User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 31

Merry Christmas

 * Thank you, . Wishing you and yours an equally wonderful festive season! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Dear, MERRY CHRISTMAS !!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not are you celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there! From a fellow editor, --Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave on someone else's talk page.

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Iryna Harpy: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GABgab 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Imminent GLOBAL threat
I've recently been reading that apparently there's some old guy on the loose who grooms kids by promising them toys and sweets, and then sneaks into their bedrooms in the middle of the night. He appears he have been getting away with it for years under innumerable aliases and it's even international in scope. It seems as though Interpol are also looking for him for unlicensed moving of animals across national (and even terrestial) boundaries.

Now I know this is getting confusing, but the old guy's activities tie in somehow with a pregnant teenage Middle-Eastern migrant who refuses to disclose how she begat her child, but who insists that her much older fiancé, who she is travelling with, isn't responsible. Apparently this unlikely pair are not only the 'cover' for the old guy, but they are also said to motivate lots of people all over the world to indulge in spontaneous acts of kindness towards their fellow humans! Sounds pretty unlikely to me! By best guess is that these people are behind it all somehow, only rational explanation!

ps … This site claims to be tracking the old guys whereabouts, is it WP:RS do you think?

HAPPY HUMBUG

Ebeneezer Scrooge (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn! Not only have I heard about him, when I was a kid I'm sure he groped me promising that he'd left something 'extra' in my stockings. Ewww... and he didn't reek of garlic as much as my family members, or friends of the family, so there's something decidedly halal about this. Personally – and I believe I represent many Wikipedians regarding this – I believe we should get an article about him out ASAP. It is our solemn duty to shoot our mouths off first in order to right great wrongs. The readers have a right to know! Thank you for reviving my interest in hysteria. --Ms. Lynch Mob (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! Hello, Iryna Harpy! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 16:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Greetings
Thank's for the Yo Ho Ho, hehehe, hope you have a Merry Christmas! :) PS In the end, over the at Ilovaisk battle, since that editor wasn't going to budge on the issue and at one point he wanted to remove the result of the battle all-together, I had to compromise and edit the result as a DPR/Russian victory. Also, I just made a new article for the War in Donbass here Battle of Svitlodarsk. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not having the time or energy to follow up on the battle over the Ilovaisk battle article! The compromise may have been annoying, but it's acceptable. I've just added the Svitlodarsk article to my watchlist. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Rfc at Battle of Aleppo
Hi Iryna Harpy,

