User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 6

Rusalka (Dargomyzhsky)
Ирина, спасибо огромное за правку. Извините, мой Англ. далек от совершенства. И мне помогают все кому не лень. Вы уже не первый раз помогаете. Спасибо. Благодаря вам и другим нашим людям здесь хоть написаны правдивые статьи. Я бы сама не справилась. Хотя бы про великолепного танцовщика Михаила Дудко хоть здесь стоит правда, хоть здесь возвращено имя выдающегося балетного артиста, а не то, что в русских энциклопедиях. Я очень признательна. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Меня зовут Лариса. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure helping you out, Лариса. I'll take a look at the article for Михаил Дудко in the next few days and compare it to the Russian Wikipedia entry. Hopefully, I'll be able to clean up the English version where it is inaccurate. Could you help me out with whether the Русалка article dates are according to the old or new calendar (in the "Постановки" section? Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I like your humorous User Page
Have you considered joining the WP Guild of Copyeditors? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. An interesting proposition. As per your user page, I have noticed that there are a plethora of potentially excellent and informative articles screaming out for someone to make them coherent! The majority of my WP time seems to be dedicated to trying to clean up badly written and/or structured pages (particularly those worked on by non-native English language speakers). It's about time being anal and pedantic were elevated to the status of virtue rather than vice. How would I go about joining? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not reply before this. I had not noticed you had asked me the above question. Too busy with Baklava - it's a helluva distraction... Try this page WP: WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors. I am sure you will find your way from there. Get back to if you need to. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to ask about it again until I saw that your user page had been vandalised. My only qualms about joining the guild are related to my lack of American English skills (I have an aversion to replacing 'which' with 'that'). I'm fine with their spelling: it's the rest of it that I have a difficult time getting my head around. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you join the Guild, you could take part in one of their 'backlog drives'. Your work would be checked and you would get some assistance. You can choose the articles you copyedit. You might have great value to WP, if you selected articles about Slavonic topics, where you might have more to offer than the average anglo editor. Don't worry about American English; there is no bias towards particular variants of English on WP. I see editors altering spelling in both directions all the time. Some articles specify at the top whether they are written in British or American English. In those cases it is expected that editors will try to conform to one or the other. Otherwise its open slather in practice. Jump in. As you know, other editors will come in and alter your edits, tell you when they disagree with you, and offer you free advice. If you want to copyedit one (not too long!) article, I will be happy to look through your changes. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go... ENGVAR. Jump. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, JG. I've 'added' myself to the guild. As it happens, I'm very well acquainted with the varieties of English, as well as all other policies and guidelines surrounding copyediting. I suspect I've been a copyeditor for some time without actually branding myself as such. I'll take a look at the clean-up campaign for December after I've finished copyediting a few articles I've been asked to work on both as a copyeditor and a mediator-come-peacekeeper. Yes, I'm one of the Wikipedia warriors (or so I've been told) who treads where sane men fear to... probably because I'm a woman. Being able to refer queries to others would certainly be a distinct advantage in order to make certain that my copyedits follow protocol, not to mention a sense of feeling secure that I am also bringing encyclopaedic neutrality to the poor articles beleaguered by hit-and-run edit remnants and secondary sources that simply don't fit the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. Oish, iz I a schmuck or is I juz a masochist? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thank you, and well timed! I could do with a sugar rush. Does it come with a short black? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * You're a legend! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rican population
Hello, you accused me of vandalism when I changed the Puerto Rican American population statistics to show their accurate values in 1980 and 1990 as opposed to the less precise ones ending in ",000". I would appreciate it if you would refrain from gratuitous and completely baseless accusations about constructive edits in the future. 50.37.84.235 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Firstly, I will ask you to familiarise yourself with the concept of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I made no accusations levelled at you of a personal nature. What you have posted on your talk page are standard templates used for various warning levels.
 * 2) Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia protocols for edit summaries, using talk pages, et al.
 * 3) The instructions for leaving a comment here is right at the top of my user talk page, yet you failed to observe it and added your section at the top of the page. I've now moved it to its correct position. It is annoying having to search around the page in order to find the abusive comment you have left. Note, also, that such comments are considered highly inappropriate as edit summaries!
 * 4) Most importantly, your edit was reverted as it did not match the table used in the cited document, nor was there anything within the cited document which matched your numbers. I assure you that I check carefully before reverting edits. If you are using another source for your figures it is up to you to cite the references and leave a relevant edit comment for other contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

