This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iryna Harpy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 states① that the jizya was paid in humiliating conditions by every free male dhimmi of age.[1]Ennaji and other scholars state② 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.[2][3][4]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".[5]In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi'ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments④ 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."[6][7]Ibn Qudamah⑤ also rejected this practice and noted that the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs encouraged that jizya be collected with gentleness and kindness.[6][8]
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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [i.e. Q.2:256] 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. ISBN978-1-903682-83-8.)
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
Skovoroda
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
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 [extra information to an article about a Korean drama] 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 Wikipedia! 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)
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Seeking advice
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
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: [1], 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] 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)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Happy Yuletide
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@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.
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)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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, Seryo93 (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
GABHello! 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 :) GABHello!01:22, 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)
IP
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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!
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 and 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, same edits [3], [4], he stalking the page White Latin Americans, the patterns are the same, he observed who edited in White Latin Americans, and if the edition affects what he did, then he goes to talk with Ed Johnson, EdJohnson blocks the user , he makes minor edits, and he no longer continue to edit (only if the same process is repeated), see their contributions, the real objective of this Mexican is to reduce the white population in majority countries and increase the percentage of his country (Mexico), 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 leave to edit on December 18, but soon after I edit the page (specifically in section "populations"), mysteriously the user edit again, he reported me to EdJhonson, along with another user who innocently edited the page and also reported to be my "puppet", the mexican user was waiting that edjhonson block me and reversed my edits, but seeing that he acted slowly, he finished with revert my edition, 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, he 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 other librarians say that what I say is nonsense (specially EdJhonson), Happy New Year. --Qtwe (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In case of your very strong position in Wikipedia you can edit articles and mark that changes as WP:POV pushing. But be careful when you do it in case of support of terrorists! The terrorists organizations like Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic is the same terrorists as the ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and when you made revert of the edit with clear definition about it - you directly supported them! There is only one Point of view possible on terrorism, if you disagree, them you support the terror --Ipadm (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Jim! Hey, I was there. As was the fashion in those days, I was called an itinerant worker (although some called me a swaggie, but couldn't figure out how I always looked clean-shaven). Nowadays, we call 'em IP contributors. I've kept my walking stick, and I'm not afraid to use it. Wishing you and yours a prodigious (although nowadays I believe it's known as 'massive') and Happy New Year in return. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Cite news
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am puzzled by one aspect of this edit. Why did you change:
@Toddy1: You're correct that it does support the former parameters, but the documentation for templates isn't comprehensive. As with 'cite web', 'author1', 'author2', etc. is supported. It's just a personal preference of mine developed as the result of cleaning up refs manually. Most of the citation tools used to create refs automatically tend to break parameters up all over the place, so when I clean up refs with multiple authors (particularly where 'author-link' is used) 'first1=' and 'last6' will be stacked together. I think journals and books should follow the formal 'Last, First' formatting, but newspaper articles, blogs, etc. are better presented to the reader as 'First Last' A) for immediate recognition of known journalists, and B) in order to differentiate between academic sources and journalistic sources. If you prefer the formal convention, I'm quite happy to change it back to the 'Last, First' format. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your advice!
Can you instruct me how to upload a photo at Laert Vasili?
There are many in internet but I do not know how to use them!
Thank you in advance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laertis Vasiliou (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Yuletide! 
Done x all 3 instances. Cheers, Gringo300. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
