User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 23

Reeves.ca
CounterTime and Reeves.ca are both new accounts, both are now actively and simultaneously editing the Jizya article, and CounterTime is signing off on Reeves.ca talk page with no content as if it is CounterTime's talk page. Is this unusual? RLoutfy (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015. Your accusations are completely unfactual, and I urge others to quickly verify that indeed I have no relation whatsoever with Reeves.ca. However this confirms one thing: that your goal isn't to improve the Wikipedia's articles, but to create further conflicts in order to spread whatever agenda you have. --CounterTime (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When we talk about accounts, a "newbie" is someone who has hasn't been around for more than a couple of months (all the way to quite a number of months). In Wikipedia terms, your account is very new, you are inexperienced at so few edits (here), plus your contributions are exclusively dealing with a specialised area (as seen here). Focussing on a single area does tend to raise questions as to WP:SPA interests. It may not seem fair, but editing hitting the ground running in changing content to the extent you have does raise eyebrows.


 * Now, as to this observation by on my talk page, s/he(?) has noticed the same thing as have I: that another very new account in Reeves.ca (see the contributor's history here) has only just opened an account and is working exclusively on the Jizya article. Please read WP:SPA carefully, as it is not an accusation of wrongdoing, but is an expression of concern regarding such dramatic changes initiated by, and continued by, new editors.


 * As I have noted before, I am not familiar with the area of expertise and believe that this is probably best addressed by applying to the WP:DRN. It is probably best that one of the parties to the dispute apply. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone! Thank you Iryna_Harpy for walking me through this somewhat confusing open editorial process. I had no idea my changes were deemed dramatic - I'll work closely with the other editors to reach consensus on the talk page of the article. That said, it's worth noting that the article has two polar views that will somehow need to be conveyed. Reeves.ca (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Get your facts right, my edits aren't specialized, I even made edits on these: Poisson random measure, Infimum and supremum, Color of water, Poisson process. --CounterTime (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us try to work together, rather than not. Let us thank Iryna Harpy and for intervening and guiding us through the wikipedia process and policies. The dispute between you and me is on your translation and use of non-English sources. How about the following proposal: (1) any content you add will include an English or non-English cite, but you agree to include full citation (author(s), year, publisher or url link, isbn, complete title, page numbers) to help the WP:V process. (2) any time you use a non-English source, you agree to include a complete quote of the non-English text inside the cite (see WP:CITE on how to do so, and see WP:NOENG policy on why you must do so), (3) you agree to include a complete translation of that quote from non-English cite (again this is required by WP:NOENG).

I urge you to stop your uncivil behavior against Iryna Harpy, me or any other wikipedia editors, and not make snide remarks or personal attacks, as this can lead to admin sanctions against you. I would like it if we can find a way to cooperate. How about you agreeing to the above three points, which wikipedia community agreed policies require of you and me and everyone else anyway? RLoutfy (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with this flawed narrative of RLoutfy and others trying to cooperate even do they receive "attacks" from me, because it's quiet the opposite. You just accused me of being a sockpuppet with the account Reeves.ca, second Iryna Harpy quiet explicitly said: "I simply don't have the expertise in the area to be able to counter CounterTime." And third of all you refused many requests to explain why you think a certain translation of mine was flawed. So in résumé, I'll accept those three conditions only and only after you explain to me how you couldn't even write arabic correctly yet you claim that you read my sources and disagreed with the interpretation and translation. --CounterTime (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * CounterTime, your WP:BATTLEGROUND is not constructive. RLoutfy (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't in any way do WP:BATTLEGROUND, I only outlined some of your edits and their issues as well as some accusations you did to me as well as your general behavior. In any case you really shouldn't evade my question which is: how you couldn't even write arabic correctly yet you claim that you read my sources and disagreed with the interpretation and translation. ? Please cooperate. Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember to vote!
Don't forget to vote in the Arbitration Committee elections (WP:ACE). It is all a bit of a mess, but I do think that the participation of "sane" editors like yourself will lead to a better result. Even a full slate of opposing votes is better than no vote, I'd imagine. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looking, but distracted by "hmm" noises emitted by moi. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Zaporozhian spirit
I noticed your edits on Hryhorii Skovoroda's wiki article and clicked on your wiki user page out of curiosity.

