Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi Iryna, first of all, I'm a puppet of an old user (Sorry for the message that I send you with my other puppet, H1N111), feel free to block me after this message, I have noticed that you know how to deal with special cases in White Latin Americana dn you are more neutral than other librarians... I come to report a case of a Mexican user, ], , see this same edits , , far from wanting to be in the encyclopedia, stalking who edits the page, the patterns are the same, he observed who edited his information, then he goes to talk with Ed Johnson, EdJohnson blocks the user ,makes minor edits on athletes, and stop editing for a few days, , , he added references to reverse its edition, it seems that revertor were doing "vandalism" or "edit warring", I explain in the because that edition was bad but nobody answered. This Mexican user manipulates the librarian ed johnson in his favor, the user stop to edit on December 18, but soon after I return the page to normal, he reported me to the librarian mentioned, along with another user who innocently edited the page and also reported to be my "puppet", the user was waiting for ed jhonson blocked block me and reversed my edits, but seeing that he acted slowly, the I finish doing, why he did not at first?, , I have suspected that this is another puppet, as being new, edits as having knowledge, have not received a welcome message, and one of his first edition was to report me with EjJhonson. I hope you understand this issue because anything else because I'm a puppet, other librarians say that what I say is nonsense, Happy New Year. --] (]) 06:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 06:40, 28 December 2015
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Iryna Harpy}} on your talk.
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Apologizing
I would like to apolgize to my previous action if it caused you any distress or problems, I will try my best to be on line next time and follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Alexis Ivanov. I realise that we got off on the wrong foot, and I fully understand that Misplaced Pages can be a very intimidating place for a new user. When you don't know your way around as yet, it must feel as if you're being persecuted. You will note that I haven't touched the Cossack Hetmanate article. I thought it better to wait until you were unblocked and had a chance to relax and settle in before discussing how best to present treaties and alliances. There are a number of them to be addressed (including with Tsarist Russia)... but we'll leave it be until you're ready to talk about it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we can discuss it, and I'm sure you are right about the undue weight, I would have to re-read the sources again and I will be glad to provide you the sources myself as a resource exchange, I also need your help in translating some maps for Crimean Khanate, not the cities just the little box on the corner. Also the Cossack article needs a better map which I found in a book of mine for English readers, since this is English Misplaced Pages. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a look at the sources you need assistance with if you can provide me with the links.
As regards the map legend (also known as a 'key'), it won't take me long but I'm about to log off for the day and won't be editing again until late tomorrow. I hope it isn't urgent. Just leave me a reminder here in a few hours, otherwise I'll probably get side-tracked by other editors pinging me about all sorts of things!
We'd need to take a look at any copyright issues attached to the map you've found. If there are any problems it may need to be recreated for uploading to WikiCommons. These aren't big issues, so let's deal with them one at a time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would be editing better after-tomorrow, but I can still edit tomorrow. The book I recommend which deals with Ukrainian History is from Magocsi, Paul Robert. History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010. Print. It's a beautiful book and very well done, I will be glad to give it to you, it has amazing maps, I love looking at maps when reading history or else it feels very dull, the maps are black and white which I hate and raises confusion, maybe someone from the graphic department can color it. I think there might be a translation department that can translate the whole Crimean Khanate maps so I don't burden you with the troubles of translating. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha! You're preaching to the converted regarding Magocsi! I think you'll find that anyone who works on Ukrainian articles (and Eastern European articles in general) regard this work as the seminal RS. You can check through the archives of many talk pages and you'll find comments to the effect of, "If it isn't in Magosci, it didn't happen."
I lent my copy of the first edition to someone, who lent it to someone else, who lent it to someone else... so I haven't had it since I first read it. I haven't gotten around to buying another copy since then.
There is a 'translators' section here at Misplaced Pages, but not enough Ukrainian ones to go around. It's an easy one, so I'm more than happy to translate it for you. I have to dash off, so I won't be logging in for a full day of work on Misplaced Pages until tomorrow, so I'll translate it for you then and send it through. Cheers until then! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Alexis Ivanov. I've prepared a PNG version of the map with the legend translated, plus a PDF of the translation complete with links to relevant pages and uploaded them to dropbox. You can download the map here, plus the PDF from here. If you need some more assistance, let me know.
No but I can see the documents, clearly I'm looking at it, it looks very well-done, I'm sorry to bother you again, but what are the words in next to the arrows saying. ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking. The words next next to which arrows? I've translated the text next to the arrows and other symbols in the box (legend) on the map, plus have transferred the translations to the PDF which you can cut and paste from, plus I've included clickable links. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad that's been sorted out. As for the Magocsi source, how large is it (in bytes)? You may be able to email it to me, or use Google drive, or some other method. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
the Magocsi source, is a WHOLE BOOK. It has excellent maps for English readers, that we need to update. History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010. Print. I use mega.nz , because they give out 50GB for free, so hopefully it is not a problem. My criticism is of course the color, I hate black and white maps, I love colorful maps, but of course they have to save money, so it's understandable. If you use Adobe Acrobat Reader, the chapters are already bookmarked, and the list of maps can be seen in the beginning. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it, Alexis Ivanov. Thank you so very much! It's a pity they don't offer both colour and/or black and white as options. Yes, of course it saves on bytes, but for those of us who have the speed and plenty of download-upload gigs to spare on our plans, colour would probably only treble the size (a paltry 41.8 MB as it stands)... and our lust for colour maps would be satisfied.
I don't know how much of nature versus nurture factors into the passion for maps, but I have a WP:FRINGE theory that obsessions with maps are a recessive gene thing (like the blue eyes - and the permutations of grey eyes, green eyes - business in my family). Perhaps we have a common ancestor. Even being dirt poor, both sides of my family somehow always scrounged up the money for both historical and the latest atlases, terrestrial globes, topographic maps and all things geographical we could lay our hands on. There's something magical about pouring over them and marvelling at them.
