![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
![]() |
|
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Dear Iryna Harpy,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not are you celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there!
From a fellow editor,
--
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk)
10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 ( talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Merry Christmas}} on someone else's talk page.
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Iryna Harpy: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB gab 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I've recently been reading that apparently there's some old guy on the loose who grooms kids by promising them toys and sweets, and then sneaks into their bedrooms in the middle of the night. He appears he have been getting away with it for years under innumerable aliases and it's even international in scope. It seems as though Interpol are also looking for him for unlicensed moving of animals across national (and even terrestial) boundaries.
Now I know this is getting confusing, but the old guy's activities tie in somehow with a pregnant teenage Middle-Eastern migrant who refuses to disclose how she begat her child, but who insists that her much older fiancé, who she is travelling with, isn't responsible. Apparently this unlikely pair are not only the 'cover' for the old guy, but they are also said to motivate lots of people all over the world to indulge in spontaneous acts of kindness towards their fellow humans! Sounds pretty unlikely to me! By best guess is that these people are behind it all somehow, only rational explanation!
ps … This site claims to be tracking the old guys whereabouts, is it WP:RS do you think?
Ebeneezer Scrooge ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Iryna Harpy! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Linguist111 (away) (
my main account)
16:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank's for the Yo Ho Ho, hehehe, hope you have a Merry Christmas! :) PS In the end, over the at Ilovaisk battle, since that editor wasn't going to budge on the issue and at one point he wanted to remove the result of the battle all-together, I had to compromise and edit the result as a DPR/Russian victory. Also, I just made a new article for the War in Donbass here Battle of Svitlodarsk. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 15:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy,
There's a misunderstanding here. I wasn't the one who initially closed the RfC. It was Winged Blades of Godric ( talk · contribs) who closed it and he is clearly an uninvolved editor. He was reverted by VM who said (and here) that only admins can close, which is clearly not the case per WP:RFCEND (see: "It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor."). So no, I'm not closing it myself. I am restoring an uninvolved editors closure because of a misrepresentation of RfC closing procedures. 92slim ( talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, (and Merry Christmas!) I'm just here to briefly grumble about these reverted edits. After looking back carefully I can see I misread the original revision (I interpreted 'both' to be both the rebels & Russia/Assad, rather than just 'both Russia & Syria' - and because it was so poorly written I was trying to rewrite it) and I think you misread my edit summary ('now all implicit' - it was intended to mean 'now all sides are implicit' rather than 'it's now all implicit'). However, aside from those misunderstandings, I was mildly miffed by a few things. Firstly you suggested I was simply adding a 'pretentious' synonym for the sake of it. Actually my rewording meant 'the use of' was repeated almost one clause after another in the same sentence, so I quickly used thesaurus.com to avoid repetition (I was just trying to make a nice sentence). You also threw WP:NOR at me for a rewording, even though no new info was added. Plus you ended up re-adding the 'targeting of civilians' phrase which wrongfully suggested rebel forces had purposefully fired their guns and civilians (the source doesn't support that claim, it was added to the sentence later by an editor).
WP:TLDR: OK, all those things are a bit tedious, but it's so easy to jump to conclusions (especially with treacherous articles like those on the Syrian Civil War). And quoting WP:PG can end up being taken as a WP:BITE when reverting users, especially newbies. I'm sure you reverted my edits in a couple of seconds before shooting off to do great work elsewhere on other articles, but please always WP:AGF!
Have a Happy New Year too!
Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 23:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you participated in the exchange of opinions at Talk:Hretska Ploshcha#Requested move 19 November 2016, another discussion bearing a very general similarity regarding a naming disagreement — the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Oleh Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016, as well as its current re-opening at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Contested deletion — may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As someone who spent enough time here, I am very sceptical about claims people make about themselves on this site. Consider someone who claims on his user page that he is a student of physics, but this person made exactly zero edits in the area of physics, which would allow to establish that he/she really knows the subject. I normally assume that everything such user said was questionable at best. But the fake is easy to establish only with people who claim to be experts in natural sciences. That's why, as Oleg Kalugin wrote in his memoirs, KGB officers pretended to be students of humanities while visiting Columbia University under the cover of Fulbright scholarship, for example. Ironically, one of these students was that man. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Funny timing, given our sudden re-interactions and that Spreadofknowledge is now active again, wantonly adding OR and displaying WP:OWN behavior over "his demesne" of specific articles again. Note that he is actually adding sources in some cases, but they don't at all substantiate his claims, to say nothing of his personal attacks. Just an FYI as I recall you interacting with him on the same Puerto Rico-based articles as Asilah... JesseRafe ( talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
I wish you a happy New Year! JimRenge ( talk) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know about that. My edits were mostly to correct some punctuation. If it's okay I'll add that bit back. Mcc1789 ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Just to wish you a Happy 2017!! -- OJ ( talk) 08:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Iryna Harpy:,
I just wanted to say that you have a super-handy user page. It's given me some great ideas for mine, and I may borrow some layout ideas from you.