I've been reading a history book about Ukraine that mentioned Skovoroda and searched for an article about him on Wikipedia. The book described the Cossacks and their history and I could tell by your writing that you have some of the Zaporozhian character. The characteristics of the Cossacks were their strength and pursuit of freedom and your words contained these too.

It is a delight to see the Cossack spirit live on in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.130.43 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blue Army
Iryna, I find your approach uncalled for, I'm not sure why you are accusing me of reverting text, while what I did was not in any way related to the Controversies section and the previous disscusion. It appears you are looking for an excuse to try and block me. What I did was not a revert as you claim, but Be bold approach. Finally, I'm surprised that at the same time you are ignoring rude behavior from user Faustian. Again, after the admin board discussion he made obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek raising again his ethnicity. Pls see below: Also, pls see Volunteer Marek response: --E-960 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not accusing you of reverting, nor was it an accusation of wrongdoing as you are depicting it. The rv indicates that I am reverting you per WP:BRD. As it stands, it gave me the opportunity to salvage an archived article you had removed as a dead link placing demands on other editors to find a citation where the content was already cited. Please don't delete references without double-checking. I need to clean up the references further and simply deleting them sets articles back.


 * As you can see, Faustian has already responded to the change and, considering the amount of disagreement over the entire article, and the balance of the article, it is always more constructive to use the talk page to come to consensus agreements before bold changes (remembering that WP:BOLD carries the expectation of caution). In fact, I'm trying to prevent editors, including yourself, from being blocked. I don't want to see edit warring on the article itself because that's where editors get themselves into trouble. Personally, I think the article may need full protection until consensus is reached as to the presentation of the lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahatanhel Krymsky
Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I seriously thought that recent events had put the kibosh on renaming. I've yet to come across any Anglophone media outlets using 'Kyiv'. Hopefully, the RfC will be closed as SNOW quickly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. BMK (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A certain user insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources, but then refuses many requests to show why he thinks I did so.
Hello. A certain user (by the nickname of RLoutfy) insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources in many occasions e.g. (1), (2), (3), ...etc but he refused to answer many requests to show why he thinks I mistranslated and misrepresented those sources, particularly here, where he even couldn't properly write with the language those sources were written in1. What should I do then? --CounterTime (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1: The meant user wrote (as you can verify here) the following:


 * ولا نجد هذا العدد الكيرمت الآيات السني نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
 * على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كاكوحيد والتركية والعمران وما ارنيط بها
 * من مقاصد شرعنة كالعدل وامنة والمساواة ونحوها. ضد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك
 * العدد الكيرمن الآيات ؛ ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
 * جواز اكراهه على تني أني معتقد ، أو تنعرمغقد اعتقده ءالى سواه ، وعلى توكيد ألن
 * etc

This however contains many errors as anyone fluent in arabic can see, here's my correction:


 * ولا نجد هذا العدد الكبير من الآيات   التي نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
 * على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كالتوحيد  و التزكية  والعمران وما ارنيط بها
 * من مقاصد  شرعية كالعدل و  الحرية  والمساواة ونحوها.  فقد  نزل القرآن  العظيم</b>  بذلك
 * العدد <b style="color:red">الكبير  من</b> الآيات ; ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
 * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .جواز اكراهه على <b style="color:red">تبني </b> <b style="color:red">أي </b>  معتقد ، أو

