![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Dear Iryna,
Thank you for your message on my talk page about the edit I had made to the page PMOI. I have been trying to get help from an administrator or anyone with more authority to help with what is going on on this page and all related pages to the main Iranian opposition group. The PMOI / MEK has long been subject to a vast campaign of demonization by the Iranian regime, obviously to discredit its only democratic opposition. The articles on Wikipedia have been used as part of the campaign and sitting on the wealth of a country like Iran, they have been able to do a lot and bring in professional help to restructure the page and add so much negative material against the organization that anyone reading it will back off and feel terribly bad about an organization that has been struggling for freedom and democracy in Iran for the past 3 decades and has lost over 120000 of its activists in this path (including children as young as 11 and elderly people above 70). The organization was black listed in the US in the 90s and later in the UK and EU, as a political move to "help the moderates in Iran" to gain power, by black listing the opposition. The MEK fought this designation in courts in the UK, and after years of legal battle the law lord, Philips ruled the organization to be delisted and called the UK government decision to proscribe the MEK as "perverse". They reviewed both classified and unclassified "documents" and found nothing that would question the legitimacy of the struggle MEK has been involved to return freedom and democracy to Iran. The almost identical procedure took place in the EU and later in the U.S. and the State Department took the name of MEK of the list.
There is an independent study done by Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield
https://www.amazon.com/Mujahedin-Khalq-Shackled-Twisted-History/dp/0615783848
I will be happy to forward or share an electronic copy of the book with you, if I can have an email address to send it to.
In addition to this, the page contains a lot of other lies that are part of the demonization campaign. Anyone that is familiar with the organization, will be shocked by the extent of negative propaganda on the page. For instance if you look at only the month of November and December 2016, you can see over 190 edits by the users "pahlevun" and "Denarivs" (that are obviously doing the job for who ever is behind the demonization campaign), all of them negative and in violation of the NPOV, and they also have erased every single item on the page that had anything positive or in contradiction with their propaganda material.
The disinformation campaign refers to the MEK as a "cult", "Marxist" organization that "has killed Americans" in the 70s, and whatever nasty thing you can imagine, and even sometimes very contraditory, since it calls the MEK, as agents of CIA, Moussad, Israel, Russia, while during the 70s all MEK members and leaders were in Shah's SAVAK prison and could not have been involved in any activities against the Americans working in Iran at the time, and this has been documented. Also There are sources that respond to all the allegations by the regime about the MEK like www.moisdisinformation.com www.moisnamecalling.com www.kurdsanddisinformation.com www.mullahswar.com and also a website that gives a rather correct explanation about the MEK, www.peoplesmojahedin.com
In any events, I would appreciate your contribution on this issue, to help prevent abusing the Wikipedia to demonize a movement that has already paid a heavy price to deliver freedom and democracy to its country.
Thank you.
NickRovinsky (
talk)
14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna.
I just deleted a ref to the Kievan Rus' article, because the ref and the contents is entirely in Cyrillic, and in a form that Google does not translate (and the contribution was anonymous). My question for you is this: is there a WP guideline as to the use of non-English references in the English Wikipedia? There are other Cyrillic refs in this article; I don't know if they are translatable (I can't check right now, I'm at work at a US govt. office and their wifi won't let me access content from the Russian Federation, dontcha know).
Obviously, for an article like this, much of the best information will come from sources written in Russian and Ukranian. But, given the primary directives of Wikipedia, what's the best way to handle this? Paulmlieberman ( talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy, happy new year, hope you are doing well! You were involved in the latest ANI with Asilah1981, which erupted in the article Basque conflict. The editors involved in the latest discussion without the one cited above, at odds with each other, got some kind of arrangement more than a week ago, and I thought there would be some peace after all. As it happens, just after the incident I was attacked gratuitously in my talk page over another article by a username of pretty new creation, for which I chose to let the issue go or, better, WP:BAIT. Just a few days ago, a username of new creation came back out of the blue again with an exact claim made by Asilah1981 weeks ago in the above article to mess it up over a very sensitive and painful topic, torture (see Talk:Basque conflict to get a taste).