10,000 figure is unreliable so please stop it
No wonder people say wikipedia is garbage and not reliable source. The 10,000 figure is not realible, it came from only a Chinese physician. Our TVB and RHTK hong kong make documentary of Japanese invasion of HK and the attrocities, rape was estimated from 1000 to 5000. Even in the Chinese wikipedia is not even 10,000 nor do we mention this figure. --Spiritclaymore (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Spiritclaymore. Actually, at English Wikipedia we welcome the constructive development of articles. The fact is that we are an encyclopaedic resource and, as such, are only able to use secondary sources. As these secondary sources do exist in the English language, the articles in question would have been developed from sources available in the English language. If you can provide reliable and verifiable secondary sources in any language other than English (which can be identified as being mainstream rather than fringe theory), it can be introduced.


 * Please note that, in this context, your YouTube link would be dismissed on several grounds, the most prominent being that it is not in English. If this documentary is indicative of thorough research into the subject matter, you should have no problems in finding published secondary sources in Chinese or Japanese to back up your knowledge of this area.


 * While I understand your frustration, there are policies and guidelines which you need to familiarise yourself with. I sincerely hope you decide to stay with us and be willing to work with us with patience and diligence within these constraints. The learning curve and the personal development rewards are worth any frustrations! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This guidline is such a stupid excuse to keep reverting. 10,000 is obviously a possibility that is why I'm not removing it even though you won't find this figure mention in any HK article, documentary or from our government. We know thousands were rape but the 10,000 was never heard of, the HK government does other than this incompetent ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA who believes in a mere book or article based on the estimate of one chinese physician who claimed 10,000 women and girls. 香港歷史

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2

--Spiritclaymore (talk)12:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lemkin
You are a SCOURGE to the Ukrainian people and a revisionist stooge. Enough with this nonsense. LEMKIN himself cited the Ukrainian instance as one of the worst examples of genocide. Do you know who that man is? Try him for some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.101.185 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, here's some more "original research" for you to review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin "Less well known was Lemkin's view on crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Soviet Union. In 1953, in a speech given in New York City, he described the "destruction of the Ukrainian nation" as the "classic example of Soviet genocide,"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.101.185 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have something constructive to add to the article, please comment on the relevant talk page for "Holodomor". You need to acquaint yourself with English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Making accusations and abusive remarks is not constructive. Thank you for your interest and patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Nice! Thank you! When I asked for coffee with my baklava, you kindly provided it... I don't suppose you could provide psychiatric counselling to go with the barnstar? I'm kidding. I'd settle for a Bex and a little lie down. All the best with cleaning up your user page after the latest piece of vandalism. I suppose it's all part of the gratitude and appreciation we get to revel in as a reward for our hard work. I seem to spend most an inordinate amount of my time on talk pages being seriously appreciated. Never mind: diligence is its own reward. Bugs to you (a contraction of 'big hugs')! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Rus'
Could you check out Mongol invasion of Rus'. A new editor is making major changes. I reverted some because he appeared to be removing useful stuff, while possibly adding good material. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! I was just going over the additions when you reverted it (just before I did). I'm not comfortable with it. There's something about the bias and precision that sets my retired lecturer's nose twitching. The overwriting of cited material always makes me nervous. Having run a quick check against material online, I haven't found anything which would tally directly with copy-pasting an existing article. I'm now going to check for paraphrasing and/or redaction. A one off IP first time newbie edit going into such precise detail and almost word perfect? I've also detected a hint of 'English isn't my first language' in it, making it even more suspicious. All of the sources are bog standard... but not free or freely available. I'll print that section out and check against them next time I go to Monash library. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Negev Bedouin
Hi Iryna--