Thanks, also, for the heads up regarding mega.nz. I have quite a few cloud storage 'drives', but they're never enough for backing up my most important settings, files, etc. I'll probably open an account right now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem glad to help, I like sharing books and journals, I collect them, I also collect maps and atlases. I think we can have this map taken to the Misplaced Pages graphics lab where they can color it. It's good for the reader and makes it easy for them. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in responding to you, Alexis Ivanov. We can't simply have it coloured as it would be a WP:COPYVIO. The only method by which we could use this map is to have a new map made from scratch and point to Magocsi as the source. Even in doing that, it would still be identified as infringing on copyright or WP:PLAGIARISM when it comes to an image. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
A certain user insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources, but then refuses many requests to show why he thinks I did so.
Hello. A certain user (by the nickname of RLoutfy) insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources in many occasions e.g. (1), (2), (3), ...etc but he refused to answer many requests to show why he thinks I mistranslated and misrepresented those sources, particularly here, where he even couldn't properly write with the language those sources were written in. What should I do then? --CounterTime (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: The meant user wrote (as you can verify here) the following:
ولا نجد هذا العدد الكيرمت الآيات السني نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كاكوحيد والتركية والعمران وما ارنيط بها
من مقاصد شرعنة كالعدل وامنة والمساواة ونحوها. ضد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك
العدد الكيرمن الآيات ؛ ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
جواز اكراهه على تني أني معتقد ، أو تنعرمغقد اعتقده ءالى سواه ، وعلى توكيد ألن
etc
This however contains many errors as anyone fluent in arabic can see, here's my correction:
ولا نجد هذا العدد الكبير من الآيات التي نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كالتوحيد و التزكية والعمران وما ارنيط بها
من مقاصد شرعية كالعدل و الحرية والمساواة ونحوها. فقد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك
العدد الكبير من الآيات ; ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
If the meant user can't even write arabic correctly then how can he claim to actually have read my arabic sources and how can he then state that my translations are POV? --CounterTime (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@CounterTime and RLoutfy: I'm highly aware of the fact that there has been a high level of activity (to put it politely) on the Jizya and Apostasy in Islam articles. I tried to keep up with the sources, but these are areas completely out of my realms of knowledge. I thought that it could be something for the WP:DRN, but there are no other knowledgeable editors involving themselves in any meaningful way, therefore the dispute is ultimately between the two of you. A DRN would not be accepted unless there were more editors involved. The best I can recommend is what NeilN has already recommended: mark them as being an expert subject and hope that someone with an expert knowledge involves themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:, Thanks for your answer! I didn't ask you about something that would require you to have a certain familiarity with a subject. All I asked you to do is to explain to me what to do when a certain user insists and claims that I 'mistranslated' some sources, but then refuses many requests to show why he thinks I did so.
PS: NeilN said that the expert-subject banner should be removed.
The standard procedure would unfortunately be that you take it to the ANI. I don't think that would be a positive option for you as it would probably end up with a block for RLoutfy and a WP:BOOMERANG for you. I'm honestly at a loss as to what to do in terms of having a positive impact on the content of the articles. Again, unless more knowledgeable contributors involve themselves in the articles the two of you are going to be locked in your opposing positions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, my reading has been practically identical to the translation published by Roberts, and that is why I have contested and disputed CounterTime all along. I have explained on Talk:Apostasy in Islam, with a quote from Roberts' translation, that CounterTime's summary/interpretation/OR is seriously flawed. RLoutfy (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@RLoutfy: I don't doubt you. The fact remains that we follow RS, not personal interpretations. I'm still thinking on how to deal with the development of the articles before they become piles of shrapnel from edit warring. I've already seen that another editor has taken issue with Apostasy article and am waiting to see whether that editor and CounterTime can come to an agreement over the content that's been removed, then altered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@RLoutfy: Stop making up lies, you only showed an interest in answering why you thought my translation was POV only and only after I provided the Robert's translation, but as shown before you displayed basic ignorance of simple arabic through the errors you made. As for the specifics, I have already showed that your decontextualized quote of Robert's translation is just a POV reading. Details can be seen in the Apostasy in Islam talk page. --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gringo300: I've changed Vietnamese Australians, but I know there'd be a lot more to check through. I'll fix Taiwanese Australian now, but I'm logging off for the day after that. We can resume where we left off tomorrow. Have a good evening! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gringo300. I've made all of these moves... plus a lot more (including updating templates). I still have European and other ethnic groups to go through, as well as a number of New Zealand and Canadian articles to get on top of. Once I start looking through the templates and linked pages, it's a big job. I'll be working through them in bits and pieces as I still have a lot of articles I'm working on (or involved in) taking up most of my time and energy. Cheers for now (and don't forget to add more pages you find here as you go as I'm obviously going to miss some)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This isn't exactly the same kind of thing, but I'm thinking that Jamaican posse needs to be changed to the plural.
Some of it is slower going as I need to apply to the uncontroversial moves noticeboard. A number of pages have been redirected so many times that the multiple redirects are obstructing moves back over another redirect, therefore they can only be fixed by a Wikipedian with permission to clean up the changes, Gringo300. It also means checking talk pages to ensure that I'm not overriding consensus for the naming convention (in which case, I'd need to start a new discussion before changing the nomenclature), as well as cleaning up templates, etc. Nevertheless, we're slowly getting there. Keep 'em coming! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I've found dozens of articles that still need moving, including the above Irish Canadian article. I've been working on cleaning those articles up, such as changing links to the plural form.
