User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 29

Reply to the message about changes made to the article 'List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country'
The original "Enfield rifle" link directs to the Lee–Enfield page. The Lee–Enfield rifle was adopted in 1895, whereas the Indian Mutiny took place in 1857. If you visit the "Pattern 1853 Enfield" page on Wikipedia, it has an entire section on the Indian Mutiny which also states that the rife used was the P53 Enfield. I only intended to replace incorrect information with correct information. But that's alright. You can keep the incorrect information on the page. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1853_Enfield#Indian_mutiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.60.238 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't prepared to accept that per WP:WINARS. I will give the main entry in the above article the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that the citations aren't verifiable as it does ring a bell and I'm more than happy to research it further and try to improve the main entry. I would suggest, however, that you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I left a perfectly reasonable template reason for the revert and asked you to contact me should you wish to discuss it further. Leaving snarky commentary on my talk page is not the way to respond to editors.

Note, also, that the mutiny does not appear to ever have been discussed as being a coup. The East India Company did run the country in tandem with the Indian ruling elite, but I also need to establish that there is a mainstream view that it is considered to be a coups d'état. There are no reliable sources describing it as such, therefore its entry on the list contravenes WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * t.p.s This [] discusses the role of the rifle in the "mutiny", and more to the point, this [] discusses whether it was "mutiny" or "coup", based on competing imperialist and ideological precepts, i.e in the context of the British and French political experience. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no doubt that Wikipedia is written from the Western POV (Ze Impirialist peegs hev zer vai!/AKA The hand that signed the paper felled a city), but by the same token a more global POV is very slow when it comes to filtering through into 'our' mainstream sources. If I challenged everything in the majority of articles based on peeling away the layers of centuries of systemic bias and plain ignorance in mainstream sources, I'd have been blocked years ago.


 * Cheers for the 2nd source in particular. I think that it's valid as a source for inclusion in the list. I'll go through it and reference the appropriate pages after I've read through it thoroughly! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Iryna. This [] is worth a look too, from a cursory glance! Actually looks like a bloody good read ;) Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect that there would be a number of respectable modern scholars re-evaluating the history of colonisation (that is, rational revisionism as opposed to reactionary revisionism) that would support this as qualifying as a 'coup'. As per your suggestion, I'll let it stand for the moment, but I'll try to make some time to examine the main article and consider whether broadening it to include scholarship on an alternative definition is due. Fascinating subject matter. I don't know whether you can access this 2 part doco by Dan Snow, but it really provides some great grounding into the East India Company. The complete episode of part 2 can be found here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yep,I can access it, cheers for that Iryna. I have left a note on the relevant T/P as I think you have seen. As I mentioned there, I'm thinking maybe we should broaden it out as a definition on that article list. I agree that "coup" may be too constricting. It may need re-titling? I think we have the sources to justify it as you suspect also. B.t.w. I had a broad, "general reader" grasp of the subject, (re the new Enfield rifle event), but it goes far deeper than that. A whole new area to check out! That's what keeps me on this bloody thing. Cheers Iryna, always a pleasure. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. I'm accruing material to expand the horribly neglected articles about the incredible indigenous peoples and culture of Australia, but there's so much to wade through, as well as the entire revisionist backlash of right wing historians held in esteem by the multinationals... er, government of Australia (there's no qualitative difference between the parties). New (old) perspectives on the destruction of the entire Tasmanian Aboriginal culture and peoples have been dusted off and re-presented as, "but they didn't know any better and they had to protect their interests, so we have to judge them by the values of the times and sweep the last 50 years of critical scholarship under the rug until it's forgotten about." Such is the drive of the global economy.


 * Incidentally, the entire Dan Snow documentary is available at Vimeo here in three parts. Don't let the apparent length put you off. It appears to be about 6 hours or more, but is around 2 hours in total. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, an area that I know nothing about. Curiously, what did switch me on to some extent was the marvellous outpouring of Aus cinema that suddenly started in the early 70's. It seemed to speak of things that were then unwritten, or seemed to be uncommented on. I recall a film regarding a lawyer who was trying to clear a young Aboriginal man of a framed murder. It was raining throughout the film, part of a prophecy. It was almost magical realism. It also spoke of an implied guilt, and a fear of the land, the interior. A disassociation. I wish I could remember it's name. Also the fantastic last scene in Walkabout, with a young Jenny Augtter in her suburban kitchen, back to "normality", cutting up raw meat for dinner. It all seemed to hit her then. And of course there is the slightly later picnic at hanging rock. All brilliant stuff which was the precursor of the new academic wave re-evaluating European settlement of the continent. But it did so in an intuitive, visceral manner. Was there early work in the 50's or 60's published which discussed these topics in Australian academia? I would like to see some if they exist. Cheers! Si Irondome (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're thinking about Peter Weir's The Last Wave with the magnificent David Gulpilil (also in Walkabout) as the mysterious Sydney Koori who seems to function as the embodiment of a songline lost when the indigenous Sydney tribes were decimated and forgot their identity. Only a few elders have retained the ability to recall the 'memory'.