There's a misunderstanding here. I wasn't the one who initially closed the RfC. It was who closed it and he is clearly an uninvolved editor. He was reverted by VM who said (and here) that only admins can close, which is clearly not the case per WP:RFCEND (see: "It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor."). So no, I'm not closing it myself. I am restoring an uninvolved editors closure because of a misrepresentation of RfC closing procedures. 92slim (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I was actually aware of that. The editor in question had left a comment on VM's talk page (here) to the effect of not being too fussed if VM chose to revert his close again. As it stands, I have no particular opinion as to whether the content is due or not, but I don't believe it to be early enough in the piece to close it. You may have noticed my dummy edit to further qualify that we're not counting !votes, but policy and guidelines. I honestly think that it needs to run for a while longer in order that those currently taking breaks have a chance to think on the content and chime in with their own arguments. Patience isn't always a virtue, but it is sometimes necessary to give outside editors a chance to voice their opinions. Happy holidays... even when life feels a bit grim! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's strange. The basis of you reverting me was that I was an involved editor. Which turned to be false. Then you say that it's Christmas, so it should remain open. Can you point to a Wikipedia guideline that specifically says RfCs should remain open during holiday season? Besides, I've seen RfCs closed with much less comments and discussion. And no, no one is "voting" and people are making legitimate policy discussions. Better yet, we have 12 users voting a certain way and 2 that aren't. In fact, this should be closed per WP:SNOW. 92slim (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because you chose to restore the premature close... and, indeed, you are involved. As for SNOW, I don't believe you to be in a position to be the best judge of that because you are not a neutral party. There's SNOW, and there are legitimate arguments for something being WP:RS whether you deem it to be worthy of inclusion or not. Please don't try to change my mind on that score because I'm not going to... particularly as I know Wikipedia's personalities inside-out, and I'm seeing the same bunch of editors who argue the same points in the same manner article in, article out. I'm absolutely and utterly convinced that this RfC needs more time. Also, I'd like to know why you pinged Winged Blades of Godric into this discussion on my talk page. Should I ping into the discussion as you're turning this into an open forum when discussions should be on the article's talk page. Is there anyone else you'd like to inform of this cosy chat?  --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay well, I never said I was not involved, but that the closing editor wasn't, and you are wrong anyway about closing the discussion because you have no authority to deem or not deem anything into the discussion when there is a clear majority consensus and no, I didn't ping anyone, that was you, so do one. 92slim (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --I'm anyway not keen to close the discussion. It's perfectly fine if someone choses to continue with the discussion.(Esp. when the holidays are there!). I initially reclosed the decision because I thought Marek's rationale was wrong. And anyway WP:SNOW is always best avoided on such discussions. We apply such closure when the content under discussion is purely too whimsical to ever gain consensus. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for confirming my understanding of your close. Your input is much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, why did you harpy ping him and accuse me of pinging? I smell dirt.  92slim (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? I pinged the user to thank them for the confirmation of their intent only after they'd left their comment here. Take a good look at the thread again. You pinged Winged Blades of Godric in your opening sentence, who would have been unaware of any mentions at all had you not WP:MENTIONed them. Please desist from your unfounded attacks and pay a little more attention to what you do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you did not know, 92slim has been blocked by EdJohnston. So their response might take a while. Such much for Christmas cheer. It appears the VM pile-on has carried over to your talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing my attention to the block. I only logged on in the last hour and have been pinged all over the place... not to mention that another AE AN3 grudge match against VM has been opened. Yep, joy to the world. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Polite grumble
Hi there, (and Merry Christmas!) I'm just here to briefly grumble about these reverted edits. After looking back carefully I can see I misread the original revision (I interpreted 'both' to be both the rebels & Russia/Assad, rather than just 'both Russia & Syria' - and because it was so poorly written I was trying to rewrite it) and I think you misread my edit summary ('now all implicit' - it was intended to mean 'now all sides are implicit' rather than 'it's now all implicit'). However, aside from those misunderstandings, I was mildly miffed by a few things. Firstly you suggested I was simply adding a 'pretentious' synonym for the sake of it. Actually my rewording meant 'the use of' was repeated almost one clause after another in the same sentence, so I quickly used thesaurus.com to avoid repetition (I was just trying to make a nice sentence). You also threw WP:NOR at me for a rewording, even though no new info was added. Plus you ended up re-adding the 'targeting of civilians' phrase which wrongfully suggested rebel forces had purposefully fired their guns and civilians (the source doesn't support that claim, it was added to the sentence later by an editor).

WP:TLDR: OK, all those things are a bit tedious, but it's so easy to jump to conclusions (especially with treacherous articles like those on the Syrian Civil War). And quoting WP:PG can end up being taken as a WP:BITE when reverting users, especially newbies. I'm sure you reverted my edits in a couple of seconds before shooting off to do great work elsewhere on other articles, but please always WP:AGF!

Have a Happy New Year too!

Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk  23:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Actually, the NOR was in reference to "highly inaccurate" which is unsourced and (in this instance) redundant. My apologies if the ES came off as being harsh. As for the repetition of 'used', 'said', 'according to', etc., it's a standard with articles of this type. Could I make a suggestion - and this is not intended to be condescending - about jumping into the deep end when still a newbie? Don't. I see from your editing history that you're interested in contemporary political events. You're getting caught up in articles with the usual experienced editors warring over them. Please make an attempt to edit a few articles that need cleaning up. You really ought to get some generalised experience in before trying your hand at articles where you're liable to get seriously burnt. I jest not. If you're having a grumble at me for explaining why I reverted you as succinctly as possible (and invoking policy is best practice for ES), you're going to be a prime candidate for being WP:GOADed.


 * Whatever course of action you take, I wish you a Merry Christmas in return... and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Telling other editors not to 'jump into the deep end' and to leave important articles to 'the usual experienced editors' is patronising and contradicts WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and WP:OWN. To clarify, I'm not new to Wikipedia and I didn't take any offense at your edit summary. I felt that your revert, though unexceptional, was careless and could easily intimidate a new editor, so I tried to make that point. (And I'll happily admit to sometimes being guilty of the same thing!) If I seem pedantic, it's because imho these issues are a part of the wider problem with editor retention.