If the meant user can't even write arabic correctly then how can he claim to actually have read my arabic sources and how can he then state that my translations are POV? --CounterTime (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please comment on this issue? CounterTime (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm highly aware of the fact that there has been a high level of activity (to put it politely) on the Jizya and Apostasy in Islam articles. I tried to keep up with the sources, but these are areas completely out of my realms of knowledge. I thought that it could be something for the WP:DRN, but there are no other knowledgeable editors involving themselves in any meaningful way, therefore the dispute is ultimately between the two of you. A DRN would not be accepted unless there were more editors involved. The best I can recommend is what has already recommended: mark them as being an expert subject and hope that someone with an expert knowledge involves themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your answer! I didn't ask you about something that would require you to have a certain familiarity with a subject. All I asked you to do is to explain to me what to do when a certain user insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources, but then refuses many requests to show why he thinks I did so.
 * PS: NeilN said that the expert-subject banner should be removed.
 * CounterTime (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard procedure would unfortunately be that you take it to the ANI. I don't think that would be a positive option for you as it would probably end up with a block for RLoutfy and a WP:BOOMERANG for you. I'm honestly at a loss as to what to do in terms of having a positive impact on the content of the articles. Again, unless more knowledgeable contributors involve themselves in the articles the two of you are going to be locked in your opposing positions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, my reading has been practically identical to the translation published by Roberts, and that is why I have contested and disputed CounterTime all along. I have explained on Talk:Apostasy in Islam, with a quote from Roberts' translation, that CounterTime's summary/interpretation/OR is seriously flawed. RLoutfy (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you. The fact remains that we follow RS, not personal interpretations. I'm still thinking on how to deal with the development of the articles before they become piles of shrapnel from edit warring. I've already seen that another editor has taken issue with Apostasy article and am waiting to see whether that editor and CounterTime can come to an agreement over the content that's been removed, then altered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Apostasy in Islam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop making up lies, you only showed an interest in answering why you thought my translation was POV only and only after I provided the Robert's translation, but as shown before you displayed basic ignorance of simple arabic through the errors you made. As for the specifics, I have already showed that your decontextualized quote of Robert's translation is just a POV reading. Details can be seen in the Apostasy in Islam talk page. --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

pro ukraine military ensuring a very biased narrative on this page "battle of ilovaisk"
I recently posted new information on this subject after members of the ukrainian army who were at the battle of ilovaisk posted to the public two videos leading up to the event and the very first shots fired. An agreement was negotiated between rebel forces and the ukrainian army the agreement was that the ukrainian army could leave ilovaisk under the condition that all the heavy weapons AAguns,artillery,tanks and the heaviest mortars were to be left behind both sides agreed to this the exact post is as follows

"vehicles and took the heavy weapons along with them [34].This included artillery tanks, [7] The first vehicle in the column, a self propelled artillery unit, The column advanced 10 kilometres (6 1⁄4 mi) along the corridor, about an hour's drive, For reasons known only to ukraine military they open fire on dpr positions [35]" <<<<<{this is what marek removed}

My source for the first video shows ukrainian army completely ignoring the agreement and began to leave in convoy with ALL their tanks artillery ETC. the first video can be seen here youtu.be/Z2cJSGXWurc?t=10m34s …

The second video shows clearly that the current page content falsely claims that the "first truck in the convoy was carrying wounded soldiers carrying a white flag" this is completely false as the ukrainian army own video shows that the first vehicle was a self propelled artillery unit {which was supposed to be left behind} and it certainly was not carrying a white flag but instead they OPENED FIRE on DPR positions as seen in this video youtu.be/gwTIr5v2Ryg?t=8s … .This not my personal opinion it is video proof from the ukrainian army video on the day

A user by the name volunteer marek undid my information and said i would be blocked for "trolling" this is BS as i wasn't trolling i was adding new information provided by members of the ukrainian army themselves who were actually there. Marek undid my post because it totally contradicts the narrative he wants put forward which is "a bunch of wounded men were attacked for no reason" when the fact of the matter is that not only did the ukrainian army completely ignore their agreement to leave heavy weapons behind but they also OPENED FIRE on DPR positions even though DPR agreed to let them leave. It truly is horrific that over two thousand men lost their lives but frankly they have nobody to blame but themselves apologies if that sounds callous but it's the way it is.