At this stage, sorry, as Kahastok put it in the ANI, this is taking the piss, or as WCM put it some days ago in Irondome's talk page, poking the bear, making a fool of me, and the whole WP community. I am really fed up, more so if the WP does not tackle this issue decisively. I only see one way out for me now, another incident, for which I have enough evidence to start with. Of course he will come back to his claims that I am recurrently attacking him with new sockpupetting allegations. Very sad, but leaves me little leeway. (He should have been banned.) However, I would like to hear from you first. Best regards Iñaki LL ( talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Should we have an article on the current frontline shelling at Avdiivka that has left 10 Ukrainian soldiers and one separatist dead in three days? And if yes, could you maybe create a start-up article? I will expand it later. EkoGraf ( talk) 01:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
...some of your contributions and discussions, you have a new fan, based on expertise, and your reasonable approaches in applying it. Cheers, look forward to an occasion where we might work together. Note, I am absolutely awful, for reasons of time constraints, and effective use of public service time, at dialogs of any sort here (avoiding at all costs, the tendentious and combative ones), but will try to look in at this place, in future. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 09:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy, hope you are well on your way to a good place to live! I am sorry to come back here to notify of the breach of agreement by Asilah1981, with no consequences whatsoever. I find that baffling, but anyway I reported that violation for an enforcement (request), turned down in the grounds that it is not the place. So, yes, there may be another ANI... Best regards Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! :D EkoGraf ( talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Name "Ukraine" as name for the essential central and western part of modern Ukraine appears for the first time in historical document in 1187, as well in a few historical documents in 1189, 1213, 1280, 1283 and later on. In 16th century it became common and was widely used in letters and documents within territory of modern Ukraine and Poland. Statement "With the appearance of the ethnonym "Ukrainian" in the 19th century..." is definitely wrong and non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czcau ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like your quick advice on whether or not
Sevastopol’ and
Sevastopol' (both are redirects to
Sevastopol) are more than random typos. I was going to take them to
WP:RFD, but it occurred to me that the addition of the apostrophe might be a language thing. I tried reading
Romanization of Ukrainian, but couldn't glean anything useful. So I thought I'd ask you, who edits there and probably knows a little lot more about the topic.
Redirects are often created for typical typos and misspellings. Is this the case here? Thanks in advance for any comments you have. And no rush—I know how all-consuming and exhausting moving can be! — Gorthian ( talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin ( talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Iryna,
I appreciate your response and I agree that the Thirty Years War was religious rather than racial or ethnic. However, having read on the military conduct of various parties during the war it is clear that the Thirty Years War could fit the modern definition of genocide since it was an attempt to destroy in part, members of a religious or ethnic group. And even if we can debate and conclude that the Thirty Years War was not genocide it still would not justify being removed from the aforementioned lists of other atrocities listed as "non-genocidal mass killings". The fact is that even though the Thirty Years War may not have a scholarly consensus of being an act of genocide it certainly is an episode in history that involved mass killing. This is the reason why included it among the list of other "non-genocidal mass murders". If the Indonesian politicize and Great Leap Forward which are certainly not genocidal on ethnic or racial grounds can be mentioned then why not the Thirty Years War? Also, I would like to point out that there is no citation in the article supporting the inclusion of all the atrocities mentioned which are referred to as non-genocidal mass killings. Lastly, I'm not sure why nearly all those mass killings listed are from the Asian far east when there are so many examples of mass killings that have taken place throughout the world so I believe some balance ought to be implemented here. I certainly look forward to hearing your feedback Iryna. --Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I've seen you around doing great things so part of this is a friendly hello! I also wanted to ask a bit further about the AfD discussion on White people by country. I feel like this is for my own edification as opposed to relating to the deletion of the article, so that's why I'm not asking there. At risk of WP:OTHER, I'm curious why, if the term "White people" is seen as OR, other articles including the obvious White people doesn't face the same scrutiny. My guess would be, as described in this section, the definition isn't consistent across countries, but because it's sourced as such it isn't seen as OR. WP:MERGE aside, if you pulled that table out into it's own article and called it "White people by country" I really don't see why it would be deleted.
Now that I think about it, the fact that table exists seems like a sound enough reason to dump the article. Anywho, since I'm sure you have more experience than I do with these things, you're feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and again, hello! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [1] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 ( talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
216.12.10.118 (
talk)
20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryna Harpy,
I see that you are currently involved in a discussion stemming from an edit war on Holodomor genocide question.
This edit warring seems to have spilt over to Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers.
You have a lot more experience in dealing with these difficult topics than I do, so I would appreciate if you could consider some appropriate action also there.
Thanks.
