This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.24.75.223 (talk) at 21:52, 30 September 2015 (Added required ANI notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:52, 30 September 2015 by 96.24.75.223 (talk) (Added required ANI notice)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Why did you revert my edit?
Hello Iryna!
Just curious, why did you do this edit? Aren't external links helpful?
Also I'd really like to know where does the simplification rule comes from. --Amakuha (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Amakuha. I apologise for not leaving a proper ES or starting a talk page discussion as I tweaked my back and had no energy (in fact, I have to take some more pain killers and lie down for a while... akh, it's boring).
- Could you please start a discussion on the article's talk page and ping me from there? Essentially, WP:UKROM is a mess. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages WP:P-NUK is in place for geographic nomenclature, but is not noted there. Essentially, we don't have a parallel guide for Misplaced Pages's transliteration of Ukrainian as an equivalent to the Russian WP:RUROM guide. It was originally envisaged that the Misplaced Pages:Romanization of Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN transliteration table article would serve as such a parallel, and would take in Help:IPA for Ukrainian. I really do think that all of the articles on the Romanization of Ukrainian need to be cleaned up, but most specifically that a simplified version for a transliteration system as part of Misplaced Pages's ] should be easily found and accessible for both editors and readers. Чух-чух твою макушку! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear about your health... I hope it's nothing serious and you are feeling better.
- Regarding the «Чух-чух твою макушку!» I hope it wasn't a personal attack against my surname :) --Amakuha (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Haha! I couldn't help myself. My mother was addicted to having the crown of her head scratched... If you have a "chub", that would make for easy access. My back problem is the result of forgetting how old I am and deciding I could climb a tree just as easily as I did when I was young. Now that's embarrassing to admit. There's no fool like an old fool! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this, Amakuha. I'm temporarily caught up in areas of Misplaced Pages and will respond to the section you've opened on the article's talk page as soon as possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Haha! I couldn't help myself. My mother was addicted to having the crown of her head scratched... If you have a "chub", that would make for easy access. My back problem is the result of forgetting how old I am and deciding I could climb a tree just as easily as I did when I was young. Now that's embarrassing to admit. There's no fool like an old fool! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2,000 dead Russian soldiers
I highly contentious issue has arisen at the War in Donbass talk page in the section Casualties and losses and continued into the subsection Comment. I feel you as a committed editor of the War in Donbass should take part in this discussion and maybe propose a compromise that has not been thought of so far. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving me a note, EkoGraf. I was expecting this to come up since the so-called leaked reports, and noticed some edit warring without any real discussion a couple of days ago, but I haven't returned to it since. I'll take a look at the arguments and join in. I don't particularly like it but, then, I don't particularly like the sensationalist nature of the Azov Battalion article... but what the RS say is what the RS say (even if they're just mimicking each other). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Problem here is they are only reporting a claim by a dubious media outlet, they are not confirming the claim. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it reminds me of the purported documentation 'found' by the Moscow Times last year. The problem is that, when enough RS report on it, it's used as a pretext for a COATRACK... and it's difficult to argue against using it because it always comes back to the "we can't ignore that RS are reporting on it, therefore it merits inclusion" argument. I still need to think on how to deal with it before I make any comments on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- It seems at this point virtually everyone except Marek and Wishes are against the inclusion of the figure. However, now they have started arguing for the removal of the number of separatist dead and Ukrainians captured on the basis it was done via OR or Synth, although it was actually done on the basis of WP: CALC and sources are provided. I have attempted a compromise edit and elaborated on it in the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- You know I've been following your use of CALC for the last couple of years on these articles alone, as have other regulars as regards your specialised area of stats as reflected in the Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis article, aside from the other articles you work on. I'd prefer to find a resolution outside of a DRN which is going to attract the 'usual' POV suspects and turn it into a fiasco, or an RfC which bring in uninformed, POV blow-ins, socks and meatpuppets. I think that, in order to expedite a solution, it may be productive to use my talk page as a venue. It's not something to be resolved as a compromise, so I'd encourage discussion here. Under the circumstances, I'm going to ping Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, RGloucester, Toddy1, and Ritsaiph before it becomes a complete tl;dr fiasco that no admin or volunteer wants to touch (as if anyone in their right mind has wanted to get involved with such articles in the first place). This doesn't mean that there's anything 'chummy' or 'cabal-like' in the manner in which we address this: simply that we try to make respectful, NPOV arguments for inclusion or exclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted your opinion on something. Should we maybe move the 400-500 Russian soldiers killed (per State Department) from the brackets beside the 1,213 dead (confirmed per the graveyard image) and they be listed separately in the row bellow the 1,213 dead? And we note 400-500 is Russian soldiers and 1,213 is militants. Because as much as I have been reading other RS, it seems most of the alleged Russian soldiers killed are transported back to Russia and not left in Ukraine, so that graveyard most likely is just of native Ukrainian separatists. And the source itself calls it a separatist graveyard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: I'd prefer to defer discussing how best to present casualties figures until we've come to some sort of agreement on what does and doesn't belong there. At the moment, I'm with RGloucester's bold move in removing that infobox section altogether, although I think it should be restored as soon as we've worked out what is relevant for the infobox. While slashing info can be appealing as a method for avoiding what are essentially unknown quantities, it serves a limited function when there are official stats. There are plenty of things it would be desirable to do away with because it can be justified as not being as relevant as other reliably sourced and known quantities, but not everything can be done away with on the pretext that it isn't important. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted your opinion on something. Should we maybe move the 400-500 Russian soldiers killed (per State Department) from the brackets beside the 1,213 dead (confirmed per the graveyard image) and they be listed separately in the row bellow the 1,213 dead? And we note 400-500 is Russian soldiers and 1,213 is militants. Because as much as I have been reading other RS, it seems most of the alleged Russian soldiers killed are transported back to Russia and not left in Ukraine, so that graveyard most likely is just of native Ukrainian separatists. And the source itself calls it a separatist graveyard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- You know I've been following your use of CALC for the last couple of years on these articles alone, as have other regulars as regards your specialised area of stats as reflected in the Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis article, aside from the other articles you work on. I'd prefer to find a resolution outside of a DRN which is going to attract the 'usual' POV suspects and turn it into a fiasco, or an RfC which bring in uninformed, POV blow-ins, socks and meatpuppets. I think that, in order to expedite a solution, it may be productive to use my talk page as a venue. It's not something to be resolved as a compromise, so I'd encourage discussion here. Under the circumstances, I'm going to ping Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, RGloucester, Toddy1, and Ritsaiph before it becomes a complete tl;dr fiasco that no admin or volunteer wants to touch (as if anyone in their right mind has wanted to get involved with such articles in the first place). This doesn't mean that there's anything 'chummy' or 'cabal-like' in the manner in which we address this: simply that we try to make respectful, NPOV arguments for inclusion or exclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- It seems at this point virtually everyone except Marek and Wishes are against the inclusion of the figure. However, now they have started arguing for the removal of the number of separatist dead and Ukrainians captured on the basis it was done via OR or Synth, although it was actually done on the basis of WP: CALC and sources are provided. I have attempted a compromise edit and elaborated on it in the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it reminds me of the purported documentation 'found' by the Moscow Times last year. The problem is that, when enough RS report on it, it's used as a pretext for a COATRACK... and it's difficult to argue against using it because it always comes back to the "we can't ignore that RS are reporting on it, therefore it merits inclusion" argument. I still need to think on how to deal with it before I make any comments on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Problem here is they are only reporting a claim by a dubious media outlet, they are not confirming the claim. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ekograf, in addition to adding your own original research to Misplaced Pages articles, using deceptive edit summaries, conducting talk page discussions in bad faith, you are now clearly engaged in WP:CANVASSING. It's annoying and bad faithed. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, thanks for pinging me on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, Volunteer Marek. Personally, I don't construe this as canvassing. Ekograf knows that I'm involved in these articles, that he and I have a reasonable working relationship on various articles, and there's nothing wrong with bringing interested editors into the picture in case they're unaware of developments. By the same token, I could just as easily be accused of forum shopping and canvassing. I'd rather that we use this as a venue to work through differences of opinion between editors who have experience and some semblance of mutual respect for their abilities to work through issues collaboratively in respecting NPOV. While none of us always agree on issues, I certainly respect the integrity of the editors I've pinged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- bad faith? This coming from a man who chucks insults, accusations and generally hostile comments at fellow editors on a regular basis? Canvassing? I in no way did solicit Iryna's support when I sent him my message to get him involved on the issue, I asked him to come and look at the issue and perhaps propose a compromise (middle ground) that we hadn't thought off. And I also had no prior knowledge of his opinion about the issue before contacting him. Same goes for RGloucester. I contacted them two, not knowing what their personal opinions are on the issue, because they are two editors highly involved with the War in Donbass and in the hopes that they will have a solution to our argument and help both of us bring the matter to a close. EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- EkoGraf, you are once again confusing things. "Bad faith" means hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages rules. Like using dishonest edit summaries. Insults or direct accusations are not hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME. In this instance there is no insults, although there are accusations of you behaving disruptively and in bad faith. Which are true and well substantiated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Come on, guys. I know we're all get worn out (and down) by the POV-pushers whose only aspiration is to turn articles on current affairs into journalistic, op-ed trash, but could we try not to personalise this, please? Once good editors fall out over maintaining the integrity of content, articles are dead in the water and the most tendentious editors swoop in to feed on the carcass (okay, I like to throw a bit of melodrama into scenarios, but that's essentially what happens).