Happy New Year!
- Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope 2017 is a good year for you. Of late I have not done much on WP, as I am old and my health is not so good, but I continue to see you carrying the banner of common sense on some of the more controversial subjects. LynwoodF ( talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. I have also posted this question to the help desk, but as you offered me such a warm welcome (with biscuits;-)) when I had this struggle with user:Volkstod and seemed to be extremely diplomatic back then, you may be a good resource for advice here:
I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.
I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources ( WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.
I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldly revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).
How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).
For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger
Greetings and a happy new year, LucLeTruc ( talk) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (
talk)
18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I tookout the 200,000 because it came from a newspaper article from 2001, that gave no evidence of how they collected this information, and just stuck a number on the population. The 90,000 estimate is by the ACS a part of the US census Bureau, which was conducted only two years ago, which is much more accurate, and verifiable than this article that doesn't explain how they got this 200,000 number. Anyone can put any number when one number one is much more clearly sourced, then ONLY that number should be shown, not an inflated, possibly faked number. Accuracy should be an aim, and by reverting my edit, it takes away from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 ( talk • contribs)
"lacked a valid source"when content is both sourced and from a WP:RS) it may be worthy of being included in the body of the article. Either way, as a matter of transparency, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article to make it clear that there has been consensus, lest someone else resurrect it. Furthermore, you should know to check article talk pages before making WP:BOLD moves given that there has been an extensive discussion of the figure this year between myself, an administrator, and an identified WP:SOCK. There was consensus that the broader figure should be retained. If you have further arguments for excluding the (now) modified figure, you absolutely must take it to the talk page and try to convince editors per WP:CCC. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What you have to understand that it was NOT a valid source, and should not meet any guidelines, its an opinion piece by some unknown, who just throws a number out of nowhere, and is horribly out there. If this a good source then, most anything can be a source then nowadays. It seems like the talk page has moved I will discuss, this, but I in all likelihood that number will go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What are the groups in parentheses there for? And what of the groups in the outer brackets?
Forgive me. I'm new at this. 2601:84:4502:61EA:49B3:63F7:3B28:5580 ( talk) 05:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Im Bleckter, Unfortunately I lost my account and I created this, the page of European Costa Rican was vandalized by Dereck Camacho, A costa rican who tries to increase the white population without sources.
Hi Iryna, please stop remove my changes. You know, that in reality is Kyiv, not Kiev, and please see reference 8 to this article. Роман Пришляк ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryna,
I consider you to be the great force for neutrality in the Kievan Rus' article (and elsewhere, I'm sure). So I wanted to share something with you. I actually haven't read an enormous amount of source material on the Rus'. In checking on a minor edit by somebody a few days ago, I came upon the ref, at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, to the book The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belaurus. The link is to a preview, consisting of the introduction and the first page of the first chapter of the book. I was blown away! The even-handed way Plokhy discusses the issues makes me wish the people having the Russian-vs.-Ukrainian edit wars would read his words and *really* listen. I'm trying to get a copy of the book from a university library (it's $65 on amazon.com). I hope the book is as good as the introduction. Have you read this book? Paulmlieberman ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I wanted to clarify that my rollback on the page wasn't due to the content. It was due to the inappropriate citation. I know I could of made that more clear with my edit summary. Anywho, I'm a new editor so if there's a better way I could of handled that, I would love your sage feedback! Drewmutt ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. Sorry for the situation with Bleckter23. He is a sockpuppet with a large history vandalizing pages and insulting users. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. Be careful, he frequents the articles that you constantly edit. Greetings! -- Bleckter ( talk) 08:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, hope you're doing well. These images listed aren't OR. They're simply available images of the people already listed as notable Indian Americans in the local NYC metro area, you may not have noticed the listed names because they were (are) listed down below, away from the images. This population is a much smaller population pool than, let's say, Indian Americans overall - if you see that article, you won't see a standalone notable people section, but rather a fork, for the same reason. I hope you appreciate this fundamental difference. One (local) is simply adding available images of the small pool of people already listed in the notable local people section, while the other (universal) cannot possibly choose the people to list in the first place and hence would present an WP:UNDUE situation. Best, Castncoot ( talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for adding that reflist-talk tag. Still getting used to all the little formats used. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Some tibetans peoples speaks mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.114.33 ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Syrian_Jewish_communities_of_the_United_States
2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA ( talk) 03:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything but you made mistake when you removed my changes on that article. Now there is reference which is explaining my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.56.3 ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An incident has been raised here: [1] Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
![]() |
|
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Dear Iryna Harpy,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not are you celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there!