pro ukraine military ensuring a very biased narrative on this page "battle of ilovaisk"
I recently posted new information on this subject after members of the ukrainian army who were at the battle of ilovaisk posted to the public two videos leading up to the event and the very first shots fired. An agreement was negotiated between rebel forces and the ukrainian army the agreement was that the ukrainian army could leave ilovaisk under the condition that all the heavy weapons AAguns,artillery,tanks and the heaviest mortars were to be left behind both sides agreed to this the exact post is as follows
"vehicles and took the heavy weapons along with them .This included artillery tanks, The first vehicle in the column, a self propelled artillery unit, The column advanced 10 kilometres (6 1⁄4 mi) along the corridor, about an hour's drive, For reasons known only to ukraine military they open fire on dpr positions " <<<<<{this is what marek removed}
My source for the first video shows ukrainian army completely ignoring the agreement and began to leave in convoy with ALL their tanks artillery ETC. the first video can be seen here youtu.be/Z2cJSGXWurc?t=10m34s …
The second video shows clearly that the current page content falsely claims that the "first truck in the convoy was carrying wounded soldiers carrying a white flag" this is completely false as the ukrainian army own video shows that the first vehicle was a self propelled artillery unit {which was supposed to be left behind} and it certainly was not carrying a white flag but instead they OPENED FIRE on DPR positions as seen in this video youtu.be/gwTIr5v2Ryg?t=8s … .This not my personal opinion it is video proof from the ukrainian army video on the day
A user by the name volunteer marek undid my information and said i would be blocked for "trolling" this is BS as i wasn't trolling i was adding new information provided by members of the ukrainian army themselves who were actually there. Marek undid my post because it totally contradicts the narrative he wants put forward which is "a bunch of wounded men were attacked for no reason" when the fact of the matter is that not only did the ukrainian army completely ignore their agreement to leave heavy weapons behind but they also OPENED FIRE on DPR positions even though DPR agreed to let them leave . It truly is horrific that over two thousand men lost their lives but frankly they have nobody to blame but themselves apologies if that sounds callous but it's the way it is.
Anyway given the hero status wikipedia has awarded to marek i know it's extremely unlikely me post will be re-instated even though the videos don't lie but as this post will be linked to the page everyone can now see the videos for themselves of what exactly happened that day and decide for themselves. I wont bother following up on this because frankly i'm not going to waste time exposing the very clear bias on wikipedia in relation to ukrainian CIVIL WAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzabobo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bazzabobo: There is absolutely nothing I can do one way or the other. The YouTube footage you've pointed to has been posted by independent individuals who are not even reporters attached to a news agency or any other form of reliable source for third party analysis of what is going on in the footage (i.e., even "NewsFromUkraine" is just a name for an individual uploader who is unattached to any recognised news group). The Misplaced Pages policy on the use of sources is clear. Please read WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and WP:YOUTUBE. Essentially, what you are trying to introduce is original research. Footage can be taken out of context, doctored, etc. Unless a reliable third party has uploaded footage, analysis the content and describes the context, it is not accepted. If you think the camera and dialogue can't lie, you're wrong. Please find reliable sources for your content: then I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the article's talk page as I'm not interested in POV pushing or accommodating POV pushers from any side. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay
Hello, Iryna Harpy -- I've seen your edits to articles on Russia, so I thought maybe you could help me with something in the article Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay, which I am presently copy-editing. You will see in this group of edits: , in the third paragraph in the section Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay#Ancestry and early years, I twice changed "Mykola" to "Mikhlukha". I don't know if "Mykola" is a diminutive of "Maklukha", a nickname, or another name for Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay's father, but I thought the last name of the father – as given in the first sentence of that paragraph – should be used. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to change it back. I thought I should check with you to be sure what I did was all right.
Also, in the next paragraph is the following sentence:
After 1873, the Miklouho-Maclay family (on the mother's side) owned a country estate in Malyn, 150 kilometres (93 mi) northwest of Kiev in a geographic region of Polesia.
If "Polesia" is a geographic region, perhaps this should read, "in the geographic region of Polesia". Also, the phrase "geographic region" is not really colloquial English. I suppose the writer was attempting to distinguish between a geographic region and a political region, but normally, just "region" would be sufficient. Would it be all right to remove the word "geographic"? Regardless of that, would it make sense to change "a region of Polesia" to "the region of Polesia"? Or was the writer trying to say the estate was in one particular part of the region of Polesia? Corinne (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Finally, there is an error in the Notes section at the end of the article. Would you mind fixing it? I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Corinne (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem for me, Corinne. Yes, I know exactly what the content issues are and can fix them quickly. Cleaning up the ref problems is also straight forward work for me. I'll get onto it first thing tomorrow as I'm about to log off for the day. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Corinne: I've only involved myself enough to do a peripheral clean up for the moment. Having cite checked a few of the Russian and Ukrainian sources referenced, it reminded me of my study of M-M decades ago. The article is in desperate need of more thorough research without WP:UNDUE emphasis on ethnicity. There are also a considerable number of articles by academics who specialise/d in his work exclusively worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately, these are not English language sources (predominantly Russian, Ukrainian and German), meaning that it's an article I have to put on the back-burner until I can allocate some time for examining them and doing justice to salient material for the content. Perhaps the activity you've initiated may prompt other editors into being pro-active in improving the article. If not, it's definitely on my wish-list as a 'some day I'll get my teeth into it' article. Sigh. I'm afraid I've spread myself thin across Misplaced Pages and can't seem to extract myself from the most controversial areas. Happy editing, and feel free to ping me from any articles you think I might be able to assist you with! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna -- Are you still watching Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay? See and two subsequent edits. I hope you are not irritated with me for encouraging the other editor to stay and continue editing. I thought s/he could learn to edit (and discuss edits) properly and then contribute to WP. I won't say anything more than I already have, though. Corinne (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Corinne! I have my fingers in far too many pies (in fact, more pies than fingers)... Definitely POV changes, and not what the sources tell us. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Ta, very much. I checked the IP and I know who it is: someone with a dynamic IP, or is an IP hopper. S/he has decided I'm their nemesis over the last few years. I've got a few of those trolling me. Wow, I'm a legend in my own lunchtime. It does no end of good for my ego. Uff, I just want to edit constructively. Funny ol' world we live in. (Yum! It is nearly time for my lunch!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup. He's the least of my worries. Now that I've written this, I'm trying to figure out how it is that my brain hasn't exploded as yet. Perhaps it imploded long ago and I just didn't notice. Tra-la-la, I'm a happy little Wikipedian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Corinne, Miklouho has nothing to do with Mykola. Mykola is the Ukrainian form of Nicholas. Miklouho is a family name, the original family name. Today it would have been written as Miklukho. The family name is of Cossack origin. Maclay was added later. I hope that clarifies the issue with his name. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please specify, what remains dubious? It seems to me that the reference to the text of the constitution is sufficient - there is, indeed, no list of languages in the text. --Fuseau (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Strangely, but I actually agree with SageRad: no one regarded by user X as his "adversary" should ever comment on talk page of user X, even if they are not "adversaries" and however right and helpful these comments might be. Same with loaded and irrelevant comments on article talk pages: they simply do not require any responses. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
According to your unblocking condition #3, "If somebody else accuses you of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all". Here, you are trying to make a big deal of a comment where no one accuses you of anything. Here is what actually happens. You invite another user to your talk page , but when he comes to make very thoughtful and helpful comments, he became a target of bad faith assumptions by you and SageRad who also follows him on another page you are currently topic-banned from . Hence my advice above to Iryna. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Condition 2: "You will only comment on content, not on other editors." Then the above comment implying another editor is a hypocrite. GAB15:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
GAB, if you really want to know who is in fact commenting on the editor and not on content, read this carefully. You will clearly see who is implying another editor is a hypocrite. After that, I thought it was my right to advise Iryna Harpy to read Molière. The choice of play is very interesting, The Misanthrope would have been a good choice too. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I am glad you asked this question. In my humble opinion, you are mistaken. Condition #2 states: "You will treat other people with respect" and condition #3: "If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer". Can you cite an example where I was in breach of any of these two conditions? In any case, I appreciate the true value of the strenuous and selfless efforts you are making in reminding me incessantly of my unblock conditions, in order to avoid me running into trouble again. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
MVBW and GAB, I'm sorry to be the bearer of simplistic pop psychology, but I'm compelled to make an observation about all editors I've encountered who bring the signifier "opponent" to talk pages virtually from the moment they start editing. I've found it to be indicative of a mindset that doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages: the personalisation of one's own opinions, and a steadfast belief in the truthiness of one's own perspective above and beyond all other opinions. My experience on Misplaced Pages is that it is a signifier associated with a distinct battleground editor... and I've also seen these editors get blocked time and time again until they're indeffed. Wikipedians who are here to build an encyclopaedia approach each other as editors who disagree when they disagree on content issues. "Opponent" is a word used in debates to signify that two opposing perspectives are being presented. It is not the language of flexibility, the ability to back off, or the ability to acknowledge that consensus is against you. In a nutshell, it is the language of everything that is antithetical to collegial editing. Even worse is the approach to editing whereby an editor selects articles according to whether they challenge their position and threaten the articles/ideology they are seeking to promote.
My apologies for not responding to direct and implied queries (i.e., I have read between the lines, but would rather not go into a protracted analysis of this particular situation).
I admit that trying to give advice to an editor who is repeating their behavioural patterns is futile and will only lead to further animosity, therefore I've left my final response to AD/Γνῶθι σεαυτόν being that I do not want to communicate with the editor, or have any contact outside of content discussions on the talk pages of articles as related to specific issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry you see "animosity" on my part. I can assure you there is none. Since you don't want to "communicate" with me or "have any contact", one may wonder why you filled my talk page with comments. For my part I will from now on refrain from replying to your comments on me. Unless you have a direct question, which politeness would require me to answer. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologise, GAB! Your opinion is always valued. Unfortunately, while the user in question was unblocked, it was not necessarily considered to be a wise decision by editors who'd had the most contact with him. Nevertheless, AD was unblocked on the condition that a couple of admins supervise his editing behaviour. At the moment, it all hangs on a change in editing patterns. The fact that the user continues to labour under the illusion that editors who have formed the 'opposition' are naive conformists who gobble up everything in the Western media as being 'truth' (despite this user's protestations that he credits us for more intelligence than that), or attempts to establish saccharine-sweet pseudo-relationships that require more time and effort than any of us actually want or are compelled to dedicate to non-article related issues attests to a repetition of the same behavioural problems. We shall see what we shall see (said the blind man to the deaf man). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Pan Slavic colours
The flags I added in Pan-Slavic colours have red, white and blue, these flags are related to Russia as they are part of Russia. If you disagree with this, where can I find something that relates to Russia or have Pan-Slavic colours and how they should count as a Pan-Slavic coloured flag. 174.113.214.250 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You would have to find reliable sources describing these flags as being based on the original Russian flag (for Russia), or as relating to the Pan-Slavic colours in other Slavic regions. The Misplaced Pages:Reference desk might be a good place to start. Other than that, articles or books in languages other than English (see WP:NONENG) are acceptable as long as they're verifiable.
You will have noticed, however, that the article has been further tidied and cut back by an administrator for good reason. Please read WP:NOT as it will give you a good idea of what Misplaced Pages articles are not meant to represent as it is an encyclopaedic resource. Aside from not being referenced initially, the article has now been expanded with appropriate references. Neither is the article intended to be an exhaustive list of every Slavic flag that may or may not use red, blue and white because of an affiliation to the colours of the Russian flag. There are just as likely to be other factors such as more ancient regional emblems using those colours. What it comes down to is that encyclopaedic means no original research.