- The fact is that we have RS reporting on a report which may be true, but is not worth its salt unless/until it's tested and verified by independent sources. That being the case, it's still true that it has been reported on, therefore ignoring it becomes a problem because other editors and readers are aware of it, hence it is DUE somewhere. The question is where it is due.
- EkoGraf, you are once again confusing things. "Bad faith" means hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages rules. Like using dishonest edit summaries. Insults or direct accusations are not hypocrisy or sneaky attempts to WP:GAME. In this instance there is no insults, although there are accusations of you behaving disruptively and in bad faith. Which are true and well substantiated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- bad faith? This coming from a man who chucks insults, accusations and generally hostile comments at fellow editors on a regular basis? Canvassing? I in no way did solicit Iryna's support when I sent him my message to get him involved on the issue, I asked him to come and look at the issue and perhaps propose a compromise (middle ground) that we hadn't thought off. And I also had no prior knowledge of his opinion about the issue before contacting him. Same goes for RGloucester. I contacted them two, not knowing what their personal opinions are on the issue, because they are two editors highly involved with the War in Donbass and in the hopes that they will have a solution to our argument and help both of us bring the matter to a close. EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm against the figures being used in the infobox and should only need a mention in the "casualties" section of the article if the details are described more comprehensibly in the "Casualties..." article. In any of these cases, I can't see any honest way past intext attribution. If that truly means that between us we determine that it's an imperative to create undesirable infobox clutter (that is, more 'according to' and 'estimates ranging from x to y'), then so be it. That's an issue that can be redressed further down the line once it becomes clearer as to whether the 'leaks' are substantiated as being the real deal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Each war/battle/offensive infobox has its casualty figures to inform our readers. RGloucester's removal all the casualty figures (including the UN ones) on the basis they are disputed and not serving any purpose, while a discussion on the figures is still ongoing is inappropriate. WP policy dictates that a status quo needs to be preserved while a discussion is ongoing before any changes are made. EkoGraf (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- If more substantion is given to the claim (2,000 dead) about its reliability (which it lacks at the moment) I would have no objection for the figure to be an upper estimate compared to 400 per the State Department. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: Addressing the removal of the casualty figures from the infobox, since no one seems to want to talk to anyone else, I'll leave a request for RGloucester to self-revert here. While I stand by the decision in principle (on the proviso that casualty figures be reinstated immediately after discussions here) not liking sourced information is not a valid excuse for deleting it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I already reinserted the figures. A total blanking of the infobox section while a dispute is to be resolved does not serve anyone any good, especially our readers. I would have maybe understood the removal of militants or Russian soldiers killed or Ukrainian POWs, but the removal of the overall figure provided by the UN or the official figure of Ukrainian servicemen killed provided by the National Museum wasn't appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am seriously considering the removal of the numbers of POWs from the infobox, since this seems to be one of the more sticky points. However, I am having trouble removing the numbers of POWs since prisoner exchanges have been really notable in the media. This would of course lead to the removal of the figures of defectors and wounded. Thus leaving only the numbers of dead and missing. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed it all, I removed the number of captured militants, the number of captured soldiers (although the source clearly stated the figure), the number of defectors and the number of wounded. The dead and missing only remain. As for the 2,000 Russian figure, I'm still standing by everyone else that the RS, although they reported it, did not verify its reliability or that of the source and than the only sensible step would be to mention the report in the Casualties section. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- He did it. He removed it again. All of it. Marek. He removed it on the basis its OR and SYNTH. UN source clearly says 6,829 (2,500 civilians). Museum source clearly says 2,540 soldiers. And the other two refs clearly show/say 2,213 and 273. And he did a massive revert of everything I edited, including other textual changes in the article that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. EkoGraf (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed it all, I removed the number of captured militants, the number of captured soldiers (although the source clearly stated the figure), the number of defectors and the number of wounded. The dead and missing only remain. As for the 2,000 Russian figure, I'm still standing by everyone else that the RS, although they reported it, did not verify its reliability or that of the source and than the only sensible step would be to mention the report in the Casualties section. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am seriously considering the removal of the numbers of POWs from the infobox, since this seems to be one of the more sticky points. However, I am having trouble removing the numbers of POWs since prisoner exchanges have been really notable in the media. This would of course lead to the removal of the figures of defectors and wounded. Thus leaving only the numbers of dead and missing. EkoGraf (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I already reinserted the figures. A total blanking of the infobox section while a dispute is to be resolved does not serve anyone any good, especially our readers. I would have maybe understood the removal of militants or Russian soldiers killed or Ukrainian POWs, but the removal of the overall figure provided by the UN or the official figure of Ukrainian servicemen killed provided by the National Museum wasn't appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: Addressing the removal of the casualty figures from the infobox, since no one seems to want to talk to anyone else, I'll leave a request for RGloucester to self-revert here. While I stand by the decision in principle (on the proviso that casualty figures be reinstated immediately after discussions here) not liking sourced information is not a valid excuse for deleting it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- If more substantion is given to the claim (2,000 dead) about its reliability (which it lacks at the moment) I would have no objection for the figure to be an upper estimate compared to 400 per the State Department. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Each war/battle/offensive infobox has its casualty figures to inform our readers. RGloucester's removal all the casualty figures (including the UN ones) on the basis they are disputed and not serving any purpose, while a discussion on the figures is still ongoing is inappropriate. WP policy dictates that a status quo needs to be preserved while a discussion is ongoing before any changes are made. EkoGraf (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm against the figures being used in the infobox and should only need a mention in the "casualties" section of the article if the details are described more comprehensibly in the "Casualties..." article. In any of these cases, I can't see any honest way past intext attribution. If that truly means that between us we determine that it's an imperative to create undesirable infobox clutter (that is, more 'according to' and 'estimates ranging from x to y'), then so be it. That's an issue that can be redressed further down the line once it becomes clearer as to whether the 'leaks' are substantiated as being the real deal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)I understand this to be the most desirable outcome for the infobox as, even if there are RS speculating on various numbers, we represent only confirmed dead and missing according to official reports (even if they're biased). Any information beyond what has been 'officially' confirmed by either side is unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose. Again, the "Casualties" section is only a summary of the main article on the subject. The article on the "War in Donbass" itself has grown to the point of being a 'broad concept' coverage article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek Your last edit was highly inappropriate. You removed on the basis of OR and SYNTH the official Ukrainian figures of dead and missing, as well as the UN figures, not to mention you mass reverted several of my other edits elsewhere in the article. Only because you consider the number of militant dead to be OR and SYNTH. So when it comes to everything else, this was unjustified. As for the militant dead figure. You ask how i know its 2,213 and not possibly 2,215? Its because it is clearly seen here in the second source on the graveyard that was removed during this edit warring. And for an even more larger version of the same image follow the Livejournal blog link in the source. I will add the source where the number is clearly visible. You speculate there may be other graveyards or plates running higher than 2,213? Fine, than we add the words at least. There another attempt at compromise, I would expect some from you please. Finally you asked how I know these are only soldiers and not civilians? Because the source said its a cemetery for fighters. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- My last edit was entirely appropriate as it removed your unwarrented and faulty original research and synthesis. This has been explained to you. And now you're just being stubborn.
- And Iryna's talk page isn't the place for this discussion. I'd appreciate it if you made your comments in the appropriate venue, the talk page, since talking here may give the impression of you trying to exclude other editors from the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek I am talking here because Irina has pinged and called upon all involved parties to discuss the issue here at his talk page (so they are not excluded as you say). And removal of properly sourced information (UN figures and Ukrainian military figures) and removal of a whole sourced paragraph for the sake of removal of a potential OR is NEVER warranted. EkoGraf (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, you're talking here because this is where you came to canvass. Discuss in the appropriate place please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek I am here because Irina called us here. Before he called us I was discussing at the talk page. And in regards to your, at this point silly, canvass accusation, both me and Irina replied to it. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek And I see you again reverted/removed my paragraph on State Department casualties, my new sentence on the numbers of missing, and the latest figure of current active Russian volunteers in Ukraine, even though this has nothing to do with the issue you are contesting. And you also AGAIN removed the numbers of dead Russians, per the State Department, as well as the official Ukrainian figures of their war dead even though its properly sourced. And now I see you have started accusing Irina of being canvassed since he now agrees the last version I made to be the most optimal solution for now. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek I am here because Irina called us here. Before he called us I was discussing at the talk page. And in regards to your, at this point silly, canvass accusation, both me and Irina replied to it. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, you're talking here because this is where you came to canvass. Discuss in the appropriate place please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek I am talking here because Irina has pinged and called upon all involved parties to discuss the issue here at his talk page (so they are not excluded as you say). And removal of properly sourced information (UN figures and Ukrainian military figures) and removal of a whole sourced paragraph for the sake of removal of a potential OR is NEVER warranted. EkoGraf (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek Your last edit was highly inappropriate. You removed on the basis of OR and SYNTH the official Ukrainian figures of dead and missing, as well as the UN figures, not to mention you mass reverted several of my other edits elsewhere in the article. Only because you consider the number of militant dead to be OR and SYNTH. So when it comes to everything else, this was unjustified. As for the militant dead figure. You ask how i know its 2,213 and not possibly 2,215? Its because it is clearly seen here in the second source on the graveyard that was removed during this edit warring. And for an even more larger version of the same image follow the Livejournal blog link in the source. I will add the source where the number is clearly visible. You speculate there may be other graveyards or plates running higher than 2,213? Fine, than we add the words at least. There another attempt at compromise, I would expect some from you please. Finally you asked how I know these are only soldiers and not civilians? Because the source said its a cemetery for fighters. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)I understand this to be the most desirable outcome for the infobox as, even if there are RS speculating on various numbers, we represent only confirmed dead and missing according to official reports (even if they're biased). Any information beyond what has been 'officially' confirmed by either side is unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose. Again, the "Casualties" section is only a summary of the main article on the subject. The article on the "War in Donbass" itself has grown to the point of being a 'broad concept' coverage article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to any comments here any further as I feel that having the discussion here is tainted by canvassing and is aimed at excluding other relevant parties from the discussion. Further comments posted here will be ignored, and per Misplaced Pages policy will not be taken into account in the decision making process with regard to the article. If you wish to have your opinions considered, please use the appropriate venue, which is the article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek You don't seem to take any opinions made by me, Irina or anybody disagreeing