 * It's extremely convoluted, and difficult to explain 'The Dreaming' and island-continent wide songline contact maintained for 50,000 years. I've done so much research and have had direct contact with Aboriginal communities over the decades that I really couldn't put it in a nutshell for you. There are some excellent textbooks around, but I wouldn't want to start throwing the tons of 'stuff' that I find exciting at you... because it's actually boring unless I find a couple of useful references to give you an overview first. Actually, the best overview would be a doco: First Footprints. It's probably the most comprehensive mixture of understanding the culture, the 250 nations that existed when whites arrived, and the complexity of the relationship with the land. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant and thanks! The link is greatly appreciated especially, and also cheers for nailing that film. No danger of boring me by the way, if I want crushing boredom I just re-run my life :) Anyway, i've taken up enough of your time. Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Mister X
Hi Iryna, I would appreciate it if you could have a look at Mister X (band) when you have the time. I created it a while ago and then early this month it was nominated for deletion. I've tried my best to deal with the issues raised, which in my opinion weren't all that valid to begin with, but the person who nominated the article is not at all interested in taking part in the discussion. I think an opinion from anyone else could be useful here and it might motivate them to do something - whether that means deleting the article or preserving it, because they don't seem to be taking my arguments seriously at all. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look and can see why they're not considered to be notable according to English language sources and site like Bandcamp. I'll take a look at the Polish and other language sources as they seem to be more notable than half of the band articles that exist for US bands. There's so much self promotion in the music articles that I'd love to nominate thousands of articles for deletion for not meeting any form of notability criteria. I'll see whether I can raise an argument to retain the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree that Bandcamp and sources from the band itself are not the best, but it's the easiest place to find up-to-date info about their discography and line-up. However I don't understand why they're taking issue with interviews and news stories from decent or well-known websites. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, they don't know that Komsomol'skaia Pravda, etc. are respectable sources. As for zines, the problem is that there are so many of them around, and it's difficult to know which few are taken seriously and not just run by amateurs. AllMusic, for example, is understood to be a discerning zine (therefore an RS). There are a few specialist zines for various genres that are also well established. What stands out about these is that they're Anglophone orientated unless a band (Laibach, etc) have made it globally, meaning that bands with a genuine profile in other parts of the world are precluded. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Victoria immigration - source
https://museumvictoria.com.au/origins/ Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've been meaning to do some more work on updating the Polish Australians article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Polish Genocide
FWIW / FYI, I have also nominated its sibling for deletion; the sibling had been added (possibly in a spam-like fashion) to the "See Also" of multiple articles, so it is / was not eligible for speedy deletion. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, . I was intending to check the user's other edits, but was distracted by other activities on Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My edits are not disruptive
In addition, I am not in control of my IP address.My unjust ban expired from an account I've never even used on the 14th. Please tell me how removed uncited,biased fringe opinions are disruptive. Tell me threatening to ban a user editing in good faith is acceptable. I will be notifying others of this-2601:546:8103:290:44EC:F9B:A7C7:FD2C (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to read your nonsense. An edit war starts when a person initially reverts another. As you did.And continue to do-2601:546:8103:290:44EC:F9B:A7C7:FD2C (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, you have done three reverts to the page on Arab Christians in the past 25 hours. If you wish to that more reverts are made to the page on Sunday 14th, my advice would be to explain your proposed revert on Talk:Arab Christians and hope that another editor will make the revert.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You were never formally given notice about the thread at ANI filed by an IP. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  01:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the official notification, ... and for your supportive comment. Appreciated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Russian population figures
Hello Iryna, I was wondering when you were going to get back to me on the ethnic Russian population issue? Retaurn (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . My sincerest apologies. I've been caught up in other issues on Wikipedia, and it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder. Now I have to remember what the solution I had in mind was! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Has your solution come back to you? If not, would it at all be possible to change the figure in the infobox so that it states 111 million - 115 million along with a note on the 111 million figure pointing out the the reason for the lower estimate? (It would be structured very similar to the Czech page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechs) I realize that the article is protected and edits have to be reviewed correct? Retaurn (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Cubans
Hello. The 2016 Cuba population estimate ( 11,000,000 ) by U.S. Census Bureau is wrong. The official population of Cuba was 11,239,004 in 2015. Thanks. Cgx8253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgx8253 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the tardy response. I've taken a look at the 2012 census PDF reference you provided, and it's certainly meets with WP:RS. I'll expand the references, but I'll remove the population clock as it's not RS. Thanks for finding the 2012 census! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Some advice
I think I'll give you some advice regarding your behavior with IP Address - 2601:546:8103:290:44EC:F9B:A7C7:FD2C. I checked his sources and his material and they are completely correct and justified + made in good faith. Unnecessary reversion of good faith edits is considered disruptive editing and you can be blocked from editing if you continue to revert good faith edits unnecessary. There are talk pages! Discuss and try to get to a solution rather than just reverting. Moreover there are to edit - edit a less controversial page. You are already involved in a case at ANI and you are continuing to revert his edits! Remember my advice or you might regret! Thanks and Regards.  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes another point I should tell you - please do not bite the newcommers. And when you issue a Level 4 warning(highest warning) of using multiple IP's you have to justify the names of other IP's too!  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 12:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents., some of your advice is... unhelpful. --Neil N  talk to me 13:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so NeilN go ahead check it out once again there is a apology notice there.  Varun  FEB2003   I am Online 13:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unnecessary reversion of good faith edits is considered disruptive editing" - Obviously Iryna doesn't agree with the edit.
 * "Moreover there are to edit - edit a less controversial page." - Condescending
 * "You are already involved in a case at ANI and you are continuing to revert his edits!" - Misguided as no one including yourself bothered to notify Iryna of the ANI thread which is required
 * --Neil N  talk to me 13:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry not to inform I thought just writing was enough! What is condescending? If Iryna doesn't agree she can discuss!  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 13:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "You are already involved in a case at ANI and you are continuing to revert his edits!" - How is Iryna supposed to know they're involved in a case at ANI if no one notified them? And telling an experienced editor involved in what seems to be a simple content dispute that, "Moreover there are  to edit - edit a less controversial page" is condescending. Please think a bit more before using phrases you've picked up somewhere. --Neil N  talk to me 13:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me, . It is, indeed, difficult to be aware of someone having opened an ANI thread when one is completely unaware of it., please note that I have addressed your concerns on the ANI thread. Note, also, that your 'advice' actually assumes bad faith on my behalf. I'd suggest that you should refrain from handing out advice so freely to editors with far more experience than yourself. I understand that you are very enthusiastic (which is great), but be careful not to let your new-found powers go to your head. The machinations of Wikipedia are far more complex than you've had time to fathom as yet. Should you choose to advise other editors in this manner again, you might encounter someone aggressive than I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me, . It is, indeed, difficult to be aware of someone having opened an ANI thread when one is completely unaware of it., please note that I have addressed your concerns on the ANI thread. Note, also, that your 'advice' actually assumes bad faith on my behalf. I'd suggest that you should refrain from handing out advice so freely to editors with far more experience than yourself. I understand that you are very enthusiastic (which is great), but be careful not to let your new-found powers go to your head. The machinations of Wikipedia are far more complex than you've had time to fathom as yet. Should you choose to advise other editors in this manner again, you might encounter someone aggressive than I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Varun, you are in no position to give "advice" to another editor who has much more experience than you. You've been here for only a few months. Iryna has been here for 4 years. I have been here for three years, and I believe you are way in over your head. You should refrain from telling editors what to do when they have more experience. You have a lot to learn. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  02:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 06:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . It's all part of the learning curve. Please don't let it put you off editing. There's always room for enthusiasm and some mistakes (not that I've ever made a mistake... or a few hundred of them)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Iryna you are a true sport!  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 06:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainians
Hello, I did remove Slovakia from the page Ukrainians but I did forget to put instead Spain; I reverted your last change and this time I went to my last edit and also I manually added Spain with the proper source.