Anyway given the hero status wikipedia has awarded to marek i know it's extremely unlikely me post will be re-instated even though the videos don't lie but as this post will be linked to the page everyone can now see the videos for themselves of what exactly happened that day and decide for themselves. I wont bother following up on this because frankly i'm not going to waste time exposing the very clear bias on wikipedia in relation to ukrainian CIVIL WAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzabobo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing I can do one way or the other. The YouTube footage you've pointed to has been posted by independent individuals who are not even reporters attached to a news agency or any other form of reliable source for third party analysis of what is going on in the footage (i.e., even "NewsFromUkraine" is just a name for an individual uploader who is unattached to any recognised news group). The Wikipedia policy on the use of sources is clear. Please read WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and WP:YOUTUBE. Essentially, what you are trying to introduce is original research. Footage can be taken out of context, doctored, etc. Unless a reliable third party has uploaded footage, analysis the content and describes the context, it is not accepted. If you think the camera and dialogue can't lie, you're wrong. Please find reliable sources for your content: then I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the article's talk page as I'm not interested in POV pushing or accommodating POV pushers from any side. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Languages of Russia - your rv
Could you please specify, what remains dubious? It seems to me that the reference to the text of the constitution is sufficient - there is, indeed, no list of languages in the text. --Fuseau (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A comment
Strangely, but I actually agree with SageRad: no one regarded by user X as his "adversary" should ever comment on talk page of user X, even if they are not "adversaries" and however right and helpful these comments might be. Same with loaded and irrelevant comments on article talk pages: they simply do not require any responses. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even about Molière's famous plays? Iryna, if you have not read it, I urge you again to do it. You will particularly enjoy it after having read the comment above. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to your unblocking condition #3, "If somebody else accuses you of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all". Here, you are trying to make a big deal of a comment where no one accuses you of anything. Here is what actually happens. You invite another user to your talk page, but when he comes to make very thoughtful and helpful comments, he became a target of bad faith assumptions by you and SageRad who also follows him on another page you are currently topic-banned from . Hence my advice above to Iryna. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Condition 2: "You will only comment on content, not on other editors." Then the above comment implying another editor is a hypocrite. GABHello! 15:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Molière captured a lot of human behavior in his plays, including something I do. This is not an offense. Same with psychological projections. For example, André Maurois wrote about Honoré de Balzac that he actually projected himself into all his heroes, even the most terrible ones like Gobseck. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you really want to know who is in fact commenting on the editor and not on content, read this carefully. You will clearly see who is implying another editor is a hypocrite. After that, I thought it was my right to advise Iryna Harpy to read Molière. The choice of play is very interesting, The Misanthrope would have been a good choice too. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This entire thread started by you on talk page of Toddy1 was a violation of your unblocking conditions #2 and #3 from the very beginning. Was not it? My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am glad you asked this question. In my humble opinion, you are mistaken. Condition #2 states: "You will treat other people with respect" and condition #3: "If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer". Can you cite an example where I was in breach of any of these two conditions? In any case, I appreciate the true value of the strenuous and selfless efforts you are making in reminding me incessantly of my unblock conditions, in order to avoid me running into trouble again. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I sincerely admire your knowledge of French literature. Therefore, if you allow me, I would advise you to read Nathalie Sarraute (born, Ната́лья Ильи́нична Черня́). Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

and, I'm sorry to be the bearer of simplistic pop psychology, but I'm compelled to make an observation about all editors I've encountered who bring the signifier "opponent" to talk pages virtually from the moment they start editing. I've found it to be indicative of a mindset that doesn't belong on Wikipedia: the personalisation of one's own opinions, and a steadfast belief in the truthiness of one's own perspective above and beyond all other opinions. My experience on Wikipedia is that it is a signifier associated with a distinct battleground editor... and I've also seen these editors get blocked time and time again until they're indeffed. Wikipedians who are here to build an encyclopaedia approach each other as editors who disagree when they disagree on content issues. "Opponent" is a word used in debates to signify that two opposing perspectives are being presented. It is not the language of flexibility, the ability to back off, or the ability to acknowledge that consensus is against you. In a nutshell, it is the language of everything that is antithetical to collegial editing. Even worse is the approach to editing whereby an editor selects articles according to whether they challenge their position and threaten the articles/ideology they are seeking to promote.