with you, so whats the point? I've been asking you 3 or 4 times now why you removed the UN, Ukrainian and State Department figures without any reply. EkoGraf (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- In any case your edit which removed the Ukrainian dead and missing, along with the state department figure should be reverted at once and that information and sources be reinserted immediately, since those have nothing to do with your complaints. EkoGraf (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Volunteer Marek (and EkoGraf). Let's leave this section and use the article talk page. I was hoping we could reach some form of consensus here before taking it to the article's talk space before it turns into a protracted sparring match there, but it has obviously failed. Let's just drop this thread as 'tainted' and continue in the public venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- In any case your edit which removed the Ukrainian dead and missing, along with the state department figure should be reverted at once and that information and sources be reinserted immediately, since those have nothing to do with your complaints. EkoGraf (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 September 2015
- News and notes: Flow placed on ice
- Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments
- Featured content: Brawny
- In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
- Traffic report: You didn't miss much
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
Order of Merit of Ukraine | |
| Awarded to User:Iryna Harpy for making Misplaced Pages a better place for everyone, one small action at a time. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| this WikiAward was given to Iryna Harpy by Poeticbent talk on 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much, Poeticbent!
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Use of WP:POV map "Russian military bases 2015"
Thanks for your comments & understanding with removing disputed map from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad Appreciate if you can also remove this map for the same reason from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Russian_Armed_Forces (not sure how to do it myself properly). Thanks again & kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulsioner (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Not a problem! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed Text
Hey, I just saw you just removed the text which i added to the article Racism in Poland, I am just translating the information available on internet and adding it to the article , as i feel if we talk about racialism in Poland we should also show the recently data available on it. Please help me with how i can do it on this article by showing me an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalSpartans (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015
- Gallery: Being Welsh
- Featured content: Killed by flying debris
- Traffic report: Mass media production traffic
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Misplaced Pages editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Mayor of Bitola
I noticed you made the following edit. I couldn't quite comprehend the summary wording but it looks as if you doubt the party to which Vladimir Taleski belongs. I am aware anyhow (no source required in my case) that Taleski is indeed from VMRO-DPMNE. Here is an English language council seat report, so the edit you reverted was legit. --OJ (TALK) 06:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pulling me up on this, Oranges Juicy. Wow, I've really become jumpy of late. It's been one of those protracted periods of time where edit warring and POV pushing send me into spasms of 'no source, no inclusion'. Anyway, I've self reverted (but got rid of the red link until someone creates an article on him). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh absolutely, I'm another one that finds red links a pain. I think somewhere there is a policy guideline for where red links may be provided but I'm not clued on it hence the reason I avoid that area. In this case, I'll gladly leave it to you as you know what is best. --OJ (TALK) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:REDYES and WP:REDNOT. Just for a general overview, take a look at WP:RED. It really needs to be looked at in context, although his existence meets WP:V, I very much doubt that Vladimir Taleski is notable enough to merit an article (due to RS and a lack of editors likely to develop such a bio for someone at this level of the political food chain). If someone is going to develop a bio, it can be linked at that point. There are so many red links around already that leave in place, but I don't see the point in leaving a newly added red link unless there's an evident importance in someone developing an article at a later date. Ultimately, he just doesn't meet general notability guidelines at this point in his career. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh absolutely, I'm another one that finds red links a pain. I think somewhere there is a policy guideline for where red links may be provided but I'm not clued on it hence the reason I avoid that area. In this case, I'll gladly leave it to you as you know what is best. --OJ (TALK) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let me tell you something Iryna. There is publication out there that confirms the man's notability and I am every bit certain that if I created an article on him, it would not be deleted. However, given Taleski is someone that I know, and someone who knows the real me too, I can assure you he is not a person I am about to be giving satisfaction of further publicity. My background is sport, volleyball to be precise, and just before I launched my Wiki account, I had been living in Bitola training 14-16 year old females. I know Taleski, and I know plenty of others - all love the publicity, but they're not getting it!!! :) --OJ (TALK) 10:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- All the better, then. Leaving a red link might encourage someone to create an article and pander to his ego. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Ping
Hello. This is your paging service. You have a message at User talk:77.11.38.141. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yay, Drmies. Does this mean I get to spread my idiosyncratic brand of Wiki-lurv? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a free world--you can do whatever you like. Ha! (I'll mention you in class this afternoon; we're doing the Aeneid 7-9.) Drmies (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sweeeet! Now that's what I call context! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a free world--you can do whatever you like. Ha! (I'll mention you in class this afternoon; we're doing the Aeneid 7-9.) Drmies (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Open a subthread
Regarding this: I've found that ===BOOMERANG for Settleman=== usually works. Nishidani and the majority of the ANI regulars know why I'm not doing it myself and won't post there if someone else does it, but for the record I fully support such action given the massive IDHT and CIR issues on display. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Another editor has opened the subthread, Hijiri88. I'll comment/!vote once I've had a chance to sift through all of the edits in more detail. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 16 September 2015
- Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access
- News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Misplaced Pages?