 * P.S. The inaccuracy of 'hell cannons' is why their use is considered a war crime, I was paraphrasing the inline citation already in the sentence. (But that's just WP:HORSEMEAT, isn't it!) ;)


 * Thanks for your reply, Jr8825 • Talk  21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Important' is a relative concept, and I seriously did not mean to suggest that you have no right to edit articles, and certainly not to imply that such articles are down to 'the usual experienced editors' at all. Do bear in mind that WP:BOLD comes with a prominent WP:CAREFUL disclaimer. I'm just trying to tell you that I've seen a lot of well intentioned editors drown in the wars. Actually having a solid grounding in policies and protocols is a make or break issue. Nevertheless, what you choose to edit is your WP:CHOICE. I don't like seeing multitudes of potentially excellent editors leaving in droves due to disenchantment or, worse yet, being blocked. Editing is a very anonymous, very isolated activity that can do awful things to an individual's sense of proportion if they haven't built up their skills. As for the Forbes op-ed piece, there's been a plethora of such articles over the years. Disgruntled people write them all the time, and they're published because the media know that most people love a good conspiracy theory. If you were to take a cross section of 50 active editors and ask them to write an article on 'how Wikipedia really works', you'd get 50 very different articles.


 * Anyhow, if you're ever in need of a third opinion, or if you're just feeling disgruntled and want to vent, you're welcome to drop by my page or ping me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oleg Sentsov and Oleh Sentsov
Since you participated in the exchange of opinions at Talk:Hretska Ploshcha, another discussion bearing a very general similarity regarding a naming disagreement — the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Oleh Sentsov, as well as its current re-opening at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Contested deletion — may be of interest. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I took so long in getting around to responding, but I see that it's been resolved in favour of the way I'd have !voted. I certainly can see the argument for the Ukrainian spelling, but COMMONNAME has to apply as Wikipedia's preference. There's no evidence of a preference in English, Shevchenko Prize or no Shevchenko Prize. Do you have evidence, for a fact, that he is actually a Ukrainian speaker? Season's greetings, nonetheless! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for your reply [not long at all, within the same day, 27 December, as my posting] and for your devotion of time to study this matter. I did not raise this subject — the nomination was submitted by User:Palu. Once I entered my !vote, however, the exchange of views compelled additional attention. All references, including Sentsov, himself, as well as Ukrainian government, and even Russian sources, alongside our own Russian Wikipedia, indicate that he is a Ukrainian, not a Russian, therefore his COMMONNAME, per UKRAINIANNAMES, is "Oleh Sentsov", not "Oleg Sentsov". As a sidelight, we may note an un-encyclopedic sentence under Oleg which states, "But you should be careful since such pronunciation is valid only when you are referring to Russian guys with the name 'Oleg'." There is a sufficient number of Wikipedia entries (Oleh Protasov, Oleh Blokhin, Oleh Chuvayev, etc) to confirm that "Oleh" is, indeed the COMMONNAME transliteration for Ukrainians. As for your question, while I cannot, as yet, find a specific cite for his native-born speech, it seems unlikely that the Shevchenko Prize and Order For Courage (twice, 2014 and 2015) would be awarded to someone who could not speak Ukrainian well, to say nothing of not being able to speak it at all. I will stop at this point and save other examples for the next round (although not necessarily burdening your talk page with such details) but, sufficient to say that this must be, indeed, the most prominent "Oleh" since no one is nominating any of the other Olehs for renaming to "Oleg". It is frequently difficult to obtain consensus for changing an existing form but, had the creator of this entry, User:Yulia Romero, named it "Oleh Sentsov", rather than "Oleg Sentsov", consensus for moving the main title header to "Oleg Sentsov", if such a nomination were made, would also probably fail. Thank you for the Season's greetings and please accept my best wishes to you. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI
As someone who spent enough time here, I am very sceptical about claims people make about themselves on this site. Consider someone who claims on his user page that he is a student of physics, but this person made exactly zero edits in the area of physics, which would allow to establish that he/she really knows the subject. I normally assume that everything such user said was questionable at best. But the fake is easy to establish only with people who claim to be experts in natural sciences. That's why, as Oleg Kalugin wrote in his memoirs, KGB officers pretended to be students of humanities while visiting Columbia University under the cover of Fulbright scholarship, for example. Ironically, one of these students was that man. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't escaped my notice that a lot of users make claims about their areas of expertise, yet take on user names suggesting other interests, then edit exclusively on current affairs/political articles and try to kick up as much of a stink as possible if there are other editors who disagree with them. Mind you, I'm also convinced that I've encountered quite a number before... but in a blocked incarnation. I guess that, if you're someone who has set up up sleeper accounts, you're going to want to present yourself as being someone entirely different in as many ways as possible for each of those accounts, and keep shifting from account to account as you enter into the latest current affair. Not that I entertain notions of particular editors behaving in such a fashion, of course. They come, they disappear, they return and disappear again: but are they ever really gone? Multiple account abusers only get found out if they're not very good liars. It's unfortunate that I've met as many good liars as bad in my life. The only way I can combat dubious editors is by retaining my own integrity... which means that, aside from editing as an IP before I opened an account, I've only ever had this one account. If I make bad decisions, or intentionally disrupt articles, it is I - personally - who will accept the consequences with no excuses. My behaviour is my own; I am who I say I am; I will apologise if I have made bad judgements. I think that the life of a liar must be a difficult one. How can anyone reconcile themselves to an 'the end justifies the means' existence? Such a position demands that one is absolutely and unwaveringly of the conviction that their position truly is right. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the timing of the comment, I presume I'm the one who My very best wishes is comparing to a KGB agent. Of course I've edited on physics (for example, I wrote most of this article). But it's easy to throw around vague innuendo, I guess. -Thucydides411 (talk)