It's essentially a reference to this kind of Harpy with a bit of all of the other connotations thrown in, Banedon. Bear in mind that harpies - being only lower deities - did not act of their own volition, but at the behest of Zeus himself. Actually, I've had the moniker for decades. I'm an old escapee from the 'artistic' era when people reinvented themselves as an homage to postmodernism/posthumanism (i.e., Lydia Lunch, Siouxsie Sioux, Sid Vicious, et al). Actually, I had two, with the other being "Natasha Kasha (from Russia)"... but that's another story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Help
Hi Iryna, Just wondering, what is the next step in conflict resolution on this? I've tried discussing, but am still being blanket reverted by a user for no valid reason whilst I have cited policy to back up my edits. I can find no reason for their reverts other than wp:idontlikeit and wp:useful. For context the article is Cold War II. Hollth (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Hollth. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but there's a lot of that going around on articles (and I've been stuck in the same ruts). I was watching the article for a while, but I'm not sure as to what's been happening and where it's up to. If there are a few editors involved with no clear consensus, I'd suggest it may be worth taking to the WP:DRN. Let me know how it goes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
White Latin American
You think that I'm stupid, right ?. I already use the discucion of the page White Latin American, and to this day there is still no answers. I know that you and other users have an alliance with the user Bleckter against me, and I will discover, and when I do I will bring to light. I'm watching all. --H1N111 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd say "hello", as I keep seeing you pop up on my watchlist making edits to articles on ethnicity. It's good to see other editors take a sustained interest in these articles. I now wonder why I haven't encountered you before! Anyway, I just thought it might be nice for me to introduce myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cordless Larry! Somehow, I managed to get myself stuck in Eastern Europe and other highly controversial areas over the last couple of years. I've decided that it's high time I branched out to areas of interest to me as these were the impetus for me to start editing here in the first place. I'm afraid I'll probably just be popping up from time to time as I still end up getting pinged and have a natural affinity with disputes (I'm fairly certain we go back to the moment I drew my first breath). A pleasure to meet you, and I'm sure we'll be crossing paths regularly in the future. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, don't I just know it! As I've already noted to another editor, I don't have enough fingers for the pies I stick 'em into. Sigh. I guess I'll just have to go on thinking arachnid and relying on my tenacity to stay on top of things. Once article are on my watchlist, I don't let them go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Translation assistance
Iryna, do you mind assisting me a bit? I've found this file on the Commons. I'm not exactly sure what the document is, or what it says (it is in Russian, of course). I was wondering as to whether it is appropriate for the "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire" article. Not sure such a block of text is useful, but if it is some kind of genuine proclamation regarding the annexation, that might be worthwhile to post in the article. RGloucester — ☎16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It's written using the pre-reformed Russian alphabet, and I've managed to find a couple of links to the text here, here. I don't know whether an English translation exists (which would be the ideal). Yes, I think it would be very much appropriate for the article as you'll see from the declaration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that for me. Now that I know what it is (the actual decree of annexation), I'll certainly post it into the article. RGloucester — ☎22:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Iryna/Anthony, Thank you for intervening and the procedural guidance so far. Your patience and willingness to guide has been encouraging. I feel that it is the later we need most in Jizya, Apostasy in Islam and other Islam-related articles. The slow, long edit war is unproductive, and I welcome your guidance on how to proceed forward. If CounterTime, Reeves.ca, BoogaLouie and I can agree on overall content guidelines, I feel we can make fast progress in improving the articles, rather than go back and forth. I list my concerns, and some suggestions. I welcome the same from CounterTime (let us skip personal attacks please CT, such as calling wiki editors as liars etc - violence with words is never appropriate). Let us try to figure out a framework that we can all work within.
My concerns and suggestions:
CounterTime has been interpreting and using non-English sources, which in my reading are not stating what CounterTime believes they are. Suggestion: We strictly follow WP:NOENG guideline: if non-English sources are used by CounterTime, a complete quote and complete translation will be embedded into the cite by CounterTime.
CounterTime has been presenting minority or fringe viewpoints in ways that violate WP:NPOV. Suggestion: We agree that articles will include all significant viewpoints, and agree to accept "Scholar AAAA states XXXX, scholar BBBB states YYYY, and so on" wherever scholarly reliable cites present a diversity of views. I agree that both Islamic scholarship and non-Islamic scholarship must be included to give a balanced view.
I am concerned that in some parts the articles inappropriately criticize Islamic history, and in some cases suffer from revisionism/cover up Islamic history, and do not adequately represent a balance of mainstream scholarly cites. Misplaced Pages is not the place to misrepresent Islam either way, or do soapboxing. Suggestion: we watch how the articles are summarizing the cites. (Iryna/Anthony: if your time allows, your help in neutral wording will be most appreciated).
I am concerned that single non-peer-reviewed sources are being cherry-picked and overemphasized, misrepresenting the broader scholarly consensus. Suggestion: Whoever adds a cite, if challenged, must provide evidence of peer review of the source or that the source has been cited by others so as to establish its scholarship. Alternatively, additional independent sources with the same interpretation or conclusion must be provided to establish that the view is broadly held by scholars.
These four points has not been followed in past, and in recent days. I suggest we do, going forward. What do you think? What are your additional suggestions. I welcome concerns and suggestions from Reeves.ca and the seasoned editor BoogaLouie as well. I am sorry I have been busy in RL with university work and slow in my replies. I may have a bit more time during the holiday season to respond more promptly, contribute where I can. RLoutfy (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Rosa Carolina Loutfy.
I express my immense gratitudes for your willingness to help this encyclopedia grow and be better in content. And yes, that's what our collective goal is. I will here try to address the issues you outlined. I'll also ping @Al-Andalusi: who showed a particular interest, and who also had previous interactions with you. His views are also relevant here. Before starting, I have one question in particular, why did you post that here in the talk page of madam Iryna Harpy instead of discussing these things in their respective talk pages? I mean there are a lot of issues which still wait an answer, and it seems it is better to discuss them rather than to make general statements in the talk page of other people. These issues include for instance the dispute on the Qur'an subsection, which you still didn't reply to after days and days have passed since my last message there. You wont help the wikipedia develop that way, it is only by responding to particular issues in each talk page. As such, you should rather concentrate on discussing, participating and proposing ameliorations in the talk pages. For instance, here are some of the disputes which you started (discussed a bit) but you ignored thereafter leaving these issues embedded in the articles:
#CounterTime has been interpreting and using non-English sources, which in my reading are not stating what CounterTime believes they are. Suggestion: We strictly follow WP:NOENG guideline: if non-English sources are used by CounterTime, a complete quote and complete translation will be embedded into the cite by CounterTime.