- In the media: Is there life on Mars?
- Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?
- Traffic report: Another week
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Self-arrest
Because of the edit war at self-arrest, I have blocked all editors who violated the three revert rule on that page for 24 hours, including you. In the future, WP:RPP may be a useful avenue for avoiding an edit war. Karl Dickman 07:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is not a violation of WP:3RR. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ping me if you want to get unblocked and I'll get on that ASAP. --NeilN 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need to wait for an unblock request, Neil, this was an obvious mistake, so I've unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with unblock, as far as I know, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP is not banned. Last debate on the subject ended up inconclusive ; perhaps we need another round. I'm of two minds on the issue: while the IP is an abusive PITA, his version of the article was clearly superior against . But Iryna's page is probably not the right place for this conversation... No such user (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're probably right about this page not being the perfect place, but I'll reply once, and if you want to follow up we can get out of IH's hair and talk elsewhere. I don't use "defacto banned" lightly, mostly because it is open to abuse. But in this case, if it is true that there is no official ban (and I'm surprised, I could have sworn this came up again), there's still an exemption to block evading editors, and anyone with an LTA report and the history of blocking this editor has is as close to banned as you can get. If my terminology is wrong, I'll adjust it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Burninthruthesky, NeilN, Floquenbeam, Swarm, Volunteer Marek, Denisarona, and Илья Драконов for interceding on my behalf. I am extremely grateful to you all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, it just occurred to me that my thank you could be construed as canvassing. That is not my intention, merely to thank those who reverted abuse on my talk page and spoke up at the further discussion. So far as I'm concerned, the incident is over and done with and I have no intention, nor interest in touching the articles under dispute in future. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need to worry:) All is fine. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC).
- Cheers, Ilya. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, Ilya.
- Iryna, you are most welcome. I admire the grace and good-humour with which you and Clpo13 endured this fiasco. Things seem to have gone quiet for now, although I am ready with a message seeking clarification on whether policy is now understood correctly. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Burninthruthesky. I've been wondering whether this has been pursued any further. While the user's edits have been interpreted as being peripherally constructive, he has been allowed to continue editing with another of his IP accounts despite the fact that it is understood to be block evasion. My understanding is that he was in breach of CIVIL and NPA in the worst possible way, aside from edit warring... and is using that IP to continue casting ASPERSIONS wherever he thinks a sysop will listen to him. In return, he is being indulged with explanations as to where his behaviour was a little bit naughty. I don't see why his long term behavioural problems are considered tolerable when so many editors have been indeffed for a couple of outbursts under the pressure of working in AR sanctioned areas where explosions do occur. Are they creating a special clause for IPs who are not known to have had an account, therefore cannot 'technically' be traced to a sockmaster? I can accept that an admin who's been out of the loop for some time is fallible, therefore should be forgiven for making a decision under pressure, but I can't accept that an IP who has a painfully lengthy track record for behaving as if this is YouTube should be given special consideration because it's an interesting exception to the norm, therefore requires careful parsing as an exercise in metaphysics. Ah, well, enough of my tangential meanderings. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't have to read many YouTube comments before I learned not to bother
. Yes, he is sticking 2 fingers up to the rules, and he knows it. I fully agree with you he should not be afforded any "special clause". Wherever he is identified, he does not enjoy the same editing privileges as an unidentified IP. He can get away with making constructive edits, as long as nobody objects. If an editor in good-standing supports his edit, normal rules apply, and I have no problem with that. Despite recent suggestions to the contrary (which I haven't yet seen retracted), reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring. If it helps, you can find a list of known IP ranges at his LTA page. When you do find him, it's usually easy to hear the WP:QUACK. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for the tardy response, Burninthruthesky. The IP range, location, and attitude are all I need to identify the user, therefore I won't have any compunction about reverting should I encounter him again. As far as I'm concerned, I've never reverted any other socks, meat, or NOTHEREs without establishing the calibre of their content changes, but this guy's a corker and, given my record for evaluating (i.e., not being trigger-happy and predisposed to abusing PG) best practice in situ, I was surprised (euphemism) to have been blocked. I'm not particularly impressed by any purported extenuating circumstances, or with occasional gnomish positives on behalf of that user. Cheers, and thanks again for speaking up for Clpo13 and myself! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't have to read many YouTube comments before I learned not to bother