My apologies for not responding to direct and implied queries (i.e., I have read between the lines, but would rather not go into a protracted analysis of this particular situation).

I admit that trying to give advice to an editor who is repeating their behavioural patterns is futile and will only lead to further animosity, therefore I've left my final response to AD/Γνῶθι σεαυτόν being that I do not want to communicate with the editor, or have any contact outside of content discussions on the talk pages of articles as related to specific issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you see "animosity" on my part. I can assure you there is none. Since you don't want to "communicate" with me or "have any contact", one may wonder why you filled my talk page with comments. For my part I will from now on refrain from replying to your comments on me. Unless you have a direct question, which politeness would require me to answer. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken; I'll steer clear of this. My apologies for getting involved in this at all. GABHello! 23:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, ! Your opinion is always valued. Unfortunately, while the user in question was unblocked, it was not necessarily considered to be a wise decision by editors who'd had the most contact with him. Nevertheless, AD was unblocked on the condition that a couple of admins supervise his editing behaviour. At the moment, it all hangs on a change in editing patterns. The fact that the user continues to labour under the illusion that editors who have formed the 'opposition' are naive conformists who gobble up everything in the Western media as being 'truth' (despite this user's protestations that he credits us for more intelligence than that), or attempts to establish saccharine-sweet pseudo-relationships that require more time and effort than any of us actually want or are compelled to dedicate to non-article related issues attests to a repetition of the same behavioural problems. We shall see what we shall see (said the blind man to the deaf man). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * How sweet of you! Thank you, ... and, naturally, you're welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pan Slavic colours
The flags I added in Pan-Slavic colours have red, white and blue, these flags are related to Russia as they are part of Russia. If you disagree with this, where can I find something that relates to Russia or have Pan-Slavic colours and how they should count as a Pan-Slavic coloured flag. 174.113.214.250 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You would have to find reliable sources describing these flags as being based on the original Russian flag (for Russia), or as relating to the Pan-Slavic colours in other Slavic regions. The Reference desk might be a good place to start. Other than that, articles or books in languages other than English (see WP:NONENG) are acceptable as long as they're verifiable.


 * You will have noticed, however, that the article has been further tidied and cut back by an administrator for good reason. Please read WP:NOT as it will give you a good idea of what Wikipedia articles are not meant to represent as it is an encyclopaedic resource. Aside from not being referenced initially, the article has now been expanded with appropriate references. Neither is the article intended to be an exhaustive list of every Slavic flag that may or may not use red, blue and white because of an affiliation to the colours of the Russian flag. There are just as likely to be other factors such as more ancient regional emblems using those colours. What it comes down to is that encyclopaedic means no original research.


 * I hope this assists you. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing
I would like to apolgize to my previous action if it caused you any distress or problems, I will try my best to be on line next time and follow Wikipedia guidelines. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I realise that we got off on the wrong foot, and I fully understand that Wikipedia can be a very intimidating place for a new user. When you don't know your way around as yet, it must feel as if you're being persecuted. You will note that I haven't touched the Cossack Hetmanate article. I thought it better to wait until you were unblocked and had a chance to relax and settle in before discussing how best to present treaties and alliances. There are a number of them to be addressed (including with Tsarist Russia)... but we'll leave it be until you're ready to talk about it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we can discuss it, and I'm sure you are right about the undue weight, I would have to re-read the sources again and I will be glad to provide you the sources myself as a resource exchange, I also need your help in translating some maps for Crimean Khanate, not the cities just the little box on the corner. Also the Cossack article needs a better map which I found in a book of mine for English readers, since this is English Wikipedia. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look at the sources you need assistance with if you can provide me with the links.