Given that you are, like me, a genuinely neutral party with reference to the Negev Bedouin article and the issues discussed there and on its talkpage, I wonder whether you might have any thoughts about my talkpage post about all the photographs of huge mansions in the article. I don't understand the purpose of these images although there clearly is one, unstated and unexplained. To me they all scream nouveau riche. As I said there, I believe they are inappropriate, and certainly inappropriately placed. Whatever their purpose, a single photo would suffice, and it should be in the gallery at the bottom. But maybe they don't bother other readers. I had guessed that the editor who took the photos and posted them might have responded, but he has not, and I hesitate to post on his talkpage without at least getting another unbiased opinion. (FWIW that editor self-identifies as a male Israeli immigrant from the USSR.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the section you added. I, too, have felt a little uncomfortable about the use of various images. I'll follow this up under the relevant section on the talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Duzhe diakuyu, Marek. In fact, I'll take a break and have it now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please be alerted
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * hey, i realize you've got a thing going on with Shervinsky but I was just wondering if you think his wp:ownership of the triune russian people page constitutes me getting an admin involved or something more? I've clearly been using the talk page and trying here, but when grammar edits are getting reverted as 'destruction', it's just so demotivational towards editing.--Львівське (говорити) 14:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Ownership doesn't even simply apply to an article he's 'created'. It's a reflection of his editing tactics. He did exactly the same thing to me when he barged into the Name of Ukraine article. Acknowledged, it was a badly written article but I'd just begun to examine it in order to rework it when he took over, blanked sources and simply overwrote it with cut-and-paste translations from Russian Wikipedia without a single edit comment. The moment I tried to make any changes or discuss it on the talk page, he went into tirade mode. I even toyed with him a little regarding Orest Subtelny, Paul Magocsi, Omeljan Pritsak, Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, Ivan Ohiyenko and Petro Tolochko in order to get a rise out of him (he does love to make sweeping assertions). Ultimately, I just left the article as it stands with the intent of going back to the utter mess made (the etymology section is now all dealt with in the history section leaving a piece of jingoistic bollocks behind) when things had cooled off. I don't think they will cool off. He doesn't only 'own' the Triune article but any article he's put his hand to... and, as you've experienced, he is incapable of actually answering legitimate questions. I seriously end up not being able to make sense of what he's on about (i.e., his bizarre rant at you on the Triune talk page which you noted 'lost you'). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * oh jeez, so it's worse than I thought. I have a lot! of notes adding up that could really help this article (and now his Little Russian article) but it appears I can't even put a dent into it because it'll be reverted. He's had the "actively undergoing a major edit" (aka. "mine, dont touch") banner up all day...--Львівське (говорити) 22:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice it when I was tracking the edit history. I've no doubt that it'll be a treat to read by the time he's finished with it. In the meantime, I'm being tied up with that AN/I where everyone who's ever used subterfuge for the purposes of nationalistic promotion gets to bash at me. Good thing I'm not sensitive about letting them get it out of their system. I'm just going to keep my nose out of the Eastern European articles for a couple of days and let Ajh1492 indict himself (er, talk at everyone) before I suggest that his gripe be submitted as a separate AN/I. I'll pop into your sandbox a little later and see what gems you've come up with (just have a few Israeli/Palestinian warring situations on other articles to attend to). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop re-editing
The 10,000 figure was never officially recognized by HK government just one guy estimated that number from the past doesn't make it so. I'm not trying to remove the figure because this figure could be a possibly but this figureii complete opposite of what we hear in school and documentary.