 * I'm not particularly concerned as to who Mvbw may or may not have had in mind specifically. My response is a generic one bearing a multitude of editors in mind, and as the result of many years of constant editing. Observations are just that. If you choose to read yourself into a general observation, you're entitled to. The only gripe I have with you is that you're engaging in casting WP:ASPERSIONS about editors, and your utter, unswerving conviction that you must be right because you feel that you're right. You have no empirical evidence to back up your thesis. It must feel great to have such absolute convictions as to how the world works. Personally, I've spent most of my professional working (and personal) life dissecting human nature, and I couldn't even begin to presume that I have A) any absolute stance on good/bad, right/wrong other than my own moral compass; B) any method of being able to evaluate anything about people I only have 'professional'/'collaborative' relationships with in this synthetic infrastructure know as Wikipedia. I am currently, in fact, pondering the question of how best to retain an editor who has been problematic when it comes to working with others, but has fairly much used up all of his 'good faith' reserve. On that note, as I know is watching over me from on high, I'm about to ping you at the ANI as said editor has expressed a desire for being mentored... and I think he's truly worth the effort. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you protest too much. Mvbw and you argue on my talk page, questioning if I'm secretly an IP editor, communicating off-wiki, not who I say I am, etc. You two then immediately afterward discuss whether unnamed editors who call themselves physicists are really who they say they are. Pardon me if I see a possible implication there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off with this paranoia? I have no idea of who you are, but I don't think you are anyone other than who you say you are. You were asked a straight-forward question which it took you a hell of a long time to respond to. You turned this into a sheer, unadulterated WP:ASPERSIONS issue with your ongoing envelope-pushing over bringing up VM and the EEML incident of 7 years ago in every forum you can possibly find an excuse to raise it, despite the fact that I've pointed you in the direction of WP:ATONED. Again, I will remind you that you should not be surprised if you raise some eyebrows in the process, particularly as you've gone on about how unconvinced you are that it isn't still going on. In the process, you've also resurrected the spectre of socks, jocks, and every other form of undergarment that pervade Wikipedia the moment a BATTLEGROUND breaks out on Wikipedia? Where do you get off on asserting that the incident is famous worldwide. Where? Could you please point to where it's being talked about as if it were fresh off the rack? Methinks you don't know where to get off once you've started the momentum yourself. Drop it. I'm sorry, but I'd already forgotten about you because you're not that memorable that I'd waste any more constructive editing time pondering over the fact of your existence. Now, you're pushing me to the furthest regions where I'm really and truly disinterested in your thoughts on any subject to the point of aversion. Just let it rest so that, when/if we encounter each other again, there isn't a WP:GRUDGE to try to hurdle over. That's what editors do lest they explode or implode. Do you think that the majority of editors don't disagree with each other sometimes, or get peeved at each other for not agreeing on everything? You're taking this to heart far too much. Everyone has run ins. Everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions. Stewing in your own juices will only make you even more paranoid. So what if Mvbw was suspicious of you? So what if I actually had been? In fact, I'm giving you permission to have a good, angry rant at me and will stand in your defence as having provoked you and asked you to get it off your chest if any other editor were to reprimand you for it. The proof of my permission is right here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Khmm... A participant who claimed to be a physicist was User:Vanished user 05; I also happened to comment about one sockpuppet account who pretended to be a biologist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who's User:Vanished user 05? One of your EEML targets? From their (previous) user page, I see no reason to doubt that they were a physicist. A lot of people edit primarily on topics that are outside their professional field of expertise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not going to discuss banned users or 6 year old cases per WP:Dead horse. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad it seems to have worked out on the ANI
Funny timing, given our sudden re-interactions and that Spreadofknowledge is now active again, wantonly adding OR and displaying WP:OWN behavior over "his demesne" of specific articles again. Note that he is actually adding sources in some cases, but they don't at all substantiate his claims, to say nothing of his personal attacks. Just an FYI as I recall you interacting with him on the same Puerto Rico-based articles as Asilah... JesseRafe (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I surely do,, I surely do. Unlike Asilah, however, Spreadofknowledge has not made a constructive edit in his/her wp life. I don't see any option other than an indef. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the user has been blocked for a fortnight for really low attacks (on you: all having been removed and reverted), I'd say that they're just going to start again as soon as they return and work their own way into being indefed without any assistance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your diligence! Really improved that article. I'm not worried about their return, as you say, problems like that user tend to work themselves out. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho back at you :)

