Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iryna Harpy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 14 October 2015 (→Do not remove NPOV tags until issues resolved on pages.: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:26, 14 October 2015 by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) (→Do not remove NPOV tags until issues resolved on pages.: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37


This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


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)
Let me tell you something Iryna. There is publication out there that confirms the man's notability and I am every bit certain that if I created an article on him, it would not be deleted. However, given Taleski is someone that I know, and someone who knows the real me too, I can assure you he is not a person I am about to be giving satisfaction of further publicity. My background is sport, volleyball to be precise, and just before I launched my Wiki account, I had been living in Bitola training 14-16 year old females. I know Taleski, and I know plenty of others - all love the publicity, but they're not getting it!!! :) --OJ (TALK) 10:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
All the better, then. Leaving a red link might encourage someone to create an article and pander to his ego. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping

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

Yay, Drmies. Does this mean I get to spread my idiosyncratic brand of Wiki-lurv? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a free world--you can do whatever you like. Ha! (I'll mention you in class this afternoon; we're doing the Aeneid 7-9.) Drmies (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sweeeet! Now that's what I call context! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Open a subthread

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

Another editor has opened the subthread, Hijiri88. I'll comment/!vote once I've had a chance to sift through all of the edits in more detail. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_NPA.2C_POLEMIC.2C_POVPUSH.2C_CPUSH_of_by_Nishidani.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

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)
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)

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)

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)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

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)
Cheers, Trabant1963. Again, for the purposes of the infobox and the lead of a broad scope article like Russia, my opinion is that it's unnecessarily detailed. If we go in that direction, it would be equally as important to include Sevastopol as a city of special status. This is, however, merely my opinion, and my opinion does not constitute consensus. If you believe that WP:ITSIMPORTANT for the purposes of the article, you should start a new section on the article's talk page.
I know that English is not your native language, and that you probably don't feel very confident in expressing yourself in English, so if you'd like me to initiate the discussion, I'm happy to do so on your behalf. Note, however, that I'm going on vacation from Monday (5 October), and won't return until Saturday (10 October), so I'd rather not start a discussion until my return. By the same token, I don't mind whether a consensus decision is made without me, so let me know if you'd like me to start such a discussion before I leave. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ну судя по тому что ты "Ирына", ты и сама нифига не англичанка, but I can express myself in both languages. Mais j'ouvrrai division nouveau de chiffre de la population (and call it "Population") en article de Russie y nosotros decidiremos juntos, not only with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Laert Vasili

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)

Hello, Laertis Vasiliou. I have been watching the article on you for some time, and I don't doubt that your additions to the content are true (i.e., I've run Google checks). My concern is certainly not on a personal level, but over reliable sources demonstrating that you're notable according to WP:AUTOBIOG (specifically WP:YOURSELF). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding Harassment by user Iryna Harpy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance is respectfully requested

There is a real need for your critical eye on https://en.wikipedia.org/2015_Russian_air_raids_in_Syria2015_Russian_air_raids_in_Syria as there is already an attempt to erase history there. AccountInCompliance (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, AccountInCompliance. I've added the article to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

About Cossacks

There were Serbian, Slovene, Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, and Slovak cossacks too, so DO NOT re-edit it! -Bennyben1998— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyben1998 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You were asked to provide reliable sources, not your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

why help vatnik user?

harpy, why did you assist vatnik user toddy? he is saboteur on dnipro. many times he claims an position he does not to have, so as to assist putin in his lies. do not into listening to toddy vatnik user. be good 2 ukraine, your mother 138.128.180.226 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Maybe because it's a violation of Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks policy to call someone a "russki saboteur?" Please don't make these remarks. GAB 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, what he said ↑. Outside of that, don't push your nationalist propaganda on my talk page. No WP:POV pushers are welcome on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd better leave, then :) GAB 00:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of the Polish census of 1931

Your recent reversion of population summaries reported in the 1931 Census is disruptive to the page. It is not OR to accurately report what was published in a national census, on a WP page about the same. If you seriously think this a violation of OR, I suggest that you make your point on a relevant noticeboard since accurately reporting what was published in a census is standard procedure here on WP. (Please see the most recent U.S. Census for examples of this 2010 United States Census.) I looked, but didn't see where you objected or complained that accurately reporting on the U.S. Census was OR. Perhaps you can explain your reasons for not doing so? In any event, you have ample opportunity to find RS for criticisms, reasonable or not, of the published results of that census which might be addressed on the page. It is impossible to do that if the actual published results are not accurately reported such that the criticisms can be understood. However, I am concerned that your comments on the talk page and recent reversions, which deleted much data without any claim that the data was not accurately reporting what the census published, or mathematically proven from the same, was motivated by some desire to censor what had been published by the Polish government in 1931. I suspect that you just don't like what it published. You also made no further comments on the talk page, and it is clear that you lack a consensus to edit your changes to the page.