Slovakia hasn't got any source/citation from long time ago, so I removed it as the old number it can't be proven. If you find a source mentioning the number of ukrainians in Slovakia, please feel free to add it to the page!

Kind regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I actually just found the addition here by an IP, so it's only been in place (unreferenced from the start) since 15 April this year. The article is subject to constant, ridiculous edit warring, so this entry must have just been overlooked by all eyes watching the page. It was slipped in during an edit war over genetics. Cheers for picking up on it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Halp
I can't remember if I ever asked you to collaborate on an ambitious de-crap-some-annony-with-an-agenda-added-ifying mission on Genocides in history. Because that article is moronic. Genocide is a legal concept, yet wikipedia largely disregards the legal definition. Why?!?! Ugh. The definition is problematic in the first place considering it includes a religious group due to ignorance about the fact Jews are an ethnic group. Fortunately the "religion" definition has never been used to try someone for genocide in court, as its pretty much recognized to mean "killing of a people", and religious groups are not people. If the definition means a religious group than there would have been a genocide of Arians. Hell even The American Heritage Dictionary is clueless "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group". ANGER!!!! So many people trivialize genocide by expanding genocide to include everything ("genocide of black people by the police"). Personally I use the terms "total genocide" and "partial genocide",and "ideological genocide" and "utilitarian genocide" to distinguish between genocides. Utilitarian partial genocides are the most common, so common that they leak into "mere" mass murder. An example is every empire crushing a separatist revolt ever. Most of all the fact that the article includes the expulsion of germans is disgusting. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is your personal definition of 'genocide' - the dictionary's definition is what is accepted by scholars and taught in schools. Sorry, you are incorrect.50.111.26.229 (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator
Special:Contributions/!rynaH Is this you? Sro23 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, . No, the account has nothing to do with me. I use my global account to edit all wikis, and have had no interest in creating any alternative accounts. If I ever were to do so, I'd certainly tag it as being an alternative account.