We already discussed this in the talk pages of the respective articles, namely here, here and here. My deep concern is that you always ignore questions of the form:
* Could you please suggest your personal translation? or Why is my translation POV/flawed?
Examples of this are numerous, and I personally think that, that you do not have any practical knowledge of the Arabic language. This isn't an alleged case of WP:ACCUSE, rather it is based on the following fact:
You tried to defend yourself by stating that you directly copy pasted the text from a digital version of the book, however NO digital version of the book or ebook version exists. And as I already showed out that's a very weak excuse. This is an example of a lie, and this isn't WP:ACCUSE as you allege as I'm not stating that you are a liar, but that you lied, which is different. Please see and respectWP:DNTL.
Anyway, examples aren't restricted to making errors when writing arabic but also contain examples when you simply decline or ignore requests to explain why a certain translation is flawed or to provide your own translation. Such as when I asked you as to why the Taha Jabir alAlwani source in arabic failed verification. You didn't even address that and said instead that the burden of proof was on me. When I proposed screenshot from his book you simply ignored that and continued -- quiet unsurprisingly -- making false excuses.
Hence you cannot pertain or allege that a certain translation is POV or flawed unless you yourself have access to that source and can read the language it is written in. For example, I can't go to an article on China, in which a source is written in Chinese, and state that the use of such a source constitutes a case of misrepresentation, or of a POV/flawed translation - unless I myself can speak Chinese.
I also think that my knowledge of arabic is an advantage, rather than a disadvantage as you make it look like. Indeed, by knowing arabic I can access many important books on Islam both in the premodern period as well as in contemporary Islamic though, that aren't currently translated in English, such as al-Tahrir wa al-tanwir, Fath al-Bari, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit, Al-Mughni, Tafsir al-Maraghi, Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imam Al-Nawawi, Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān, ...etc Those are only a just tiny example. And, as one can see by browsing through the Islam-related topics in the arabic Misplaced Pages, these sources are many times quoted there. It would be a great loss to see an orthogonal attitude in what concerns the use of those sources in the english Misplaced Pages. Indeed, they should be in a way "unified". So to conclude, my knowledge (and use) of arabic sources is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Of course, this does not in any way mean that I should only use arabic sources, and as one can see from my dozens of contributions that I mainly use english sources.
§ Proposed suggestion by @RLoutfy #2:
#CounterTime has been presenting minority or fringe viewpoints in ways that violate WP:NPOV. Suggestion: We agree that articles will include all significant viewpoints, and agree to accept "Scholar AAAA states XXXX, scholar BBBB states YYYY, and so on" wherever scholarly reliable cites present a diversity of views. I agree that both Islamic scholarship and non-Islamic scholarship must be included to give a balanced view.
This is simply incorrect. I have always presented wordings of the form "Scholar 1 states X, scholar 2 states Y" in the case of conflicts, and I didn't even restrict that to muslim scholars but to everyone. Moreover, there are numerous examples of that throughout my contributions, but I think this example would suffice to illustrate that your accusation is simply incorrect: (this is a paragraph I mainly contributed to, see how it is structured)
Ann Lambton states ① that the jizya was paid in humiliating conditions by every free male dhimmi of age. Ennaji and other scholars state ② that some jurists required the jizya to be paid by each in person, by presenting himself, arriving on foot not horseback, by hand, in order to confirm that he lowers himself to being a subjected one, accepts humiliation of having been conquered, and willingly pays. According to Cohen, ③ the Quran itself does not prescribe humiliating treatment for the dhimmi when paying Jizya, but some later Muslims interpreted it to contain "an equivocal warrant for debasing the dhimmi (non-Muslim) through a degrading method of remission". In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi'ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments ④ on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the jizya, stating, "As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya." Ibn Qudamah ⑤ also rejected this practice and noted that the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs encouraged that jizya be collected with gentleness and kindness.
CounterTime, taken from the Jizya article, this paragraph was the result of many of my edits, see the Edit History page.
§ Proposed suggestion by @RLoutfy #3:
#I am concerned that in some parts the articles inappropriately criticize Islamic history, and in some cases suffer from revisionism/cover up Islamic history, and do not adequately represent a balance of mainstream scholarly cites. Misplaced Pages is not the place to misrepresent Islam either way, or do soapboxing. Suggestion: we watch how the articles are summarizing the cites. (Iryna/Anthony: if your time allows, your help in neutral wording will be most appreciated).
This is a forum like style of argumentation. You state that I criticize Islamic history (what? where in the world did I do that?) and that I make revisionism/cover up (please read WP:ACCUSE to learn how to be more polite and respectful). But what strikes me the most is that those charges aren't based on anything, and that it is actually you who does that. I wont cite an example from my interaction with you. Rather I will recall what another user said to you (Al-Andalusi):
The article covers a history of more than 1,400 years. Choosing a few local incidents here and there to conclude that the entire premise behind the exemptions was false is an extraordinary claim, and per Misplaced Pages requires extraordinary references to back it up. I will start a section on the article listing the exemptions by jurist/school once I have time
This shows that you are mainly the one who uses exceptions to argue that a general rule didn't happen, despite the gigantic amount of historical evidence to the opposite. I will stop with this forum style arguments, and I'll rather ask the reader to simply look at how much this talk page is filled with issues concerning the edits of RLoutfy.
§ Proposed suggestion by @RLoutfy #4:
#I am concerned that single non-peer-reviewed sources are being cherry-picked and overemphasized, misrepresenting the broader scholarly consensus. Suggestion: Whoever adds a cite, if challenged, must provide evidence of peer review of the source or that the source has been cited by others so as to establish its scholarship. Alternatively, additional independent sources with the same interpretation or conclusion must be provided to establish that the view is broadly held by scholars.