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

NY
I wish you a happy New Year! JimRenge (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers, ... and bottoms up to you, too. Whoopsie! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilians
I didn't know about that. My edits were mostly to correct some punctuation. If it's okay I'll add that bit back.Mcc1789 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do! I was just about to change 'recognise' to 'recognize', etc. Apologies for missing the punctuation change. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's okay. --Mcc1789 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Iryna Harpy!


Happy New Year! Iryna Harpy, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

!!!!
Just to wish you a Happy 2017!! --OJ (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and wishing you and yours the same! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi ,

I just wanted to say that you have a super-handy user page. It's given me some great ideas for mine, and I may borrow some layout ideas from you.

Happy New Year!

- Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . If there are any layout ideas of use to you, by all means borrow away! A Happy New Year to you and yours in return!! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I hope 2017 is a good year for you. Of late I have not done much on WP, as I am old and my health is not so good, but I continue to see you carrying the banner of common sense on some of the more controversial subjects. LynwoodF (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I wish you a great new year in return, and hope that your health improves. I know how precarious health is, and that youth can be wasted on the young (but we can't begrudge them that, having been young ourselves!). It would be wonderful to see you back in full form but, however life evolves, I'll continue to carry that banner as best I can... as flawed as I am. Thank you for making my day more cheery! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Iryna. I have also posted this question to the help desk, but as you offered me such a warm welcome (with biscuits;-)) when I had this struggle with user:Volkstod and seemed to be extremely diplomatic back then, you may be a good resource for advice here:

I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.

I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources (WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.

I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldly revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).

How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).

For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger

Greetings and a happy new year, LucLeTruc (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I've taken a quick look at activities on that article over the last few weeks, and must express my concern with UNDUE and OFFTOPIC content being added. In fact, it seems that tabloid journalistic style contributions is influencing the content towards WP:COATRACK. As much as I haven't had the time or energy to get stuck into some cleaning up today, I've added it to my watchlist and anticipate joining in on discussions on the talk page once I've warmed up the engine and gotten some momentum going. For starters, I see the whole section on the so-called 'similar' killing to be redundant. As for CANVASSING, there is no question of such behaviour. I'm an experienced, neutral, uninvolved third party. is Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year in return! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input there (I still feel slightly guilty of canvassing). I am, however, mostly wondering about the best way to deal with this in general as I observed similar behaviour in several cases and am not sure about a general policy compliant and (most important) constructive way to deal with such situations. Mostly the question boils down to this: If there is no consensus for a certain information in an article after a long discussion, does the contestet content stay in thee article or is it to be removed? And in which state should the article stay during the discussion? Is there a clear guideline for this? Thanks a lot, LucLeTruc (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought that it would be best to discuss this on the WP:CONSENSUS talk page as i found this to be a more general problem (i experienced it in several articles) so better continue the discussion there (only if you want ;-)). LucLeTruc (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Iryna Harpy!