 * I hope this user isn't trying to make it look as if I've created sleeper accounts. So far, Ukrainian Wikipedia has been the focus of their 4 edits. I'm not certain as to whether this is worth requesting that they change their user name. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it may be wise Iryna. Nipping in the bud and all that. I suspect the intentions behind it are not benign. It could be a perfectly harmless co-incidence but we can see how user activity develops in the next few days and act (or not) accordingly. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt, Simon. Yes, I'm not comfortable about it, particularly as it coincides with a day of prominent ANI attention and edit wars on other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The name Iryna and variants of it are common in countries such as Ukraine and Russia, shared by people such as Iryna Farion, Iryna Krasnianska and Iryna Herashchenko. Doesn't seem to me like an impersonator to me at the moment. Linguist 111  Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing    before your message as a courtesy 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - Perhaps I'm assuming bad faith here but it seems rather weird that they've used the H at the end, All for we know it could be completely harmless but personally I'd politely tell them about your name and that it could potentially cause alot of confusion here and would they mind changing it, If not block 'em, Usernames will always be similar but something just seems fishy iMHO. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Names and surnames beginning with H (romanisations of the Cyrillic characters Г and Х) are also common in e.g. Ukraine. Judging by the edits made so far by the user, it doesn't seem like an instance of impersonation. Linguist 111  Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing    before your message as a courtesy 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Being Ukrainian, I'm well aware of how common any given set of characters are for a common name in Slavic languages, much less the Ukrainian transliteration variant of my first name... but that is not reflected in Wikipedia monikers. Try running a search for "user:Iryna" just as a general search. There are no other users using any form of Iryna anything outside of Iryna Harpey and other convolutions trading on my moniker as an explicit impersonation. Using an exclamation mark in lieu of a capital 'i' makes it all the more suspicious. Decades ago, I was advised that the golden rule in anyone's working life (in whatever manner one chooses to apply the concept of paid or unpaid 'work') is to always cover your butt. It's probably the most intelligent and relevant piece of advice I've ever been given. I work on Eastern European articles and a multitude of other highly controversial areas of Wikipedia. This makes me a high profile target for strange fan clubs and extremely malicious WP:GRUDGEs.


 * I do apologise if it seems to be a rude observation on my behalf, but I actually find your current signature to be visually distracting in its length, and a little condescending in explaining how to 'ping' you. I'm honestly not trying to have a dig at you, but it does push the envelope in terms of WP:SIGLENGTH. In fact, it isn't really appropriate to leave such instructions as many of us express our own preference as to where to answer on the user talk page you would be posting to. Many users express a preference for responding to user talk page comments on the other user's page (as per the top of my own talk). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, all, for your input (including ). I do believe it to have been a good idea to at least clarify my relationship to the !rynaH account 'officially' as being zero/nought. I trust Vanjagenije's judgement, and I'll be watching the new account. For me, the primary issue was to have it on record that it's not me for the benefit of all the editors I collaborate with. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

One thing you can do, if you haven't done so already, is create doppelgänger accounts—accounts created from your main account, with usernames similar to yours but changed like an impersonator may change them (e.g. with close typos; some suggestions: Iryna Harpi, Irina Harpy, IrynaHarpy, Irnya Harpy), to prevent impersonation. To do this, go to Special:CreateAccount while logged in and create an account from there, then either place on the user and user talk pages of the account, or redirect the account's user pages to yours. I've shortened my sig, I hope it's not too distracting now. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please ping me. 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the suggestion, . It has occurred to me in the past as a reasonable idea but, for some reason, I've never reached the point of paranoia/healthy sense of self-preservation to bother thinking through convolutions on my handle enough to feel motivated to go through the effort. It's very likely a good idea to do so... but I'll probably forget in the face of the "really, really, really important stuff I absolutely must get on with before I do anything else." I suspect that you're inordinately more sensible than am I, and I should seriously consider it. Cheers for your input and concern... and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces
Hello Iryna Harpy,

I noticed that you undid my change. I made the change because the Russian Armed Forces entry contains an inconsistency. The introductory paragraph indicates as follows:

Armed forces under the Ministry of Defence are divided into:

•	the three "branches of Armed Forces" (вида вооружённых сил): the Ground Force, Aerospace Forces, and the Navy