Lastly, your tone, in editing a warning on my talk page and similar comments on other talk pages, is decidedly WP:Uncivil. It is also uncool. I note that you have recently been admonished on the admin board. I suggest that you comport your conduct here to something more conducive to constructive discussion.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest, for a second time, that you open a section on the relevant talk page to discuss these WP:OR changes only just introduced a day ago where the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce WP:RS for this 'breakup' (where does 'breakup' come from?) of figures from a WP:PRIMARY source. Why are you writing a WP:WALLOFTEXT on my talk page when the place to reach consensus is on the salient talk page? Take it there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Accurately reporting a published national census is not OR. I am not old enough to have worked for the Polish Statistical Office in 1931. I can't take credit for something that I didn't do. That would be plagiarism. The census is the best source for what it reported. I note that you aren't disputing the accuracy of what was reported from the published census. You haven't left a comment on the talk page about that census in over a year. The census asked what it asked, reported it what it reported, and published what it published. ("Breakout" is British phrasal verb which in North American English translates as "breakdown". That conversation should go on the talk page and it was not a reason to delete the entire table, but a convenient excuse.) I have answered your question, but you have not answered mine about why you only wish to object to citing the Polish census of 1931 to report its published contents, but not other national censuses (which is standard practice here in WP). You appear to be engaging in discrimination here. That is unacceptable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If I may, WP:SYNTH may be valuable reading here. It's all well and good to report exactly what the sources say, but making inferences and coming to conclusions that the sources don't explicitly come to is problematic and needs some discussion. WP:BRD comes into play here as well. Since your changes have been challenged, you should discuss their merits on the article talk page instead of edit warring, which is unproductive and will lead to a block. Hope that helps. clpo13(talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You certainly may, but the issue here is translating one page in a national census which was published in Polish and French, which is perfectly acceptable to do and not OR (See below). It appears some just doesn't like what the national census reported and is looking for alternate interpretations more to her liking. I am not the one looking for WP:SYNTH. There appears to be another issue here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) It is not an English language document, and is written using Polish and French nomenclature. Your translations are WP:OR simply because, in the document, the Polish nomenclature and the French nomenclature used by the Polish census office for Ruthenes and Ruski, etc., needs to be qualified by WP:RS, not by you. As it stood after the last round of POV pushing the original research translation by you into the content, the simple table should not have been allowed to stand... And don't worry yourself about my introducing this to the discussion on the talk page: I'll be doing so ASAP. I've been working on issues higher on my list of priorities for the last couple of hours and am about to log off for the day. More on the matter to come on the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant and incorrect: Translations and transcriptions: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions I have given you the rule and the link. If you continue this course of behavior, I will conclude that you are being disruptive, contentious, and demonstrating ethnic animus.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Assume what you wish. The only ethnic animosity apparent here is yours. The discussion is not to be conducted with me alone on my talk page. My response is on the article's talk page, therefore take your objections and your interpretations of guidelines there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

I invite you to the latest discussion about ledes in general. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Norn-notice. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian National Committee