Happy New Year! Iryna Harpy, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Wario-Man (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Your edit on Afghan Americans
I tookout the 200,000 because it came from a newspaper article from 2001, that gave no evidence of how they collected this information, and just stuck a number on the population. The 90,000 estimate is by the ACS a part of the US census Bureau, which was conducted only two years ago, which is much more accurate, and verifiable than this article that doesn't explain how they got this 200,000 number. Anyone can put any number when one number one is much more clearly sourced, then ONLY that number should be shown, not an inflated, possibly faked number. Accuracy should be an aim, and by reverting my edit, it takes away from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 (talk • contribs)
 * You would have noticed that I've changed the structure slightly, as well as finding an archived capture of the dead link. Yes, I may be predisposed towards removing the estimate from the infobox but, as it's from a reliable source (please be careful of using edit summaries like "lacked a valid source" when content is both sourced and from a WP:RS) it may be worthy of being included in the body of the article. Either way, as a matter of transparency, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article to make it clear that there has been consensus, lest someone else resurrect it. Furthermore, you should know to check article talk pages before making WP:BOLD moves given that there has been an extensive discussion of the figure this year between myself, an administrator, and an identified WP:SOCK. There was consensus that the broader figure should be retained. If you have further arguments for excluding the (now) modified figure, you absolutely must take it to the talk page and try to convince editors per WP:CCC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What you have to understand that it was NOT a valid source, and should not meet any guidelines, its an opinion piece by some unknown, who just throws a number out of nowhere, and is horribly out there. If this a good source then, most anything can be a source then nowadays. It seems like the talk page has moved I will discuss, this, but I in all likelihood that number will go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Query about templates
What are the groups in parentheses there for? And what of the groups in the outer brackets?