•	the two "separate troop branches" (Отдельные рода войск): the Strategic Missile Troops and the Airborne Troops

•	the Rear of the Armed Forces, which has a separate status of its own

However, under the heading “Structure” further down in the entry the following is indicated [my comments in brackets]

“The Russian military is divided into three services: the Russian Ground Forces, the Russian Navy, and the Russian Air Force [rather than the Russian Aerospace Forces as noted above]. In addition there are three independent arms of service: [above indicates two] Strategic Missile Troops, Russian Aerospace Defense Forces [note comment on this arm of service below], and the Russian Airborne Troops. The Air Defence Troops, the former Soviet Air Defence Forces, have been subordinated into the Air Force since 1998. The Armed Forces as a whole are traditionally referred to as the Army (armiya), except in some cases, the Navy is specifically singled out.”

As the Wikipedia entry on the Russian Air Force entry makes clear, the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces and the Russian Air Force were merged to form the similar sounding “Russian Aerospace Forces”. Here is the wording from the Wikipedia entry on the Russian Air Force: "On 1 August 2015, the Russian Air Force, along with the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces and the Air Defense Troops, were merged into a new branch of the Armed Forces, now officially called the Russian Aerospace Forces."

Thus, I would suggest that my edit be reinstated as the current entry appears incorrect. Suggested edit:

"The Russian military is divided into three services: the Russian Ground Forces, the Russian Navy, and the Russian Aerospace Forces.  In addition there are two independent arms of service: the Strategic Missile Troops and the Russian Airborne Troops. The Air Defence Troops, the former Soviet Air Defence Forces, have been subordinated into the Air Force since 1998. The Armed Forces as a whole are traditionally referred to as the Army (armiya), except in some cases, the Navy is specifically singled out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.198.190 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP 99.224.198.190. Thanks for making contact with me as regards your edit. I've just reviewed it and agree that it's a vast improvement. I'm afraid that I reverted you having only taken a cursory glance at the content changes. I've now self-reverted so that your content change stands. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comorian language
You left a message about my edits to the Comorian language page. I'm afraid I don't have sources to cite unless you want to read through the whole body of literature by Comorian linguists but I have lived in the Comoros, speak Shingazdja, know many, many Comorians who speak the different dialects and know what I am talking about. But there is no such language as "Comorian" or "Shikomori" or "Shimasiwa": try and find a "Comorian" dictionary: there isn't one because there is no such language. There's no source for "Comorian (Shikomori or Shimasiwa, the "language of islands") is the most widely used language on the Comoros" - whoever wrote this made it up since no-on in the Comoros speaks "Comorian". Perhaps you should delete that too. It seems to me that Wikipedia should be correct, so I corrected it, but I really don't care if it's not. If you know more about the Comorian languages than I do, then of course, please do correct the entry. (Actually, having written that, I see you already have the sources for my edit at the bottom of the page - or haven't you read Chamanga's work?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngazidja (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Comorian language article is a stub in need of improvement per WP:PSA, not WP:OR. Your addition and changes here did not improve the stub, but added more unsubstantiated and unverifiable content. It's irrelevant whether I've even met a Comorian or speak a syllable of any Comorian language: the WP:BURDEN is on the editor introducing content to demonstrate that it is backed up by reliable sources. I understand that it is frustrating to know things about a subject without being able to demonstrate it to be true, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource.


 * Now, the issue of whether the article should or shouldn't exist is something you're welcome to bring up on the article's talk page. Perhaps that matter could be easily addressed by renaming the article to Comorian languages. The other thing I noted in regards to your change is that you changed the scope of the article from dealing explicitly with the languages spoken in Comoros - the nation-state - to that of the Comoro Islands, an article on the geographic region. Languages and ethnic groups are associated to a 'country' and diaspora rather than a geographic region (i.e., Filipino language, Hebrew language, et al.).