From a fellow editor,
--
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk)
10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 ( talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Merry Christmas}} on someone else's talk page.
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Iryna Harpy: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB gab 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I've recently been reading that apparently there's some old guy on the loose who grooms kids by promising them toys and sweets, and then sneaks into their bedrooms in the middle of the night. He appears he have been getting away with it for years under innumerable aliases and it's even international in scope. It seems as though Interpol are also looking for him for unlicensed moving of animals across national (and even terrestial) boundaries.
Now I know this is getting confusing, but the old guy's activities tie in somehow with a pregnant teenage Middle-Eastern migrant who refuses to disclose how she begat her child, but who insists that her much older fiancé, who she is travelling with, isn't responsible. Apparently this unlikely pair are not only the 'cover' for the old guy, but they are also said to motivate lots of people all over the world to indulge in spontaneous acts of kindness towards their fellow humans! Sounds pretty unlikely to me! By best guess is that these people are behind it all somehow, only rational explanation!
ps … This site claims to be tracking the old guys whereabouts, is it WP:RS do you think?
Ebeneezer Scrooge ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Iryna Harpy! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Linguist111 (away) (
my main account)
16:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank's for the Yo Ho Ho, hehehe, hope you have a Merry Christmas! :) PS In the end, over the at Ilovaisk battle, since that editor wasn't going to budge on the issue and at one point he wanted to remove the result of the battle all-together, I had to compromise and edit the result as a DPR/Russian victory. Also, I just made a new article for the War in Donbass here Battle of Svitlodarsk. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 15:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy,
There's a misunderstanding here. I wasn't the one who initially closed the RfC. It was Winged Blades of Godric ( talk · contribs) who closed it and he is clearly an uninvolved editor. He was reverted by VM who said (and here) that only admins can close, which is clearly not the case per WP:RFCEND (see: "It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor."). So no, I'm not closing it myself. I am restoring an uninvolved editors closure because of a misrepresentation of RfC closing procedures. 92slim ( talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, (and Merry Christmas!) I'm just here to briefly grumble about these reverted edits. After looking back carefully I can see I misread the original revision (I interpreted 'both' to be both the rebels & Russia/Assad, rather than just 'both Russia & Syria' - and because it was so poorly written I was trying to rewrite it) and I think you misread my edit summary ('now all implicit' - it was intended to mean 'now all sides are implicit' rather than 'it's now all implicit'). However, aside from those misunderstandings, I was mildly miffed by a few things. Firstly you suggested I was simply adding a 'pretentious' synonym for the sake of it. Actually my rewording meant 'the use of' was repeated almost one clause after another in the same sentence, so I quickly used thesaurus.com to avoid repetition (I was just trying to make a nice sentence). You also threw WP:NOR at me for a rewording, even though no new info was added. Plus you ended up re-adding the 'targeting of civilians' phrase which wrongfully suggested rebel forces had purposefully fired their guns and civilians (the source doesn't support that claim, it was added to the sentence later by an editor).
WP:TLDR: OK, all those things are a bit tedious, but it's so easy to jump to conclusions (especially with treacherous articles like those on the Syrian Civil War). And quoting WP:PG can end up being taken as a WP:BITE when reverting users, especially newbies. I'm sure you reverted my edits in a couple of seconds before shooting off to do great work elsewhere on other articles, but please always WP:AGF!
Have a Happy New Year too!
Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 23:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you participated in the exchange of opinions at Talk:Hretska Ploshcha#Requested move 19 November 2016, another discussion bearing a very general similarity regarding a naming disagreement — the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Oleh Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016, as well as its current re-opening at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Contested deletion — may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As someone who spent enough time here, I am very sceptical about claims people make about themselves on this site. Consider someone who claims on his user page that he is a student of physics, but this person made exactly zero edits in the area of physics, which would allow to establish that he/she really knows the subject. I normally assume that everything such user said was questionable at best. But the fake is easy to establish only with people who claim to be experts in natural sciences. That's why, as Oleg Kalugin wrote in his memoirs, KGB officers pretended to be students of humanities while visiting Columbia University under the cover of Fulbright scholarship, for example. Ironically, one of these students was that man. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Funny timing, given our sudden re-interactions and that Spreadofknowledge is now active again, wantonly adding OR and displaying WP:OWN behavior over "his demesne" of specific articles again. Note that he is actually adding sources in some cases, but they don't at all substantiate his claims, to say nothing of his personal attacks. Just an FYI as I recall you interacting with him on the same Puerto Rico-based articles as Asilah... JesseRafe ( talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
I wish you a happy New Year! JimRenge ( talk) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know about that. My edits were mostly to correct some punctuation. If it's okay I'll add that bit back. Mcc1789 ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Just to wish you a Happy 2017!! -- OJ ( talk) 08:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Iryna Harpy:,
I just wanted to say that you have a super-handy user page. It's given me some great ideas for mine, and I may borrow some layout ideas from you.