Forgive me. I'm new at this.2601:84:4502:61EA:49B3:63F7:3B28:5580 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iryna
Im Bleckter, Unfortunately I lost my account and I created this, the page of European Costa Rican was vandalized by, A costa rican who tries to increase the white population without sources.
 * Hi, if I were you I won't listen to, he says that the issue of the white population has no sources saddly because he didn't read this source: as quoted in the article: "According to PLoS Genetics Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos study of 2012, Costa Ricans have 67% of European ancestry, 29% aboriginal and 3% African.." I have no idea of why he doesn't read the entire article and its sources before blanking it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a funny thing,the article is nor even about "white population", it's actually about population of European descent (some of them may not be "white"), the term "white race" is obsolete anyway as there are even non-white peoples natives of Europe, so, again, the article is about how many people has European ancestry not about how pale they are. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly want to get caught up in what seems to be a WP:GRUDGE between the both of you. The article European Costa Rican was already earmarked for merging, which I happen to agree with. What you are doing, Dereck Camacho, seems to be in good faith, but you are now expanding the stub left into an article about genetics... and per WP:TITLE, it is most definitely not a scientific article on that subject. If you wish to develop the relevant section in the Costa Ricans article, please do so (so long as it isn't WP:UNDUE). Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nothing personal againste Bleckter, I nor even know who he is. And I didn't "undue" anything really. The expanded info in the article was there for a long time. If anything was him who make a radical change on the article without discussing it first. Now if the genetic part want to be taken fine (although it will be weird) but they are like the 10% of the article, the parts about the european migration that Bleck also wants to remove (just doesn't explain why in the summary, just does it) really really belong there in any case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear on the UNDUE business. I wasn't saying that you're going to add anything undue, or that you've added anything undue. My take on this is that there is a section in the broader article on Costa Ricans, and that the broader article is in need of development. At this stage, there is no need for a separate article on European Costa Ricans. I do think that editor energy is better spent on working on the main article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, and yes, it's a good suggestion, thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . Nice to meet you. I've got the main article on my watchlist, and have had it in mind to copyedit for ages, but I keep getting caught up on other articles. Also, for 's edification, please don't cast WP:Aspersions about other editors, particularly suggesting that their editing behaviour is racially driven. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, I never said it was racially driven. I think there could be a confusion between "white" and "of European origin" which are not the same thing, mestizos, for example, are of European descent, that's why they are mestizos in the first place [mestizo mean mixed] and are not "white" in the Anglo-Saxon term at least. And yes, the term "white" is scientifically obsolete anyway, but that's another matter. In any case the one that brought the race stuff for some reason was him, and I quote: "A costa rican who tries to increase the white population without sources" yeah but the article in any place says nothing about "white population" nor it's call "White Costa Ricans", it's about 'Costa Rican of European ancestry which can be of any color whatsoever. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree,, which is why I've tried to tactfully inform Bleckter that implying that your editing is racially motivated, and that making such charges against you is bad form. I've been through your edits and could see that you were following WP:RS on the subject of DNA studies... and that is definitely not trying to manipulate figures in favour of how 'white' any portions of a nation-state are or are not. I think that Bleckter is making emotionally charged accusations against your editing without taking care to look at your sources (which are valid, scientific sources). And, yes, there is not even any consistency in the use of ethnic group 'labels' in Hispanic and Latin American countries. What is perceived to be offensive in one country is not offensive in another. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kyivan Rus'
Hi Iryna, please stop remove my changes. You know, that in reality is Kyiv, not Kiev, and please see reference 8 to this article. Роман Пришляк (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have commented on 's talk page, but might as well add a comment here too: we don't care what the Ukrainian form of the name is since this is the English language Wikipedia, where we use the name that is in common use in English language media, i.e.  Kievan Rus' , not  Kyivan Rus' ! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Per WP:RS, the English language WP:COMMONNAME is 'Kievan' for the Kievan Rus' article. In the English language, the name of Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". If you have quibbles regarding this, please go to the Talk:Kiev/naming discussion page and read through the copious archived talk, as well as the most recent discussions. If you have something new to add to arguments that had been repeated over and over, you're welcome to start a new thread... Just be sure that any arguments in defence of your position are entirely new. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read this 8th reference to the article? http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\K\Y\KyivanRushDA.htm
 * Real name of Ukrainian capital city is "Kyiv", not "Kiev" (second is result of former Russian occupation); "Kyivan Rus’" is official term used in English historiography -- so why do you prohibit to use it as second variant where it should be the single one?! Роман Пришляк (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine. The nomenclature there is one of very few exceptions to the rule not warranting inclusion. The prevalent usage is absolutely and undoubtedly 'Kiev'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest we discuss this on User talk:Роман Пришляк instead of split over several diferent pages. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I also strongly suggest that the user stop double-posting. Personally, I have no more to say on the subject, and if the user persists I will not be responding as can only interpret it as being WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Serhii Plokhy book
Dear Iryna,

I consider you to be the great force for neutrality in the Kievan Rus' article (and elsewhere, I'm sure). So I wanted to share something with you. I actually haven't read an enormous amount of source material on the Rus'. In checking on a minor edit by somebody a few days ago, I came upon the ref, at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, to the book The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belaurus. The link is to a preview, consisting of the introduction and the first page of the first chapter of the book. I was blown away! The even-handed way Plokhy discusses the issues makes me wish the people having the Russian-vs.-Ukrainian edit wars would read his words and *really* listen. I'm trying to get a copy of the book from a university library (it's $65 on amazon.com). I hope the book is as good as the introduction. Have you read this book? Paulmlieberman (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