 * Finally, please try not to take the process of editing WP:PERSONALLY. Your tone suggests that you are not assuming good faith on my behalf. I understood your content changes to have been made in good faith, and don't doubt that you know far more than I about the languages spoken in Comoros. Nonetheless, BURDEN applies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no issues either way, although I would point out (again) that by your criteria the sentence "Comorian (Shikomori or Shimasiwa, the "language of islands") is the most widely used language on the Comoros" should be removed since it is unsubstantiated and unverified (in addition to being wrong). And you state that this is about the country rather than the islands - so why is Shimaore mentioned? It's spoken in Mayotte (France), not in the Comoros. Anyway, as I tell my students, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I apologise if I seemed personal, but this is not the first time you have objected to my editing unsubstantiated and unverifiable text about the Comoros. the last time you objected to my removing what appeared to be a generic copy paste sentence about Hindu minorities in the islands - also, obviously, unsubstantiated and unverifiable since there are none. My assumption is, since you appear to object to my correcting unsubstantiated and unverifiable text is that you have a personal political agenda here. Otherwise why would you not object to the material (unsubstantiated and unverifiable: the footnote reference leads to a blank webpage on a Mormon website.) that I am correcting? But again, this is just something I felt required correcting since I came across it and it was incorrect. I really have no issues either way and am happy to leave it as you wish it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.224.175 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinions on the matter whatsoever. A few Comoros related articles are on my watchlist simply because of bouts of vandalism in the past. Please read WP:PRESERVE. What I do understand is that it doesn't mean that the article is somehow so broken that it can be understood to fall into the WP:CANTFIX category. We don't simply delete articles because we don't think the content is good enough to delete it because it simply wouldn't meet with WP:AfD. As I have already expressed to you, the place to hold such a discussion is on the article's talk page where other interested editors will join in and form a WP:CONSENSUS as to how to best handle the current content (and on the other article you were involved in). You and I do not form a consensus by discussing content on my talk page: the process needs to be transparent for the purposes of keeping other editors in the loop.


 * As to my having a 'political agenda' here... What agenda would that be? I'm sorry, but that assumption strikes me as being seriously nonsensical. My only knowledge of the Comoros is summarised by this BBC article. Like much of Africa, it has been exploited and, once the economy was run into the ground, the colonists pulled out in order to be 'noble' and grant 'independence'... leaving a state of social and economic strife and poverty in their wake. Sadly, this is echoed in Banana Republics and brutal military regimes throughout the continent and time.


 * My final suggestion to you is that you try not to forget to log in when you're editing. It's bad practice, plus it gives away a lot about you: i.e., your location. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Impressive
I saw your edits on Dominican Republic and looked at some of your edit. They are very impressive and inspirational. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!  • DP •  {huh?} 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding myself wondering why you didn't reject this DRN after its being filed less than 24 hours from when the initiating editor first edited the article itself. The editor's first edit to the article was at 17:41, 24 August 2016; his/her first comment on the talk page was at 17:47, 24 August 2016; my first response wasn't until 21:52, 24 August 2016; s/he filed the DRN at 23:33, 24 August 2016. How on earth does that even begin to constitute 'extensive discussion'?


 * This conclusion on your behalf reads as an indictment of my not wanting to engage in mediation. While it may be true that I wasn't prepared to participate in a DRN I don't believe should have been accepted because it blatantly fails "recently discussed extensively on a talk page", I was certainly not the only party invited to participate who had already joined in the discussion where it still belongs: on the talk page... and without participating in the DRN. In fact, how is it a dispute related to the Gogol biography when the filing party named an editor who has never touched the article, an editor who doesn't exist; tossed the Chekhov biography into the mix (I'm not involved in the Chekhov biography) is beyond me. By the time you closed, another two editors had involved themselves in the discussion (that's a total of 5 editors using the talk page to discuss the issue by day 2). So, could you please explain why you believed the DRN merited volunteering your services? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