Lklundin ( talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - just to clarify: I (the user who has contributed to the Holomodor genocide question talk page's most recent section and who added the neutrality tag two days ago and then yesterday) am not the same as the user above.-- 216.12.10.118 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Media of Ukraine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
L3X1
(distant write)
22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to clarify, my argument is that the article itself isn't internally consistent – so it's not so much that I'm on one side of the fence or the other, as I think from a neutral perspective the article fails. (I responded to your SYNTH suggestion, with the reliable sources you requested, to no response.) You also accused me of vandalism, which you fundamentally cannot support. Regardless of that, The following are both true:
This is an article on the "question," so the above deficiencies aren't really acceptable, and they do compromise the article's neutrality. What I'm trying to detail is that the article can acknowledge the consensus without being biased, but it does not currently do that.-- 216.12.10.118 ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I wanted to touch base about the question of unsourced BLPs as I've been working through the (daunting!) backlog. A critical function of the unsourced BLP cleanup tag is that it indicates which BLPs are eligible for the special BLP deletion process, BLPPROD. I don't know how much, if at all, you use BLPPROD and it's a legit complicated process (which I naturally got wrong the first time I tried to use it, despite reading the directions repeatedly!), but in short, a BLP is only considered unreferenced and a candidate for BLPPROD if it has zero references of any kind, good or bad. So if you could please tag BLPs that have any source at all as needing more sources (or more reliable sources, or sources independent of the subject, etc. as applicable) rather than tagging them as unreferenced, unless there's truly no reference whatsoever, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
How can you say my edit was not constructive? If Armenia is not geographically apart of Europe and historically has no connections with Europe other than in political aspects (since 1920), how can you call Armenians "European-Americans"? That literally makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzazaian11 ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by your request to not use "blank indents" to format a talk page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists, list items (including indented comments on talk pages) should not be separated by empty lines in the Wiki markup, as this disrupts screen readers. The guideline recommends adding colons in place of empty lines, as I did at Talk:Stolen Generations. See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Layout.
Also, I have seen no policy or guideline against using {{ reflist}} on talk pages. I would appreciate it if you could point out such a guideline. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
RGloucester —
☎ is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Seryo93 (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Salam aleikum (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I asked about why rye toasts the way it does because that's what I came to the article to learn, and didn't find it. I figured that if I wanted to know, others would too. And, if you don't approve of my asking, you can always add a comment, as I've seen hundreds of times in different talk pages. Removing my question seems more than a little bit heavy-handed, considering the number of forum-style comments there are on talk pages. Not, however, that I'm not reversing your changes; if that happens, it's much more appropriate that you do it. JDZeff ( talk) 20:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations about my Catherine the Great comments! Sorry I am just now writing you back. I am going to try writing and editing Wikipedia articles again. Sincerely, Christopher Moore Ctmuva2000 ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey how are you?. I just wonder what was the wrong to add (63%) in the text, this figures are from the source itself that supported in that text. Thanks and have a nice day.-- Jobas ( talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Iryna. I know I have broached this in recent weeks but it is high time this project moved on with regards this "related ethnic groups" nonsense that plagues so many articles. You are familiar with the conversation on Talk:Czechs but this for me has taken place amid an equally bitter debate on the same issues on Azerbaijanis (see Talk:Azerbaijanis#Ethnic group). I'm up against a deadly duo that are able to double-team to avoid 3RR whilst the only other editor who approved my revision found himself blocked for violating 3RR when the fantasy version was being constantly reinserted by the deadly duo and some suspicious IPs. The page is now protected and the duo can no longer depend on their "mystery friends" (or edit while logged out) which means they have to vandalise the article by themselves!!! Anyhow, I'm not going to get anywhere attempting to discuss a topic with editors who resort to profundly inconclusive "ethnogenesis" arguments. I can see no better solution than to have the "related people" section wiped permanently from ethnic infoboxes. It is a can of worms. Our definitions versus theirs. The damn thing impels WP:SYNTH. According to your own story regarding your acquaintance, Greeks and Ukrainians are related because a woman with Greek parents identifies as Ukrainian. Can you remind me again where to launch a discussion or where you know this may have already been taking place. I'll lead the way because I am not prepared to compromise my account by further engaging with the deadly duo. Thanks in advance! -- OJ ( talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what canvassing is so I will elaborate. Here is what the opener states:
By informing the likes of you and the editor who is helping you evade 3RR of a discussion, it is not "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". Even so, I would propose a removal of a section as a solution to a conflict which is totally different to what I have been hitherto doing. There is no attack full stop.