 * As regards the map legend (also known as a 'key'), it won't take me long but I'm about to log off for the day and won't be editing again until late tomorrow. I hope it isn't urgent. Just leave me a reminder here in a few hours, otherwise I'll probably get side-tracked by other editors pinging me about all sorts of things!


 * We'd need to take a look at any copyright issues attached to the map you've found. If there are any problems it may need to be recreated for uploading to WikiCommons. These aren't big issues, so let's deal with them one at a time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be editing better after-tomorrow, but I can still edit tomorrow. The book I recommend which deals with Ukrainian History is from Magocsi, Paul Robert. History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010. Print. It's a beautiful book and very well done, I will be glad to give it to you, it has amazing maps, I love looking at maps when reading history or else it feels very dull, the maps are black and white which I hate and raises confusion, maybe someone from the graphic department can color it. I think there might be a translation department that can translate the whole Crimean Khanate maps so I don't burden you with the troubles of translating. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! You're preaching to the converted regarding Magocsi! I think you'll find that anyone who works on Ukrainian articles (and Eastern European articles in general) regard this work as the seminal RS. You can check through the archives of many talk pages and you'll find comments to the effect of, "If it isn't in Magosci, it didn't happen."


 * I lent my copy of the first edition to someone, who lent it to someone else, who lent it to someone else... so I haven't had it since I first read it. I haven't gotten around to buying another copy since then.


 * There is a 'translators' section here at Wikipedia, but not enough Ukrainian ones to go around. It's an easy one, so I'm more than happy to translate it for you. I have to dash off, so I won't be logging in for a full day of work on Wikipedia until tomorrow, so I'll translate it for you then and send it through. Cheers until then! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tell me when you are back so I can give you the sources. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I've prepared a PNG version of the map with the legend translated, plus a PDF of the translation complete with links to relevant pages and uploaded them to dropbox. You can download the map here, plus the PDF from here. If you need some more assistance, let me know.


 * Do you have a Dropbox account? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No but I can see the documents, clearly I'm looking at it, it looks very well-done, I'm sorry to bother you again, but what are the words in next to the arrows saying. ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking. The words next next to which arrows? I've translated the text next to the arrows and other symbols in the box (legend) on the map, plus have transferred the translations to the PDF which you can cut and paste from, plus I've included clickable links. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay I see everything now, apologies for the misunderstanding. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad that's been sorted out. As for the Magocsi source, how large is it (in bytes)? You may be able to email it to me, or use Google drive, or some other method. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * the Magocsi source, is a WHOLE BOOK. It has excellent maps for English readers, that we need to update. History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010. Print. I use mega.nz, because they give out 50GB for free, so hopefully it is not a problem. My criticism is of course the color, I hate black and white maps, I love colorful maps, but of course they have to save money, so it's understandable. If you use Adobe Acrobat Reader, the chapters are already bookmarked, and the list of maps can be seen in the beginning. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, . Thank you so very much! It's a pity they don't offer both colour and/or black and white as options. Yes, of course it saves on bytes, but for those of us who have the speed and plenty of download-upload gigs to spare on our plans, colour would probably only treble the size (a paltry 41.8 MB as it stands)... and our lust for colour maps would be satisfied.


 * I don't know how much of nature versus nurture factors into the passion for maps, but I have a WP:FRINGE theory that obsessions with maps are a recessive gene thing (like the blue eyes - and the permutations of grey eyes, green eyes - business in my family). Perhaps we have a common ancestor. Even being dirt poor, both sides of my family somehow always scrounged up the money for both historical and the latest atlases, terrestrial globes, topographic maps and all things geographical we could lay our hands on. There's something magical about pouring over them and marvelling at them.