About RfCs
RfCs can be closed by anyone, as far as I know. (But they should have good reasons, that is all.)188.174.88.23 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the prerequisite is that they are experienced editors. You do not have any traceable experience. It's not written into any of the RfC guidelines simply because it is WP:COMMONSENSE. Can you see, by any stretch of logic, why an IP with 3 edits to their credit (especially as you appear to be IP hopping or have a dynamic IP adding up to about 7 or 8 edits in total - and mainly reverting back your closure which has been reverted as invalid by a number of experienced editors) would meet with the requisite skills to interpret the outcome of an RfC, or that they meet with being understood to be neutral and uninvolved closers? Even assuming good faith, there is nothing to indicate that you have any idea of the nuances of closing an RfC, much less an RfC in an area that falls under Wikipedia sanctions. The RfC was submitted for official closure because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and because the editors who participated want the assurance that it will be closed by an uninvolved, experienced editor/sysop who has a known track record, and whose track record can be quantified and qualified by their editing history. Furthermore, there is no way of establishing whether you are one of the interested parties not logged into your account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine
Why didn't you give the same advice to Lute88? Why don't you start a discussion yourself? I see that you are both Ukrainians, are you working as a team? There are many biased statements in the article and my edit was a minor one. I am planning on making other changes so that the article reflect the sources more faithfully. --Mlc1968 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Take any discussion of content to the talk page of the article... and, no, we are not a 'team'. Please read WP:CIVIL and familiarise yourself with guides on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard; Talk:Abkhazia
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.188.174.88.23 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled message
Hello. This is Masalama1111. Copts are not Arab. If you look at the requirements, Copts lack Arab admixture. They are genetically distinct from other Egyptians too. "Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence." http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996 Also, different behavior. Copts are distinct population. "Coptic tradition of secular education emphasizing professionalism seems to ... of all pharmacists and 30–40% of all doctors in Egypt were Copt (Chitham 82–86)."https://books.google.com/books?id=-d6PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=copts+30-40%26+doctors+coptic+tradition&source=bl&ots=x0LBmUZERr&sig=qPWKU52yuS9fUQIVifgrn2fbQuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi73aeQherOAhWE7iYKHVg6BssQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=copts%2030-40%26%20doctors%20coptic%20tradition&f=false "On this measure the most elite group in the USA, far eclipsing the Ashkenazi Jewish population, are Copts and Hindu Indians, with sixteen times as many doctors per capita in the USA than the average of the domestic population. "http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/clark-paperHello. This is Masalama1111. Copts are not Arab. If you look at the requirements, Copts lack Arab admixture. They are genetically distinct from other Egyptians too. "Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence."http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996 Also, different behavior. Copts are distinct population. "Coptic tradition of secular education emphasizing professionalism seems to ... of all pharmacists and 30–40% of all doctors in Egypt were Copt (Chitham 82–86)."https://books.google.com/books?id=-d6PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=copts+30-40%26+doctors+coptic+tradition&source=bl&ots=x0LBmUZERr&sig=qPWKU52yuS9fUQIVifgrn2fbQuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi73aeQherOAhWE7iYKHVg6BssQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=copts%2030-40%26%20doctors%20coptic%20tradition&f=false "On this measure the most elite group in the USA, far eclipsing the Ashkenazi Jewish population, are Copts and Hindu Indians, with sixteen times as many doctors per capita in the USA than the average of the domestic population. "http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/clark-paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalama1111 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"War in Ukraine"
Hi Iryna, and thanks for recognizing my GF. I don't understand this, though. Many English speakers are not familiar with Donbass, and this is the only war in Ukraine right now, yes? So references to "war in Ukraine" would naturally refer to this. See, for example, this article from The Daily Beast. Now, in Wikipedia terms, this is a descriptive title, because the topic is literally a war in Ukraine. I'm not suggesting this is a proper name, like "World War II". So maybe it just doesn't need to be in the lede anyway. But as long as it is, I think it looks very silly of us to suggest the name isn't legitimate. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

War in Donbass at WP:POVN
Hey I've made a post at WP:POVN regarding the use of scare quotes at War in Donbass. I apologize if you think this is too precipitous, but I was surprised that you restored the scare quotes without comment on Talk:War in Donbass, especially given the several reasons I noted why they were inappropriate.

I hope you aren't offended that I believe the issue needs scrutiny from people in the wider community who don't edit in EE topics regularly. I think that editing with a sarcastic tone, and being unable to either recognize the sarcasm, or instead viewing it as appropriate, would constitute a significant concern. This would be especially problematic if there were a local consensus on those pages that such editing was neutral.

Glad to hear your thoughts here or there. Best, -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks

Stifan (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Hi Iryna I completely understand you got rid of my addition of famous Ukrainian-Australians but just wanted to add someone from the Bachelor who i thought showed Ukraine beauty and elegance. Her name is Olena Khamula and if you dont mind could you add her with a ciatation. Thank you so much for your dedication and work on looking after the Ukrainian pages and all of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.156.203 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Abkhazia.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abkhazia. Thank you.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia redux
New Wine into Old Wineskins. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I nearly got caught out ready to flap my jowls. Let old bladders lie. Given a little time, the rancidity factor'll deflate 'em naturally. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Gogol
Thanks, I've requested a "Move" on the file to get F.Moller out of the title so no one else will be fooled! WQUlrich (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern was with it not being reliably sourced. Sources have been produced, so I'm fine with it. Thanks for the hard work you put into chasing it up. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I Was Contributing to and Continuing the Existing Discussion
There was a discussion on whether a person born in Ukraine should be considered Ukrainian. I decided to contribute an example of a Jewish person whose parents, though born in Kiev, considered themselves Russian and not Ukrainian. My personal interest in the topic is that, although my mother and I were born in the United States, she and her ancestors were Ukrainian.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I realise that it can be tempting to make comments about a subject that is of personal interest, but Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the actual content of the article and providing reliable sources to back content up. I did understand that you intended no harm, but Wikipedia deals with a lot of sensitive issues, and you'd probably be shocked to know just how many trolls are out there ready to turn talk pages surrounding the subject of anti-semitism, anything to do with Eastern Europe, etc. into a forum-fest. The key to avoiding massive disruptions to pages is "Don't feed the trolls". I'd usually overlook generic off-topic comments, but I have enough experience to know what's potentially going to act as bait. Please don't misunderstand this as being intended as a personal affront, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert
Iryna Harpy: I need to know why you reverted my edit on AG article today. Diranakir (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you over and over on the article's talk page. I have now explained it again on the talk page of the article. Please stop pestering me incessantly on my own talk about a consensus (and self-evident to boot) decision made months ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