For goodness sake read here man. 香港歷史. We know Hong Kong better than some moron article and we have victims of HK women but nowhere have we ever estimated 10,000 other than some stupid foreign article and this HK physician.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritclaymore (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to your earlier comment on my talk page regarding exactly the same matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

if you thought the waffling was bad...
check this out:


 * "triune Russian nation   (Триєдиний російський, Tryiedynyi rosiiskyi),     also known as All-Russian       (Rossiiskoe) or pan-Russian      (пан-руський, pan-ruskyi) nation, were..."

Of course, I fully expect Shervinsky to come back in 2 weeks and revert, un-move, and argue the original is better because of X, so I'm just covering my ass.--Львівське (говорити) 06:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing weird here. If life has taught me nothing else, it's to bullet-proof my backside. You're just offering options for him to ponder over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you make any sense of this sentence? "He believes that the multinational Russian Empire can be imagined a spheric circles that surrounded the triune Eastern Slavic state-constitutive nucleus."--Львівське (говорити) 21:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire article was lifted from the corresponding Russian Wikipedia entry (which is why he shoehorned Miller into it in order to try to establish credibility via English language sources). The corresponding paragraph reads as such:
 * Андрей Марчуков пишет, что триединый русский народ составлял этнический центр Российской империи и находился на высшей ступени её этнической иерархии. При этом Марчуков полагает, что эту иерархию уместнее представлять не в виде лестницы, а в виде сферических кругов, расходящихся от триединого русского народа как культурно-этнического ядра. Как правило, в среде дореволюционных историков для обозначения трех составных частей общерусского народа применялся термин «ветка», «ветвь», иногда — «племя».
 * The best I can do with it without waffling too much is -
 * According to Marchukov, the concept of the Triune of the Russian peoples was considered the central premise of the Russian empire with the ethnic hierarchy at its apex. He interprets this hierarchy as not being an ethnic stratification but, rather, emanating and flowing in spheres from a single cultural-ethnic nucleus. As a rule, pre-revolutionary historians employed terms such as 'branches' or, occasionally, 'tribes' to describe the three constituent parts of all-Russian (all-Rus'ian) peoples. (Yeah, yeah. This is where Little Russians, White Russians and Great Russians would need to be inserted as the three parts in order for it to make any sense).


 * Ultimately, it's a convoluted piece of fluff trying to present the idea as being a wholesome and embracing all the Rus' people as part of an organic whole. Ah, isn't it cuddly! Personally, I'd rather read through Marchukov's essay and see what I can extract that may be of use. It won't translate well unless I go into extravagant detail over something I'd consider superfluous. It's either that or it gets chopped into a single sentence which may as well not be there. There's no multinational in it. Shervinsky doesn't have the requisite skills to translate anything into English. I'll see whether I can find some nuts and bolts alternative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original quote sounds like someone on acid... I'd PERSONALLY prefer to just nuke all the unverifiable Russian stuff out of there. I collected more than enough English sources from reputable historians to cover the article. Having to assume what's there is a) good faith b) accurately translated with no POV injections and c) reliable sources (there's a quote on the page from a philosopher...)...just seems too much of a hassle.
 * Speaking of shoehorning Miller, I found what he did put in was outright falsified, here's his quote before before I got on it, "The upcoming of Ukrainian and Belarusian national movements in the late 19th century was opposed by not only by the majority of Great Russians, but also by numerous Little and White Russian intellectuals who had an intensive and long running identity dispute with the separatists.[8]", and here's the original "Some of the Great Russians were ready to recognize claims for Ukrainian separateness. But the majority, together with numerous Little-Russian intellectuals, strongly opposed the Ukrainian project, insisiting on a combination of identities."--Львівське (говорити) 02:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. From my dealings with him, that fairly much ol' "good faith" in a nutshell. Too many years living on peyote in the tundras will do that to you. I'm all for dumping the Russian refs when there's plenty of quality info to be found in the English language. He may not like the fact that the same subject matter is dealt with under a different names. Hmm, could be in for a shock when he discovers 'his' article doesn't exist any more, per se. The fact that he has contributed by means of stealth and underhanded tactics - nay, lying! - proliferates articles he has worked on. Having to make concessions to him by being forced to read swathes of Russian and Ukrainian articles, plus translate salient tracts to prove he's lying or seriously misrepresenting the material should not have to be compulsory. Great work, Lvivske! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