- Thank you, Burninthruthesky. I've been wondering whether this has been pursued any further. While the user's edits have been interpreted as being peripherally constructive, he has been allowed to continue editing with another of his IP accounts despite the fact that it is understood to be block evasion. My understanding is that he was in breach of CIVIL and NPA in the worst possible way, aside from edit warring... and is using that IP to continue casting ASPERSIONS wherever he thinks a sysop will listen to him. In return, he is being indulged with explanations as to where his behaviour was a little bit naughty. I don't see why his long term behavioural problems are considered tolerable when so many editors have been indeffed for a couple of outbursts under the pressure of working in AR sanctioned areas where explosions do occur. Are they creating a special clause for IPs who are not known to have had an account, therefore cannot 'technically' be traced to a sockmaster? I can accept that an admin who's been out of the loop for some time is fallible, therefore should be forgiven for making a decision under pressure, but I can't accept that an IP who has a painfully lengthy track record for behaving as if this is YouTube should be given special consideration because it's an interesting exception to the norm, therefore requires careful parsing as an exercise in metaphysics. Ah, well, enough of my tangential meanderings. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need to worry:) All is fine. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC).
- Oh, it just occurred to me that my thank you could be construed as canvassing. That is not my intention, merely to thank those who reverted abuse on my talk page and spoke up at the further discussion. So far as I'm concerned, the incident is over and done with and I have no intention, nor interest in touching the articles under dispute in future. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Burninthruthesky, NeilN, Floquenbeam, Swarm, Volunteer Marek, Denisarona, and Илья Драконов for interceding on my behalf. I am extremely grateful to you all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're probably right about this page not being the perfect place, but I'll reply once, and if you want to follow up we can get out of IH's hair and talk elsewhere. I don't use "defacto banned" lightly, mostly because it is open to abuse. But in this case, if it is true that there is no official ban (and I'm surprised, I could have sworn this came up again), there's still an exemption to block evading editors, and anyone with an LTA report and the history of blocking this editor has is as close to banned as you can get. If my terminology is wrong, I'll adjust it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with unblock, as far as I know, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP is not banned. Last debate on the subject ended up inconclusive ; perhaps we need another round. I'm of two minds on the issue: while the IP is an abusive PITA, his version of the article was clearly superior against . But Iryna's page is probably not the right place for this conversation... No such user (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Economy of Lebanon
Dear Iryna, I have just added the sources you were asking for just a month ago, regarding the inflation rate in Lebanon. The source is absolutely reliable, with estimates coming straight from the Lebanese Central Bank (Banque du Liban), in other words from the Lebanese Government itself. I would be grateful if you could check it And I thank you for your remarks :)
Mohammad Abulhassan (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, Mohammad Abulhassan! I'll take a look now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that it looks fine, although I'll need to expand a couple of the references. I also need to double-check against one lot of stats you've derived from the World Bank (usually, the IMF stats are used across "Economy of ...." articles). I'll do a proper job of it ASAP. If there are any problems, I'll let you know from the article's talk page so that other editors who are involved in the article (or involve themselves in its development in the future) can follow discussions. Thanks for the work you've put into it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Keep up the good work (and enjoy!!!) Denisarona (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Denisarona. I'm going to tuck into them right now. Delicious! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yulia Tymoshenko.Decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the European Court says that Tymoshenko was a political prisoner.Regarding the Russian aggression, Tymoshenko's even created his battalion, which was fighting in the East of Ukraine.Please do not remove this important information.--Gal777 (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're simply repeating exactly the same information you've left on the talk page of the article, on your own talk page, and on other editor's talk pages. Asserting that it is important does not make it so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Please could you add to your watch list to protect against POV editing
- Done Cheers, Toddy1! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Impressed
Iryna, I am really impressed by your patience. Did you read WP:DFTT? My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I know. I'm issuing myself a trout-slap and will return to normal interactions as of now. Thanks for the very courteous reminder! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Long time ago I was reading an interview given by a couple of these guys to Novaya gazeta. They worked on social sites/blogs (not wiki) to promote certain products and discredit products by competitors. They said they were doing two very different types of job. One of them was placing certain (dis)information about the products. The second type of job was getting rid of undesirable contributors by making their life on a site unbearable. Real fun began when two "teams" hired by different employers began to fight. In such cases they sometimes had to come to an agreement. Later, the newspaper itself had to close their blogs because of the people posting huge number of inflammatory comments. My very best wishes (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- If it weren't funny, it would almost be comical... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Long time ago I was reading an interview given by a couple of these guys to Novaya gazeta. They worked on social sites/blogs (not wiki) to promote certain products and discredit products by competitors. They said they were doing two very different types of job. One of them was placing certain (dis)information about the products. The second type of job was getting rid of undesirable contributors by making their life on a site unbearable. Real fun began when two "teams" hired by different employers began to fight. In such cases they sometimes had to come to an agreement. Later, the newspaper itself had to close their blogs because of the people posting huge number of inflammatory comments. My very best wishes (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Casualties in War in Donbass