What do you mean? The article has a list of sources, and according to them, the Ukrainian National Committee was an organization set up with Nazi German assistance, which had claims over Ukraine, at the time part of the USSR. Therefore, they were collaborators with Germany. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What was their purpose? To serve the Germans, or to represent Ukrainian interests before the German authorities? If a hospital or clinic were set up under the Germans, would its staff or organizers be collaborators? How about schools? Organizations to feed people? Etc. I don't know enough about the Ukrainian National Committee to determine if they were or were not collaborators; there is not enough info in the article right now to support the idea that they were. Please add that information before placing them in that category.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Polish wikipedia page is much more detailed and contradicts the opinion that this was a collaborationist organization: .Faustian (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Славянский патриот: Per Faustian's response, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find RS to in order to expand content, categories, etc. As it stands, the stub is unreferenced, and you've just made it clear that your own additions to the content are based on your assumptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
They were Ukrainians working with Germans (in other words, collaborators), that's what it already says on the article, and the sources are listed. For example, on Russian Misplaced Pages, the page is in the category "Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany" and on French Misplaced Pages it is in "Collaboration during World War II." Even on Polish Misplaced Pages article you posted a link to, it is in the category "Organizations collaborating with the Third Reich during World War II". I think my point here is made. Славянский патриот (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, read WP:WINARS. Secondly, yes, it is becoming abundantly clear that you are making a WP:POINT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The Oxford definition of "collaborator" is : "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector." There is no information in the article that clearly demonstrates that the Ukrainian National Committee meets that definition.Faustian (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
... And that is exactly the definition applied to any individual or group who 'collaborated' with the Nazis in WWII, although I don't think we actually needed to qualify this for Славянский патриот as he is very much aware of what his priorities are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, I know since you are part or full Ukrainians with a pro-Ukraine POV, you have an obvious interest here in not having the Collaboration during World War II category on there (even though on Polish, Russian, and French Misplaced Pages, that article is in collaboration-related categories, a fact that you seem to be ignoring). I am part Ukrainian myself. But the fact of the matter is that, as the the Ukrainian National Committee included Soviet citizens and was collaborating Germans, they are by definition collaborators. It says that they controlled Ukrainian Nazi-sponsored units, which were mostly Soviet citizens working with the enemy, and Pavlo Shandruk, a former officer of the Polish army and a Polish citizen, had overall command of it as one of the leading members of the committee. "A person who cooperates traitorously with the enemy" definitely describes them, there isn't any way around it. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That is one POV. Another POV, taken from the sources, is that it was involved with removing/transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command. Polish wiki paints a picture that it stood for its community in talks with Germans, refusing to subordinate it to Vlasov's collaborators. And whether or not cooperation was "treason" depends on POV. Shandruk was involved here after the Polish state had ceased to exist. He was awarded Poland's highest military award after the war - hardly an indicator of his having been a "traitor." Basically, whether or not this organization can be considered "collaborators" does not seem clear-cut, depends on POV, and simple categorization does not seem to be appropriate.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That's strange, since Polish, Russian, and French Misplaced Pages seem to disagree with you. That Polish article? It has the category "Organizacje kolaborujące z III Rzeszą podczas II wojny światowej" (Organizations that collaborated with the Third Reich during World War II). It was transitioning out Ukrainian units from German command because the war was lost by then, and they were attempting to get favor from the Western Allies. It was founded with permission from the Germans, included non-German citizens (most of the forces it commanded consisted of Soviet POWs), and worked with the Germans. In other words, collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I will repeat: read WP:WINARS. I genuinely don't care what part of the world this took place in, so stop trying to read some sort of nationalist agendas into it. I don't care whether you are part Ukrainian, part Danish, or part Moroccan... this is English language Misplaced Pages, meaning that we follow policy. The only arguments for being "collaborators" you've brought to the table are WP:OR. You're welcome to speculate and draw your own conclusions on any subject you wish, but you are not welcome to add content, append categories, or change article content based on your own WP:PPOV. You may think it's cut and dried, but that's something for you to take to blogs or forums and dispute there. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedic resource, not a repository for content based on your original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"Original research" that is on three other language Wikipedias (Polish, Russian, and French)? I've seen a lot of articles that use other language Wikipedias as a source. It even says in the article that it was established with Germans, and if you look at the pages for the units it commanded, they were mostly collaborators from the USSR. By definition, collaborators. Again, it seems you are letting your pro-Ukraine POV get in the way of the fact that it was collaborator organization. It's not my opinion, it's a fact based on the information that is on the article and on other articles related to it. You are also free to write your opinion on why an organization including Soviet citizens working with the Germans is not a collaborationist group, despite also being identified as such on three other language Wikipedias, in a blog. Славянский патриот (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Review the definition of collaborator and be specific about the focus of that article. A Soviet citizen who betrayed his country and fought for the Germans would certainly meet the definition of a collaborator. But this article isn't about such individuals. It's about an organization that represented Ukrainian interests (many different Ukrainians, including those who meet the definition of collaborators, as well as those who don't) when dealing with the Germans. Since their focus was on serving Ukrainian rather German interests, they don't seem to be collaborators. Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, might I add that Faustian is wrong about Shandruk, who did affiliate with Vlasov eventually: "Meanwhile, an agreement had been reached between Vlasov and General Shandruk, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian National Committee, who came to approve of Vlasov's views and programme." (Against Stalin and Hitler: Memoirs of the Russian Liberation Movement, 1941-1945, pp. 226-227) Славянский патриот (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Approving views and programme is not concrete. Reaching an "agreement" can mean many things. USA and Iran just made an agreement, for example. Details matter.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You're still simply WP:CHERRY picking in order to shoehorn your own POV. Pulling threads of this and that together in order to create a piece of WP:SYNTH is still just that: your own WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's simply nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the Ukrainian National Committee acted in interest of the Germans. Their forces continued fighting the Red Army as before, the majority of them even still being under German command, and at the time the Ukrainian "nation" consisted of mostly the Soviet citizens fighting in German-organized and -armed formations (which, might I add, played a far greater role in the German war effort than Vlasovites or units of other Soviet ethnic groups). Shandruk himself was a foreign citizen fighting in the Wehrmacht (he was obviously not a German citizen; they only considered a select few "Germanized" Slavs to be so), and therefore a collaborator by definition. He even became Vlasov's ally. The Committee functioned no more than an instrument of the Germans as they fought alongside them westwards to surrender to the Western Allies so they would not be repatriated to the Soviet Union. The majority of those in the Committee forces were from the Soviet Union. And again, you ignore the fact that three other Wikipedias have it labelled as a collaborationist organization, which alone is enough to add the category onto this article. The only one shoehorning your POV is you, I am simply stating the facts while your pro-Ukrainian nationalist bias is causing both of you to try to get a collaborationist group of Ukrainians that just served the Germans not be labelled for what they were--collaborators. Славянский патриот (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
A foreign language wikipedia article is not a reliable source (not that it matters, but neither the Ukrainian nor the Italian wiki pages categorize it as collaborationist). If the purpose of the Ukrainian National Committee was to serve the Germans in the war effort then I agree the categorization of collaborators would be appropriate. Find a reliable source stating this, please. If, on the other hand, this organization's purpose was to help Ukrainians (including even Ukrainian collaborators) by, for example, disengaging them from German command, or providing relief, etc. then it doesn't meet the definition of "collaborator" just as, for example, someone having to meet with German administrators for the purpose of running a school or clinic for his people is not a collaborator. Please, find reliable sources for evidence of activities clearly meeting the definition of collaboration and I will not object to that categorization. As a reminder, here's the Oxford dictionary definition : "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector."Faustian (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, why do many articles list different language Wikipedias as a source and often times there are tags on different articles saying that the corresponding article on a different language Misplaced Pages should be translated onto the English article? But anyway, the Ukrainian National Committee was the reorganized Ukrainian Central Committee, a group of Ukrainian collaborators organized by the Germans on the territory of occupied Poland in 1939. The only difference was that the National Committee helped group all Ukrainians in the German armed forces into one unit, and brought several smaller organizations into its fold, with that unit remaining under German command. Славянский патриот (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Translating with sources is acceptable. Speaking of which, please find the source for info that meets the definition of collaborator I provided, so the category can be applied.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Just gave you one. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You what!! Where?!! You just linked to the ru wiki article which is, itself, not cited. The could list a hundred books as general references surrounding the subject, but it matters not a hoot if there are no specific references that can be verified. We can't even verify that these publications indeed do, or ever did, exist. Well, actually, I can verify their existence because they've simply been taken from the uk wikipedia article here. Have you read them? Do they actually substantiate the ru wikipedia article's contentions?
Seriously, I'm really tired of this circular argument. Which part of WP:WINARS are you having such difficulties in understanding? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Славянский патриот: Please read Misplaced Pages:Translation, WP:COPYWITHIN and Template:Translated page/doc. Translated articles need to be attributed to the original article in whichever language wiki they came from (as a copyright issue). After they've been translated, the translation template on the article is closed off and the corresponding data carrying the information of which and when is transferred by means of a talk page template. References need to be checked, and additional citations are added, and unverified content is removed. Translated articles are just that: they're not suicide pacts. It's up to editors working in the English language Misplaced Pages to scrutinise the articles, just as it should be with English language articles being translated/transferred to other language wikis. The buck still stops with WP:RS and WP:V.