About WP:RS
Hello User:Iryna Harpy. I have a question that I hope you can help me with. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However can I use Wikisource (which is a different Wikimedia project) as a source? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel 14:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wikisource can be used for primary source material where there is relevant information for content already supported by secondary reliable sources. Although, as you know, it's preferable not to use primary sources, there are also documents there which are secondary by nature. As an example, take a look at the No Gun Ri massacre in the 'Background' section. Citation 3 uses the "U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report". The entire document is referenced multiple times. Hope this helps! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna for your information. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Iryna, sorry to bother you with another query. Would a government website in your opinion be a primary source? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a bother, plus it's an excellent question. From my experience, and for the purposes of Wikipedia, it's dependent on what sort of information is being presented. We can use primary sources for census data, constitutional, legal and other such material. It's preferable that it be tempered by secondary sources if there is anything disputed about the information. It's also dependent on whether it's that government's position about a war (i.e., the RF's or the USA's position as to what is going on). Context and COMMONSENSE should be the best indicators as to whether it's just that government's position, but is disputed by other reliable sources. Could you provide the context and the information you have in mind? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My editing
That guy does follow my edits, and not only him. What should be done about it? Well, in my case, I simply should not edit here. This is waste of time. The only reason I am still here is my addiction. I would ask an admin to block my account, but it was nasty when I did it last time (an innocent contributor was blamed to be my sockpuppet account, etc.). So, I would rather Just Say No at some point. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was in a position of having my hand forced as a matter of AGF in apologising to the user, but that doesn't mean that I truly believed this editor didn't follow you around, nor have I changed my mind about believing them to be a sock. The problem is that the burden is on us to establish who he's a sock of (I have my suspicions). I'm equally frustrated at being unable to stop someone who had already honed their knowledge of policy and guidelines, and has become an expert at gaming the system. We know that without any apparent negative record, as compared to users like ourselves who already have an easy history to track and use against us, it feels like a no win situation. My position remains the same: I can't sit back and watch them rewrite history by using articles as coat racks. I truly wish that I could just say no, but I'm far too determined (read as pig-headed) to be able to do so. My heartfelt sympathy/empathy goes out to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We had some disagreements, but it was pleasure interacting with you. One important factor for me to consider is that my account is not really anonymous. That might be fine, but there are some new laws in Russia that create potential problems. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course! Well, our disagreements were always as they should be: about content, and most certainly not personalised in any shape or form. I have great respect for you, and I hope you can keep contributing in some capacity. I'll be sorry to see you go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not look good. Note that the user does not hide where his IP came from (geographically). Well, not editing here for a while is actually a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has escalated from feeling personalised towards you since July to very, very uncomfortably personalised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The pair of you might at least want to notify me of what appears to be a long-term collective oppo-research project (wp: harassment in other words). Your aspersions are beneath comment and hypocritical beyond belief, so I won't argue the case, but at least I now understand some of the reasons for your interest in Talk:The Black Book of Communism and associated disruptive editing. I also see why it has been next to impossible to remove the crap on Coplon from Holodomor denial. Its personal for both of you, got it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As of now, G. reverted every single edit by me on this page. Why? His arguments are bizzar in response to comments that are clear and standard . I think this is either a case of "I do not hear" or possibly something else, given that the user followed my edits on a number of pages. My very best wishes (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No,, there is no 'long term oppo research' going on here. Neither MVBW nor I have actually discussed your editing until this section was started. Everything to be seen is available here, or on various article talk pages. I'm afraid I can't help it if I think there's been something a little too specialised and precise about your interests and editing behaviour since you started in earnest earlier this year. You do actually remind me at least one blocked editor, but I'm not pursuing it because I've never been that concerned about good editors/editors who know their stuff re-emerging unless they start up with the type of really disruptive editing behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. Whatever the situation, my only gripe is that I'm finding you annoying (and missing some obvious points in your arguments), just as you're finding both MVBW and myself annoying (and missing some obvious points in our arguments). In fact MVBW and I have had really, really, really lengthy discussions where we disagreed with each other and tried to explain the obvious points being missed in our arguments the other was missing. These things happen on a regular basis on Wikipedia, and I'd hate to think that there are any editors who always - and invariably - agree with each other about everything. I have to confess that my health has been shabby for a while, so I don't have the energy to formulate arguments with the precision I'm capable of. Whatever happens, hopefully the end result will be that at least one shabbily written article will end up a better article for the discussion (even if we're all run ragged by the end of the process), or that the next lot of editors to tackle it will be able to better identify the problems in the presentation of content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest here, I do not really care that much about these subjects (Holodomor, Black book, etc.). I simply tried to improve them as pages on any other subjects (biology, literature, whatever). If I had more time and a really anonymous account (unfortunately, this is not the case), I would edit subjects related to modern Russian politics. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)