'm not arguing for Central or Eastern, but for a compromise of East-Central. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Defining the area as Central and Eastern Europe was the crux of the matter on the Galicia page, but overlapped with defining Poland as being Central Europe. Having had 'warriors' unilaterally changing categories on masses of pages has undone a lot of hard work in using WP:V/WP:RS on behalf of good faith editors constructing a case which doesn't read as being original research. Best of luck on getting a constructive discussion off the ground again! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've provided plenty of sensible arguments on there - but thank you for reminding me that sources are just as important. I went back to the talk page and added some links. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hack?

Iryna -

It looks to me as though the template for {{History of Ukraine}} has been hacked, so that it says History of {{country}}. I don't know how to fix this, do you? My guess is there's going to be a lot of politically motivated hacking of Ukraine-related articles in the near future. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I put a notice on an admin page (not the right one, but it seems to have worked), and it was fixed. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Paul! Yes, I have the template on my watchlist. It had already been fixed by the time I got the notification re. changes. It was an IP who appears to have been trying to add information in good faith, but had no idea of how parameters on templates work and had overwritten the size (which is set to 18 ems) and another parameter, so it ended up sprawling over half a page and broken.

Just goes to show that if you don't know how to edit Wikipedia, and you make a mistake... revert it back to the working version!

You are absolutely spot on about being vigilant about any of the articles surrounding the subject of Ukraine at the moment. The traffic is relentless, particularly on the talk pages. Everyone has a POV opinion and they're not afraid to express it. Sigh. Another day on Wikipedia, eh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Labrador

Hey, in the demographics section of Labrador it says Labrador City is the largest city in Labrador even though at the beginning of the page it says Happy Valley Goose Bay is the largest city even though that is wrong. Why did you remove the right answer and replace it with the wrong one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineee (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Vaselineee. As per the message left on your page, your change was understood to be WP:AGF, however you hadn't left an edit summary to explain the change, nor had you cited any form of verifiable & reliable source.

I've actually checked the Canadian Census stats and have updated the article to reflect that Labrador has the largest population (having added the source for my change and an ES for other editors to understand why it has been changed and the fact that the source has been updated).

Please read Wikipedia's civility policy. Addressing a fellow contributor with a "Hey", and demonstrating a discourteous attitude is not appreciated. Having seen your talk page, I have noticed that you have already aggravated other contributors. I would suggest that you start communicating with others in the same respectful manner you would want accorded to you. Wikipedia:Good editing practices is a great short essay to get you on your way. Cheers for the alert on the change in information regarding Labrador! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI on recent Ukraine edits.

Just FYI, JNC2 was banned for 24 hours for edit warring and I started an RfC on Ukraine. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I just started this morning - remembering that I'm on Australian time and had intended to start an RfC yesterday evening, but thought it best to leave it until I could keep tabs on it - and saw what was going on. Argh! I need to get another cup of coffee into me to kick-start the grey matter. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, enjoy your cuppa. It is a mess, and honestly surprised that it's even an issue (compared to Russia). But your suggestion of RfC was the right thing. Let's see what others say. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't object to the map per se, but rather the POV pushes on an recent and ongoing event. I couldn't get through to make an observation for ec's with one particular IP constantly changing his/her comments. Being such a recent and globally contentious accession, I don't think it's appropriate to use the light green for Crimea as is used by long, ongoing de facto state disputes. Neither do I consider the Ukraine (the country) article an appropriate venue for the POV traffic who didn't manage to get a see-in on the current affairs articles in question to turn this article into a current affairs article.

Enough said. I'll leave it for my comment on the RfC. Thanks, again, for your trademark even-handed and civil approach to the article! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Any time :) EvergreenFir (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Think before you speak

How dare you call me a POV pusher! You did so on the Talk page of the Ukraine article, talking about POV pushers and pointing to my contributions in particular. First of all, I have been actively OPPOSING both pro-Kiev and pro-Moscow POVs on the Crimea issue - and it has been difficult, and this is the respect I get for doing that - with some absurd ignorant allegation! Think, before you speak.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. FYI, I've left a public apology, along with an explanation as to how the mistake in identity came about, on the relevant talk page.

Please note, however, that your response here is unnecessarily emotive. Perhaps you should test the waters before jumping on other contributors. The next time you leave a missive of this nature on someone's talk page, they may not be as amenable to admitting their error, nor respond positively to the language you employ. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

subjective preferences

hi Iryna - I read your user page and you sound really nice. It says there that one should let you know if one thinks you are "allowing subjective preferences to override". I think you are doing so about the whole Crimea on maps thing. All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Frenchmalawi. Yes, I've thought on the subject overnight and concede that I was allowing myself to be riled by one particular IP. The fact is that my greater concern lies with using that article as if it were a current affairs page (which is why I added hatnotes to the articles pointing to the relevant current affairs articles).

I'm about to change my vote to temporarily withheld until a couple of policy issues are cleared up. First, I have to make lunch and eat it! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

have a nice lunch! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine page modifications

Hi Iryna, WHy did you undo my changes to the "Ukraine" page? I added a clarification that 97% of the voters in the Crimean referendum constituted 80% of the total population with the right to vote. You can check the Referendum article and references therein that this is indeed the case. Best, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.107.9.95 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Which of the existing referenced articles are you alluding to for the 80%? I'm not going to expand this section any further with more references as it doesn't actually doesn't need to be expanded. This is the article about "Ukraine" the country (history, culture, etc., etc., etc.), not an extensive current affairs article. If you wish to check the top of the article, you will find the relevant current affairs articles listed.

Could you also provide a reference for your change from, "local media alleged..." to, "Ukrainian media alleged..."? Any references to the media in the sourced articles don't state anything about whether it was the Ukrainian media, the Russian media, or even the Tartar media. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please adhere to WP:AGF. Your premature accusations of POV pushing were unjustified. WP:NPOV is not a crowbar to beat off opposing views. Further, there was a reliable source attached to my edit (as it was in the passage further down in the article, which says the same thing), and at least one other long time editor agreed with me. Please do not do this in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please use the relevant talk page instead of personalising discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• As such, Muslims comprise the single largest religious group in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other two large groups being [[Eastern Orthodoxy]] (31%) and [[Roman Catholicism]] (15%)<ref

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Ukraine template edit war

Hi, you are invited to resolve your dispute with Nemboysha on the template's talk page. Feon {^t/_c} 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Your name has been mentioned in a post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Outrageous edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"--Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)