European Costa Rican
Hi Iryna! I wanted to clarify that my rollback on the page wasn't due to the content. It was due to the inappropriate citation. I know I could of made that more clear with my edit summary. Anywho, I'm a new editor so if there's a better way I could of handled that, I would love your sage feedback! Drewmutt (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Nice to meet you. Per my edit summary, the discussion here on my talk page clarifies that the article is due to be merged and redirected, that the editor who added it was going WP:OFFTOPIC by turning it into a genetics article (per WP:TITLE, and that the same editor agreed that it belonged in the Costa Ricans article but forgot to self-revert. This was took place rapidly as we were both distracted due to another editor involved (who has now been handed an indef), so there was all sorts of commotion on various admin talk pages and the ANI on just resolved. Ultimately, the fault is mine as I didn't leave a comment on the article's talk page for the sake of transparency. Not so sage, huh... It's one of those 'stuff happens' events that shouldn't have happened, so thank you for understanding that it was WP:AGF and leaving a query on my page. Actually asking what is going on, as you've done is, for my money, the best way to handle it. You have WP:COMMONSENSE, so that makes you eminently qualified to be an excellent editor already. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your helpful reply, and your warm welcome! Drewmutt (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Iryna. Sorry for the situation with. He is a sockpuppet with a large history vandalizing pages and insulting users. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. Be careful, he frequents the articles that you constantly edit. Greetings! --Bleckter (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm so glad that the problem has been sorted out! I was honestly shocked at the user's behaviour, and should have realised that there was something amiss. We haven't actually made 'official' contact before, but we edit on many of the same ethnic group articles, and my usual response to changes made by you is that of not having to double-check because I know that they're trustworthy. There is no need for you to apologise on behalf of someone who besmirched your reputation as an editor. It is I who should apologise to you for not investigating the behaviour of this person in comparison to yours, but it all took place so quickly. It must have come as a terrible blow to come back to editing only to find that you'd been blocked! I've had something similar happen, but nothing even coming close to this extent. It's great to have you back on board! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Indians in the New York City metropolitan region
Hi Iryna, hope you're doing well. These images listed aren't OR. They're simply available images of the people already listed as notable Indian Americans in the local NYC metro area, you may not have noticed the listed names because they were (are) listed down below, away from the images. This population is a much smaller population pool than, let's say, Indian Americans overall - if you see that article, you won't see a standalone notable people section, but rather a fork, for the same reason. I hope you appreciate this fundamental difference. One (local) is simply adding available images of the small pool of people already listed in the notable local people section, while the other (universal) cannot possibly choose the people to list in the first place and hence would present an WP:UNDUE situation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I do understand your logic, but let's take this to the talk page of the article for the sake of transparency. It's best to ensure that other editors are aware of there being a discussion, and consensus on both our behalves. Would you mind repeating your rationale on that talk page, so that I can respond there. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for adding that reflist-talk tag. Still getting used to all the little formats used. PackMecEng (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . Just as an aside, it's more of a standard to just add the link rather than treat it as a citation on talk pages. Welcome aboard, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a better plan than what I did, I will keep that in mind for the future. PackMecEng (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Tibetan Canadian
Some tibetans peoples speaks mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.114.33 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a population of Tibetan Canadians of under 6,000 people who live in exile due to the Chinese oppression of the region. The figure is derived from this article. Do you have reliable sources demonstrating that the Tibetans who moved to Canada are of Chinese descent, or would have any reason to be Mandarin speakers as their native language? If not, your addition of Mandarin is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Jewish_communities_of_the_United_States

2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IP 2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA. I've added the discussion to my watch list, and will respond ASAP (although I have a few busy days ahead of me). Have you considered taking it to the Wikiproject Judaism discussion board? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not, actually. I'm not much more than a casual editor, so the complexities of Wikipedia are often lost on me. Todah rabah! 2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch G3
I didn't remove anything but you made mistake when you removed my changes on that article. Now there is reference which is explaining my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.56.3 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, IP 89.216.56.3. Yes, I can see what happened. Your reference was malformed (that is, presented as a ref name), so it looked as if a reference had been removed. Thanks for reintroducing it in its simple format. I'll expand it and archive it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your NPOV tagging of an article
An incident has been raised here: Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'm afraid that I'm still of the opinion that you're making a serious mistake based on a misplaced sense of anger directed at me as if I were the enemy and acting in bad faith. This simply isn't true: as you well know, I have worked collaboratively with you on contentious articles where I understood policies and guidelines to weighted in our favour as regards NPOV, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What anger? I am acting out of my understanding (based on policies and guidelines) of what a npov tag is for and what is needed to justify one being inserted. If you think the tag is justified why do you not just create a new separate section on the talk page as I suggested? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)