Seems the issue has been resolved, although not in the way that sits well with me, but I guess there was no other way. There have been no removals of the casualties info I put on the separatists/Russian side of the casualty box for a week now. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Cauldrons
It's highly improper of you to revert a "Talk Page" edit just because you think it's "smug". The talk Page is for suggestions on improving the page, and discussion of problems, especially confused definitions or facts. The WP policy on Talk Pages is "that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I'm going to restore your revert at once and ask you nicely not to try this again. Leave Talk Page comments as you find them and try to learn from them in the manner directed by Misplaced Pages policy. Santamoly (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Santamoly: Your comment on the talk page in question was A) a year after the initial discussion, and B) a WP:POINTy piece of soapboxing designed to show up another editor you have personal issues with. Article talk pages serve the purpose of encouraging constructive discussions surrounding article content improvement, and your purpose was clearly antithetical to such a premise. I have, however, responded to your comment on the relevant talk page (aside from wikilinking the relevant section of the actual article - something you could/should have done yourself - despite its being borderline WP:SYNTH). If you have any further comments to make, please make them on the article's talk page... where they belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Shyrokyne standoff (February–July 2015)
A new problem has arisen at Shyrokyne standoff (February–July 2015). Please check it out and give your input and proposal to resolve the situation. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The editor in question is constantly inserting that it was a Ukrainian victory, claiming he provided sources, while none of his sources state this, he is also reverting all of my edits in the main body of the article, removing sourced info on villages recaptured by the separatists, removed the sourced result of the offensive (ceasefire) along with its source and ignores one of his own sources which says Shyrokyne has been demilitarized. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've just spotted it on my watchlist, EkoGraf. How frustrating and plain irritating. How many times do we have to go over the same ground because a POV warrior has come to OR conclusions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. I even made a compromise edit that it ended in a cease-fire (with a source) but he continued with it. He has requested the page be protected due to edit warring. I commented at the page protection noticeboard in the section on his request his behavior and that if they are to protect it than they should revert it back to the version before the edit war before doing so. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: I'll take a look at the 'pp request' as I really don't feel that POV compromises are appropriate for an encyclopaedic resource. "Indecisive" was neutral and realistic compromise already. Given the circumstances, there is nothing cut-and-dry about the outcome of one of many stand-offs in the context of a broader war: it was merely one instance of many in a complex situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it was indecisive (Ukraine took 3 villages, separatists took 3 villages, Shyrokyne in essence a no-mans land), but I tried to compromise with him since he wasn't going to listen. EkoGraf (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: I'll take a look at the 'pp request' as I really don't feel that POV compromises are appropriate for an encyclopaedic resource. "Indecisive" was neutral and realistic compromise already. Given the circumstances, there is nothing cut-and-dry about the outcome of one of many stand-offs in the context of a broader war: it was merely one instance of many in a complex situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. I even made a compromise edit that it ended in a cease-fire (with a source) but he continued with it. He has requested the page be protected due to edit warring. I commented at the page protection noticeboard in the section on his request his behavior and that if they are to protect it than they should revert it back to the version before the edit war before doing so. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've just spotted it on my watchlist, EkoGraf. How frustrating and plain irritating. How many times do we have to go over the same ground because a POV warrior has come to OR conclusions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 September 2015
- In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library
- WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?
- Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
whats wrong with my edition?
in article about russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not only is it infobox clutter, it's WP:POINTy (as per my edit summary). If you haven't noticed, your second content change has been reverted by another editor here. Please read the archived discussions on both the Russia and Ukraine articles surrounding WP:CONSENSUS as to how to handle the disputed territory of Crimea within these broad scope articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- in that case it's better to write (republic of crimea is not included instead of crimea not included) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Iryna Harpy! Next time I will be very carefull! But you can also check me in Google and you will find that I am not lying about my works in theatre because this is what I do and how I live from the last 20 years of my life! Anyway thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laertis Vasiliou (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding Harassment by user Iryna Harpy. Thank you.