Going back. I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars. Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done. With regards the rest of your remarks including all mentioned in summaries, you seem to focus purely on my "disagreeable to you" conduct but never once have you discussed the topic. If my assertions were wrong, that is fine, just prove them wrong. I don't need links to articles which attack the
straw man where you're concerned. But the other editor hit the nail on the head when he stated that I should "get consensus" for my proposed revision. Consensus? Now I follow. A "community" will decide to whom a nation is related and to whom it is not. It seems everywhere else, facts speak for themselves. Even if you reached a consensus that
Zenica is the capital of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, I will continue to remove it and reinsert
Sarajevo because facts speak louder than petty local agreement.
With regards this remark, "Where on earth you have read that every single person of ethnic group "Y" needs to have ancestry from group "X" in order for "Y" to be related to group "X", is completely beyond me, and a complete misinterpretation of the verifiable facts, in every sense of the word.". If a member of ethnic group X has no ancestry in ethnic group Y, then how the heck are you saying that he is related to them? That's what I mean by "inconclusive". Obviously by your definition, Bosniaks and Turks are related because one of my Bosniak relatives is married and has children from a Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina wife. -- OJ ( talk) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The recent concerted activity of Отрок 12 and FrankCesco26 in religion in Russia and religion in Ukraine, and other articles, further strengthens my suspects about a relation between them and other accounts. To me, their edit activities are too similar to one another to be unrelated. Unfortunately an attempted investigation was archived without results.-- 82.48.11.193 ( talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm FrankCesco26 and since recognizing your experience on Wikipedia I wanted to ask if you could help me with a problem. The problem is that the user is a dynamic that repeatedly change the article on Religions in the Ukraine doesn't want to stop reverting the page and he menaces me reporting to the administrator several time only becouse I remove his data from the article. Since I am new, could you help me with this subject, perhaps by announcing it (I don't know how to do it). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the gallery sections should also be removed from wikipedia articles for exactly the same reasons discussed here. Clear OR. Does it require a new RfC or can editors simply remove them based on the same policy? 85.110.178.202 ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi, I'm not the one who made the revisions on the article about the Moldovan language (shared IP adress). Out of curiosity I read the article, some of the revisions made from this shared IP adress and your user page. If I understood correctly, you are competent in Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Belarusian and English. I think you should know Romanian to be qualified to judge the neutrality of those revisions. I'm romanian. I once saw a clip on youtube from a Moldovan language news program in Transnistria and apart from a little accent, it was plain Romanian (of course, this cannot be cited in Wikipedia, but is verifiable :). I don't get it how "Moldovan is so distinct from Romanian in terms of lexicon". It might be different because of the Russian borrowings, but certainly it couldn't be said it is "so distinct". To me it seems that your reversions are biased, sorry, or at least you "allowed subjective preferences to override" :) Wish you an easy house moving ;) (Sorry if I post this somwhere it doesn't belong, I'm not into Wikipedia and stuff. If it happened, please someone delete it immediately, because I know Russell's teapot won't help) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.10.30 ( talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Some anon removed content from Stephen F. Cohen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here with an ES of 1) Cohen's religious identity has NOT been establish by a valid reference. Wikipedia is always on the hunt for Jews and tag them as such but in this case their over zealous ambitions in this regard remain unfounded., 2) Assertion is based on phony reference; it does NOT specify his religious identity., and 3) This is the English version of Wiki. Foreign language references should not be used.. I reverted the last one which escalated to abuse and the anon being blocked. Is Cohen Jewish? I can't figure it out from the refs. (size 3 hat). Should the info be replaced or left out? I saw you had edited the article... Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I would like to ask you to patrol this page, Teotlalpan, it lacked clarity and contained information without verification. This page was deleted in Spanish, now he wants to write the same personal ideas here in English. Maybe this original author is going to commit to putting his version, I do not want to debate with him, that's why I ask you for help, you have experience as a wiki-user and you will know what to do. (I also asked for help from Ymblanter) Regards. -- Akapochtli ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I edited this article by first time, English version was the first, comparing with Spanish Wikipedia version, I live in this area and I have got books about this theme, I'm very happy by Akapochtli's editions, but I'm afraid this will serve another dirty war.-- Marrovi ( talk) 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I put vigilance in this article and i'm reading references put in by Akapochtli, here we work with community working, not politics, I 'm working in my university, I have got many work with my students. I looking books and pages about Teotlalpan and I take pictures and notes in this case by the vandalismus and teasing, thank you Iryna.-- Marrovi ( talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We need references, texts, bibliography when we can read his notes; no periods, it's a trap for to seek political helping; He don't delete information about this theme, to delete by arbitrary or personal reasons is vandalismus, all is asked and referenced in talk portal, regards.-- Marrovi ( talk) 01:31, 24 April 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Dear Iryna,