That said, no one is stopping you from adding reliably sourced content and improving any article/stub. All that is being asked of you is that you find RS that back up your contention, even if I do see this as being part of a series of WP:COATRACK articles all supporting each other in order to legitimise mutually sourced content. I have a watchlist five times as long as my arm encompassing virtually every field Misplaced Pages deals with. For the better part, I just keep my eye on them for copyediting, ref checking, expanding them when I have an opportunity, etc. Can you please stop using my talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND? As it was, this discussion should have been started on the relevant talk page in order that other editors could involve themselves, and in order that it kept on record for the sake of transparency. You've turned it into some sort of personal battle with me being hosted exclusively on my talk page. If there's any more to say on the subject, please open a new section on the article/stub's talk page. Thanks for you understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll stop posting here -- I'll list the sources I found on the talk page. But "personal battle"? I replied to the message you sent me with legitimate concerns about the contents of your edit, as you seemed to have done it for personal reasons rather than the available information. But, like I said, I'll list the sources on the talk page from this point. Славянский патриот (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Славянский патриот and Faustian: Actually, considering the amount of discussion that's taken place here already, would either of you object if I were to move this section across to the article/stub's talk page so as not to end up starting from scratch again? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revert concerning references made in Putin's speech of 2005

I answered in the article's talk page your statement that you made in my talk page. In short, I just don't see where you might see “lack of neutrality”: i.e. which authorities make my contribution empty, in your opinion. I merely followed the text that was quoted in the paragraph, nothing else. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

An update in the talk page: I just have seen your commentary for your revert and replied to it. In short: from your commentary it appears that your revert has been mostly reflex-based, so that did not make any good… - Evgeniy E. (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
My response can be found on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Ответил. Если вы возражаете против дискуссии на английском, могу отвечать здесь. (Там русский язык был бы не к месту). Разумеется, речь идёт только о языке моих комментариев: если точные оттенки выражения для вас так важны, то могу продолжать по-русски. Тратить слишком много времени на дискуссию я не хочу, так что если увижу, что обсуждение упирается в стену (кажется, многое это предвещает), настаивать, конечно, не буду. Есть очень много областей, в которых Википедия далека от совершенства, невозможно исправить их все, да и ни к чему. ;) Всё это в порядке вещей… - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Try actually reading my response carefully (including the links to policy). If you wish to discuss this with other editors, please keep the discussion on the article's talk page as you and I are not the only editors involved in the article's development, and it would be far more productive to draw more editors into a discussion on how to improve it as it is currently a POV mess. Best of luck in improving the content, but I'm only involved in the capacity of observing in order that it be developed according to policy and WP:COMMONSENSE. In that sense, any reverts on my behalf are 'reflex-based'. Best of luck in improving the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. While I appreciate that it slows you down expressing yourself in English, that's essentially policy for article talk pages and user talk pages. I am, as I just noted, in agreement that the article is a biased mess (and I would certainly like to see it improved). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not that I slow down (I can exit whenever I like, so my time is not a problem), the problem is that you seem to take offence at my English. I cannot use English in any other way, so either please don't take offence over implications I did not have (I did not mean to render you ignorant, I meant to convey my points, that was all), or we need to stop the discussion. Anyway, I gave the relevant excerpt of the speech in the talk page, you probably overlooked it somehow when you first answered. If you oppose strongly over the point of Putin's references (whether he referred to revival of the Soviet Union or to the economic and social disasters) and don't have the time to be persuaded, then I won't try to jump over a wall. I think that in this case I'll just correct "the biggest" for "a major" and let the future decide itself, for I stated my view well enough. Really, you cannot explain me anything by giving loads of links without saying what you mean in the particular case. I am sorry, if I make you tired. Do you oppose the limited proposal? - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the change... and I don't have any problems with copyediting awkward grammar, syntax, or other issues if such changes need to be made in order to bring the content up to par. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Спасибо за ваше «спасибо»! Не поверите, когда не «встречают по одёжке», становится намного приятнее: от забрасывания ссылками польза сомнительна, потому что, если нет разъяснений насчёт их конкретного применения, они больше всего напоминают метод психологического устрашения… Во всяком случае, для меня. За английскую грамматику, как вы понимаете, я не специалист — просто скопировал фрагмент из официального перевода. (Почему-то меня опять в сторону сербского языка потянуло… ;) ). - Evgeniy E. (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If you do encounter problems with simple text that you can't just copy and paste for articles, I'm happy to 'fix' it as long as it's fairly clear as to what you're expressing. There are also plenty of other editors who will do the same if the content additions/changes are good. As for being 'pulled' towards another language, I know the problem all too well! For me, it's all dependent on who I'm having a conversing with in my mind (if that makes sense). Nice to have you on board, and feel free to ask me for assistance (including pinging me from article talk pages). Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Tadeusz Nowak. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to European_Day_of_Remembrance_for_Victims_of_Stalinism_and_Nazism because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not template me specifically in order to make a WP:POINT. I've left a couple of messages on your own talk page with details as to why I have reverted your content changes, yet you refused to even provide an edit summary until you started slow edit warring, making inappropriate accusations of vandalism, and not bothering to address appropriate tags removed with no explanation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Do not remove NPOV tags until issues resolved on pages.

You recently removed a NPOV tag on Polish census of 1931 while the issue noted has not been resolved. This is contrary to the clear instructions per template:POV. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner, you may be reported for disruption and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Polish census of 1931, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Vandalism? Against consensus? Censorship? Please show me where any consensus for the inclusion of two enormous page by page galleries of the original documents in Polish and French was reached on the talk page. Your editing pattern and behaviour is pure WP:BATTLE and WP:TE. Stop edit warring the article! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)