...he's in for a shock --Львівське (говорити) 17:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Nellie! Do my eyes deceive me or has an obscure piece of garble emerged as an articulate, informative article? Er, yes, I can certainly see the rationale for merging it with East Slavs or Pan-Slavism!!!??? Congrats... or, should I say, "Ура!" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jak spivala moja babiczka
"Ja Rusyn byl i budu, Rusynom rodilsja." μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ta szczastliwy nowy rok! μηδείς (talk)
 * Diakuiu! Shchedro bazhaiu Vam veselykh sviat, ta vs'oho shchaslyvoho! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Rus and Ruthenia
Thank you, for your gesture in regards to my opinion. I am certainly not an expert, but history, particularly of the Eastern Europe, is something that I read about a lot. I noticed that if you read history articles in western sources before the 20th century, there are not much use of the word RUS. It is a recent adaptation of a Russian loanword and direct transliteration (therefore it is sometimes written with apostrophe to identify softness in pronunciation - Rus'). Previously a common name for Rus was Ruthenia which is a Latinized form that adopted during the time of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Ruthenian territory outside of the Commonwealth was referred to as Muscovy after the city that was established in the 13th century.

According to numerous historians (Mikhail Tikhomirov, Boris Rybakov and others) consider the Ruthenian (or Rus, if you will) territory as a midstream of Dnieper where it intakes the greatest number of its other bigger tributaries (Desna, Prypiat, Teteriv, Ros). Of course, there are opposing specialists on the issue such as Dmitry Likhachov who considers the territory much bigger in such manner that it also covers area of the European Russia.

In the Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms of the 14th century, Ruthenia is known as Roxia. It is located to the west of Tanais (a Greek name for Don River), please note, that not to the north. Another book, Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, also calls Ukraine as Russia or Roxolania stating that Russia is located between the Turkic Tanais, Sarmatian Mountains (Carpathians), and Taurida island (Crimea).

According to Ivan Vyshenskyi, Ruthenia is not a territory, but rather one of unique Eastern Orthodox nations: Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Moscow, others.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Aleksandr. Would you mind if I moved this to the talk page for Rus' (region)? I agree with your argument, but would like to see your response reflected there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, I don't. Go ahead. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm guilty of already pre-empting your response. It's a succinct and excellent exercise in logic which I've added as your nomination. I'm surprised it took so long for anyone to respond sooner. I'll remove the 'an' as per your own edit here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Поздоровлення
Дякую, за поздоровлення. Бажаю і Вам щасливого Різдва і всього найлєпшого у Новому Році. Нехай біда Вас оминає строною, а успіх і любов будуть у Вас повсякденними відвідувачами. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Дуже дякую Вам, Александре. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Ta very much. Don't mind if I do! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Поздравление
Спасибо. Я вам тоже желаю самого-самого... Анна Волкова (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Спасибо, Анна. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

王麗芳
原來這就是愛 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 王育倩 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

List of early East Slavic states
Hello Iryna I removed some tribes from the page like the Huns because they are not Slavic at all and the Scythians where an Iranian speaking tribe so I don't see the reason why they are included in the List of early East Slavic states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorpetrovich96 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulation! Happy New Year!
Дорогая Ириночка! Спасибо за поздравления. Примите самые лучшие пожелания на Новый год! Пусть будет много радостей и совсем не будет печалей. Огромное спасибо за помощь. --Lawrentia (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Спасибо большое, Лариса! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)