Happy New Year!
- Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope 2017 is a good year for you. Of late I have not done much on WP, as I am old and my health is not so good, but I continue to see you carrying the banner of common sense on some of the more controversial subjects. LynwoodF ( talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. I have also posted this question to the help desk, but as you offered me such a warm welcome (with biscuits;-)) when I had this struggle with user:Volkstod and seemed to be extremely diplomatic back then, you may be a good resource for advice here:
I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.
I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources ( WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.
I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldly revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).
How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).
For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger
Greetings and a happy new year, LucLeTruc ( talk) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (
talk)
18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I tookout the 200,000 because it came from a newspaper article from 2001, that gave no evidence of how they collected this information, and just stuck a number on the population. The 90,000 estimate is by the ACS a part of the US census Bureau, which was conducted only two years ago, which is much more accurate, and verifiable than this article that doesn't explain how they got this 200,000 number. Anyone can put any number when one number one is much more clearly sourced, then ONLY that number should be shown, not an inflated, possibly faked number. Accuracy should be an aim, and by reverting my edit, it takes away from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 ( talk • contribs)
"lacked a valid source"when content is both sourced and from a WP:RS) it may be worthy of being included in the body of the article. Either way, as a matter of transparency, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article to make it clear that there has been consensus, lest someone else resurrect it. Furthermore, you should know to check article talk pages before making WP:BOLD moves given that there has been an extensive discussion of the figure this year between myself, an administrator, and an identified WP:SOCK. There was consensus that the broader figure should be retained. If you have further arguments for excluding the (now) modified figure, you absolutely must take it to the talk page and try to convince editors per WP:CCC. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What you have to understand that it was NOT a valid source, and should not meet any guidelines, its an opinion piece by some unknown, who just throws a number out of nowhere, and is horribly out there. If this a good source then, most anything can be a source then nowadays. It seems like the talk page has moved I will discuss, this, but I in all likelihood that number will go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh117 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What are the groups in parentheses there for? And what of the groups in the outer brackets?
Forgive me. I'm new at this. 2601:84:4502:61EA:49B3:63F7:3B28:5580 ( talk) 05:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Im Bleckter, Unfortunately I lost my account and I created this, the page of European Costa Rican was vandalized by Dereck Camacho, A costa rican who tries to increase the white population without sources.
Hi Iryna, please stop remove my changes. You know, that in reality is Kyiv, not Kiev, and please see reference 8 to this article. Роман Пришляк ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryna,
I consider you to be the great force for neutrality in the Kievan Rus' article (and elsewhere, I'm sure). So I wanted to share something with you. I actually haven't read an enormous amount of source material on the Rus'. In checking on a minor edit by somebody a few days ago, I came upon the ref, at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, to the book The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belaurus. The link is to a preview, consisting of the introduction and the first page of the first chapter of the book. I was blown away! The even-handed way Plokhy discusses the issues makes me wish the people having the Russian-vs.-Ukrainian edit wars would read his words and *really* listen. I'm trying to get a copy of the book from a university library (it's $65 on amazon.com). I hope the book is as good as the introduction. Have you read this book? Paulmlieberman ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I wanted to clarify that my rollback on the page wasn't due to the content. It was due to the inappropriate citation. I know I could of made that more clear with my edit summary. Anywho, I'm a new editor so if there's a better way I could of handled that, I would love your sage feedback! Drewmutt ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. Sorry for the situation with Bleckter23. He is a sockpuppet with a large history vandalizing pages and insulting users. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. Be careful, he frequents the articles that you constantly edit. Greetings! -- Bleckter ( talk) 08:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, hope you're doing well. These images listed aren't OR. They're simply available images of the people already listed as notable Indian Americans in the local NYC metro area, you may not have noticed the listed names because they were (are) listed down below, away from the images. This population is a much smaller population pool than, let's say, Indian Americans overall - if you see that article, you won't see a standalone notable people section, but rather a fork, for the same reason. I hope you appreciate this fundamental difference. One (local) is simply adding available images of the small pool of people already listed in the notable local people section, while the other (universal) cannot possibly choose the people to list in the first place and hence would present an WP:UNDUE situation. Best, Castncoot ( talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for adding that reflist-talk tag. Still getting used to all the little formats used. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Some tibetans peoples speaks mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.114.33 ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Syrian_Jewish_communities_of_the_United_States
2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA ( talk) 03:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything but you made mistake when you removed my changes on that article. Now there is reference which is explaining my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.56.3 ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An incident has been raised here: [1] Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)