I don't seem to understand why you are bringing the term here of "peer-review". Since the peer review system is categorically designed for scholarly and scientific publications (mainly the latter). Also you're assuming here that everyone here has an access to all peer-reviewed journals. This is simply untrue, and this is a type of discrimination which may result in the mean time with an ever accelerating unbalance in the views that a collective article has. Disputes about what is the general scholarly consensus are forum style like, and these disputes generally can't end. You shouldn't use that anymore, okay? Rather, we should maintain the principle that each view should be discussed so that one respects the WP:NPOV guidelines. Another point is that you may see or sense that there's a consensus about "X", but in reality it's "not X" which is the consensus. You should be more open minded. As an example, you stated in the talk page of the al-Baqara 256 article that: (without any reference) "The majority view has been that the verse was abrogated. Some Islamic scholars have disagreed.", however as was established after I presented tons of sources to confirm that the verse wasn't abrogated according to the vast majority. And this is just one example.
Aghnides, Nicolas (2005). Islamic theories of finance : with an introduction to Islamic law and a bibliography. Gorgias Press. pp. 398–408. ISBN978-1-59333-311-9.
Tsadik, Daniel (2007). Between foreigners and Shi'is : nineteenth-century Iran and its Jewish minority. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press. pp. 25–30. ISBN978-0-8047-5458-3.
Cite error: The named reference Cohen p.56 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin, 10:315-16. Quote: « قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةُ الْمَذْكُورَةُ أَوَّلًا: لَا نَعْلَمُ لَهَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ أَصْلًا مُعْتَمَدًا، وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا الخراسَانِيِّينَ، وَقَالَ جُمْهُورٌ الْأَصْحَابِ: تُؤْخَذُ الْجِزْيَةُ بِرِفْقٍ ، كَأَخْذِ الدُّيُونِ . فَالصَّوَابُ الْجَزْمُ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةَ بَاطِلَةٌ مَرْدُودَةٌ عَلَى مَنِ اخْتَرَعَهَا، وَلَمْ يُنْقَلْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ وَلَا أَحَدًا مِنَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ فَعَلَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا ، مَعَ أَخْذِهِمِ الْجِزْيَةَ.» Translation: "As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya." (Translation by Dr. Caner Dagli, taken from: H.R.H. Prince Ghazi Muhammad, Ibrahim Kalin and Mohammad Hashim Kamali (2013), War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad, pp.82-3. The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8.)
Please allow me a little time to read over the comments/discussion here in order to get my bearings as I'm currently working on a few other areas of Misplaced Pages which take precedence due to their overlaps. I do suspect that this discussion should take place on the relevant talk pages, but would like to see whether they couldn't be summarised for the edification of other editors who are interested (with the bad faith assumptions removed as they're distracting from the core content disputes, and don't reflect well on editors involved and serve little purpose other than putting editors off as WP:TLDR). I'm also wondering whether it wouldn't be of greater benefit to take this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam in order to bring in more experienced editors who have a reasonable working knowledge of the broader subject area (but without the accusations, please!). Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Iryna Harpy, have you seen the discussion on the talk page of the article about Skovoroda? There is no any arguments, which could be relevant to see some perspective for the dialogue. No one has said something against my last argumentation. If you don't agree with my arguments on the talk page, please, right your own arguments. Another way it looks like try to protest against Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just revisited two articles I hadn't seen for some time, Euromaidan and 2014 Ukrainian revolution. As it is now, I find that 2014 Ukrainian revolution is in a right old state. I attempted to do a little bit of copyediting to the lead, but it was easier said than done, so-to-speak. What I see now is that 2014 Ukrainian revolution has been used as a sort of fork of Euromaidan. Both articles cover the same events, more or less, but each does so in an extremely scatterbrained and confusing way. Now that we have some historical distance, I think it is time to make a push to sort this mess out. We should determine whether there is a potential to merge the two articles, or at least clearly define their scopes. In addition, a lot of "breaking news"-style stuff needs removal, copyediting needs to be done, as does a reorganisation. I was wondering if perhaps you would like to assist me in trying to figure out how to resolve this situation. These articles don't attract as much attention as they used to, and copyediting and clean-up are two of your fortes. RGloucester — ☎17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, RGloucester. Apologies for the tardy response. Yes, I'll make some time to work on these. In fact I haven't revisited a number of articles in need of a thorough scouring and, on looking over them, they're absolutely abysmal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Tell me why personalities as Simón Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda, Simón Díaz, Omar Vizquel arent of European descent if in conatrast people like Mariah Carey or Barack Obama are included in the African Americans articles and one is latina-white and the other is bi-racial, you dont also should delete that? unlike them, these venezuelan personalities has european roots. and if are "cut by the same yardstick" all look whites latinos as such as is the same cause which is added that people in the african american article, just because "their look-like" that is very questionable. in the Afro-Venezuelans article, we not found people that their fathers born in africa, we found people that has 500 years of ancestry in venezuela, and are even mixed with venezuelan whites or indigenous people. so i dont know which is the object of your opposition of my edit--Vvven (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
you dont answer to me or say me anything. i checked in the articles and neither found an answer or related. explain so--Vvven (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
i dont found until now an objection. just said that there a discussion about delete the ectnic galleries but dont say if Mariah Carey, Hugo Chavez, Simon Bolivar or Simon Diaz must be included or not in that etnics groups regards of their true ancestries and not wishes of users--Vvven (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Reverted edits
Hello, you reverted some of my edits, well I'm letting you know that I undid some of them such as the information about Thailand and Macau as well as the spelling error. I also moved the countries out of the Middle East section back into the Asia section. The link provided on Desi does not relate to Desi but is instead about "boys' lives". I added Bhutan back in because it's an Indian Subcontinent country. (58.164.110.113 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
Yes, and I've not yet had time to restore the constructive minor copy edits you made whilst thwacking in a tangle of additional content and content changes which are not constructive. Read the edit summary I left with the first revert. If you are unhappy with extraneous content being removed, plus wish to contest countries in Western Asia as being in the Middle East, take it to the talk page of the article. I would also suggest that you get yourself an account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I added my information back in and if you saw my revision before you would have seen that I moved Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia back to the Asia section. I also do not know what this "extraneous content" is? I don't think the information I have added is extraneous. (58.164.110.113 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