 * Thanks, also, for the heads up regarding mega.nz. I have quite a few cloud storage 'drives', but they're never enough for backing up my most important settings, files, etc. I'll probably open an account right now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem glad to help, I like sharing books and journals, I collect them, I also collect maps and atlases. I think we can have this map taken to the Wikipedia graphics lab where they can color it. It's good for the reader and makes it easy for them. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding to you, . We can't simply have it coloured as it would be a WP:COPYVIO. The only method by which we could use this map is to have a new map made from scratch and point to Magocsi as the source. Even in doing that, it would still be identified as infringing on copyright or WP:PLAGIARISM when it comes to an image. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right, we can avoid such issues by creating an image from scratch and being inspired by this map. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Your name
Just curious: harpy means "a scolding, nagging, bad-tempered woman; shrew". Why would you call yourself one? Banedon (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's essentially a reference to this kind of Harpy with a bit of all of the other connotations thrown in, . Bear in mind that harpies - being only lower deities - did not act of their own volition, but at the behest of Zeus himself. Actually, I've had the moniker for decades. I'm an old escapee from the 'artistic' era when people reinvented themselves as an homage to postmodernism/posthumanism (i.e., Lydia Lunch, Siouxsie Sioux, Sid Vicious, et al). Actually, I had two, with the other being "Natasha Kasha (from Russia)"... but that's another story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

White Latin American
You think that I'm stupid, right ?. I already use the discucion of the page White Latin American, and to this day there is still no answers. I know that you and other users have an alliance with the user Bleckter against me, and I will discover, and when I do I will bring to light. I'm watching all. --H1N111 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh... GABHello! 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Help
Hi Iryna, Just wondering, what is the next step in conflict resolution on this? I've tried discussing, but am still being blanket reverted by a user for no valid reason whilst I have cited policy to back up my edits. I can find no reason for their reverts other than wp:idontlikeit and wp:useful. For context the article is Cold War II. Hollth (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but there's a lot of that going around on articles (and I've been stuck in the same ruts). I was watching the article for a while, but I'm not sure as to what's been happening and where it's up to. If there are a few editors involved with no clear consensus, I'd suggest it may be worth taking to the WP:DRN. Let me know how it goes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sabra
Did you read my edit summary? the sources used for that statement describe the groups as Pro-Palestinian. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First read the article's talk page. If you still wish to challenge the wording, take it to the talk page of the article. It's been discussed to death. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I thought I'd say "hello", as I keep seeing you pop up on my watchlist making edits to articles on ethnicity. It's good to see other editors take a sustained interest in these articles. I now wonder why I haven't encountered you before! Anyway, I just thought it might be nice for me to introduce myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, ! Somehow, I managed to get myself stuck in Eastern Europe and other highly controversial areas over the last couple of years. I've decided that it's high time I branched out to areas of interest to me as these were the impetus for me to start editing here in the first place. I'm afraid I'll probably just be popping up from time to time as I still end up getting pinged and have a natural affinity with disputes (I'm fairly certain we go back to the moment I drew my first breath). A pleasure to meet you, and I'm sure we'll be crossing paths regularly in the future. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry - there are plenty of controversies with ethnic group articles too! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't I just know it! As I've already noted to another editor, I don't have enough fingers for the pies I stick 'em into. Sigh. I guess I'll just have to go on thinking arachnid and relying on my tenacity to stay on top of things. Once article are on my watchlist, I don't let them go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation assistance
Iryna, do you mind assisting me a bit? I've found this file on the Commons. I'm not exactly sure what the document is, or what it says (it is in Russian, of course). I was wondering as to whether it is appropriate for the "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire" article. Not sure such a block of text is useful, but if it is some kind of genuine proclamation regarding the annexation, that might be worthwhile to post in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's written using the pre-reformed Russian alphabet, and I've managed to find a couple of links to the text here, here. I don't know whether an English translation exists (which would be the ideal). Yes, I think it would be very much appropriate for the article as you'll see from the declaration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that for me. Now that I know what it is (the actual decree of annexation), I'll certainly post it into the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Spanish immigration to Mexico
Hi. Just letting you know that your request to move Spanish immigration to Mexico to Spanish Mexicans was actioned and then also reverted (see request, which I actioned). You may wish to start a formal requested move discussion to try and attain a consensus for your preferred title. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing on this info, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)