Would you please open your eyes and take a look at how you've expanded the Macau and Philippines entries. Compare them to the brief entries for every other country. The article is the top level article used for the European diaspora template. Not only have you dragged extraneous information into a broad scope article, you've literally just dragged the references from the wikilinked articles they point to and turned them into repositories for WP:CITECLUTTER. Just use you WP:COMMONSENSE: why reiterate detail where it is redundant? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not like the way you are talking to me, "Would you please open your eyes". That aside I did not expand the Philippines section I just combined the multiple paragraphs into one, you need to have a clear look at the past edits because you will see I did not write that much. You can remove the extra information if you want to, in fact I though of doing that when I first combined the paragraphs together but thought not to because my edit may be tagged as "possible vandalism" something that has incorrectly happened to me when I added which was made under a different IP address. You can remove that information about the Philippines, however I'm not as I only tried to combine the paragraphs. (58.164.110.113 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
My apologies if I appeared to be biting. I'm actually in the middle of working on about 30+ articles simultaneously, as well as discussions on other centralised talk pages, so I'm trying to convey information quickly... and it's come across as being uncivil. I can see that you're an intelligent editor and genuinely working on improving content. As you're keen to qualify these descriptions, would you be willing to go through the Philippines section and see whether you could make it more succinct, plus remove some of the Macau references (just sticking to one - or two at most - that illustrate the points being made)? Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's alright, apology accepted, and yes I have already removed some of the sources and left the most important one and yes I have also removed the unwanted content from the Philippines section. Thank you again and I hope all the editing your doing on those many articles work out fine. (58.164.110.113 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
Oh thank you for the bowl of strawberries and yes you too, it's good that it's holidays now haha more time to edit Misplaced Pages! Yeah I'll think about making an account, I know there's much more one can do with an account but yeah I'll think about it. =D Thank you again and oh I saw you're Australian too! Anyway it was nice working with you. (58.164.110.113 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
Yep, I'm an Australian too(l). In fact, we must live only a couple of suburbs away from each other. Whoops! Your IP is showing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy, I wanted to edit the Crimean Tatar ancestry phrase to "Skovoroda may have had Crimean Tatar ancestry," removing the connection to his mother. It was Lermontov's mother who had Crimean Tatar ancestry.
Hi, Svyatver. I'm very pleased to see that you've created an account! You'll find the 'how to' for linking help page here. I'm replicating the link you sent here so you can see how I did it by going into the edit link for this section and see how I did it. This is another way to do it here. If you want to point me to the exact comment, you can do so by using s WP:DIFF: hence I take it that this is the comment you wanted to alert me of.
There was an article on Lermontov that I used for Crimean ancestry information. The "2 століття сковородіяни" book was another source I was keeping track of, but I also linked your user account to a post right below this and might have caused some confusion.
Aha, I get it. You're still referring to the methodological aspects aspects PDF article (this one). Okay, I thought you might have found further information on the Tartar ethnicity in the second text. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
GAB is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you, GAB! Wishing you and yours all the best in return! Oh, and thanks for planting an easily recyclable template on my page. I've been meaning to send on best wishes to a few editors but, like my Christmas cards, I always leave 'em until the last millisecond. Ho, ho, ho... uff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nothing like a generic, copy-paste wikitemplate to demonstrate your heartfelt appreciation for a fellow editor :) GAB01:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hehehe. The way I figure it, my energies are better spent on letting miscreant editors know how I feel about them on article talk pages at length and in colourful detail (all within the confines of CIVIL and AGF, naturally). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Iryna Harpy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing, Poeticbenttalk21:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Iryna Harpy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing, Seryo93 (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Not unless the IP starts harassing other editors. I've been here long enough for abusive comments to be water off a duck's back. Thanks for involving yourself, nevertheless. If s/he does continue with the WP:NOTHERE behaviour, feel free to ping me or leave a message here to put together some diffs for an ANI. Cheers... and wishing you a fabulous New Year, Dschslava! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
All the best!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!
Hello Iryna Harpy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing, Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, first of all, I'm a puppet of an old user (Sorry for the message that I send you with my other puppet, H1N111), feel free to block me after this message, I have noticed that you know how to deal with special cases in White Latin Americana dn you are more neutral than other librarians... I come to report a case of a Mexican user, User:Bleckter, who his reveals IP geographic location, see this same edits , , far from wanting to be in the encyclopedia, stalking who edits the page, the patterns are the same, he observed who edited his information, then he goes to talk with Ed Johnson, EdJohnson blocks the user ,makes minor edits on athletes, and stop editing for a few days, see their contributions, the real objective of this Mexican is to reduce the white population in majority countries and increase of his country, he added references to reverse its edition, it seems that revertor were doing "vandalism" or "edit warring", I explain in the discussion because that edition was bad but nobody answered. This Mexican user manipulates the librarian ed johnson in his favor, the user stop to edit on December 18, but soon after I return the page to normal, he reported me to the librarian mentioned, along with another user who innocently edited the page and also reported to be my "puppet", the user was waiting for ed jhonson blocked block me and reversed my edits, but seeing that he acted slowly, the I finish doing, why he did not at first?, you can see with your eyes on this link, I have suspected that this is another puppet, as being new, edits as having knowledge, have not received a welcome message, and one of his first edition was to report me with EjJhonson. I hope you understand this issue because anything else because I'm a puppet, other librarians say that what I say is nonsense, Happy New Year. --Qtwe (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Done x all 3 instances. Cheers, Gringo300. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Yuletide! 
.jpg)