Thank you for your message on my talk page about the edit I had made to the page PMOI. I have been trying to get help from an administrator or anyone with more authority to help with what is going on on this page and all related pages to the main Iranian opposition group. The PMOI / MEK has long been subject to a vast campaign of demonization by the Iranian regime, obviously to discredit its only democratic opposition. The articles on Wikipedia have been used as part of the campaign and sitting on the wealth of a country like Iran, they have been able to do a lot and bring in professional help to restructure the page and add so much negative material against the organization that anyone reading it will back off and feel terribly bad about an organization that has been struggling for freedom and democracy in Iran for the past 3 decades and has lost over 120000 of its activists in this path (including children as young as 11 and elderly people above 70). The organization was black listed in the US in the 90s and later in the UK and EU, as a political move to "help the moderates in Iran" to gain power, by black listing the opposition. The MEK fought this designation in courts in the UK, and after years of legal battle the law lord, Philips ruled the organization to be delisted and called the UK government decision to proscribe the MEK as "perverse". They reviewed both classified and unclassified "documents" and found nothing that would question the legitimacy of the struggle MEK has been involved to return freedom and democracy to Iran. The almost identical procedure took place in the EU and later in the U.S. and the State Department took the name of MEK of the list.
There is an independent study done by Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield
https://www.amazon.com/Mujahedin-Khalq-Shackled-Twisted-History/dp/0615783848
I will be happy to forward or share an electronic copy of the book with you, if I can have an email address to send it to.
In addition to this, the page contains a lot of other lies that are part of the demonization campaign. Anyone that is familiar with the organization, will be shocked by the extent of negative propaganda on the page. For instance if you look at only the month of November and December 2016, you can see over 190 edits by the users "pahlevun" and "Denarivs" (that are obviously doing the job for who ever is behind the demonization campaign), all of them negative and in violation of the NPOV, and they also have erased every single item on the page that had anything positive or in contradiction with their propaganda material.
The disinformation campaign refers to the MEK as a "cult", "Marxist" organization that "has killed Americans" in the 70s, and whatever nasty thing you can imagine, and even sometimes very contraditory, since it calls the MEK, as agents of CIA, Moussad, Israel, Russia, while during the 70s all MEK members and leaders were in Shah's SAVAK prison and could not have been involved in any activities against the Americans working in Iran at the time, and this has been documented. Also There are sources that respond to all the allegations by the regime about the MEK like www.moisdisinformation.com www.moisnamecalling.com www.kurdsanddisinformation.com www.mullahswar.com and also a website that gives a rather correct explanation about the MEK, www.peoplesmojahedin.com
In any events, I would appreciate your contribution on this issue, to help prevent abusing the Wikipedia to demonize a movement that has already paid a heavy price to deliver freedom and democracy to its country.
Thank you.
NickRovinsky (
talk)
14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna.
I just deleted a ref to the Kievan Rus' article, because the ref and the contents is entirely in Cyrillic, and in a form that Google does not translate (and the contribution was anonymous). My question for you is this: is there a WP guideline as to the use of non-English references in the English Wikipedia? There are other Cyrillic refs in this article; I don't know if they are translatable (I can't check right now, I'm at work at a US govt. office and their wifi won't let me access content from the Russian Federation, dontcha know).
Obviously, for an article like this, much of the best information will come from sources written in Russian and Ukranian. But, given the primary directives of Wikipedia, what's the best way to handle this? Paulmlieberman ( talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy, happy new year, hope you are doing well! You were involved in the latest ANI with Asilah1981, which erupted in the article Basque conflict. The editors involved in the latest discussion without the one cited above, at odds with each other, got some kind of arrangement more than a week ago, and I thought there would be some peace after all. As it happens, just after the incident I was attacked gratuitously in my talk page over another article by a username of pretty new creation, for which I chose to let the issue go or, better, WP:BAIT. Just a few days ago, a username of new creation came back out of the blue again with an exact claim made by Asilah1981 weeks ago in the above article to mess it up over a very sensitive and painful topic, torture (see Talk:Basque conflict to get a taste).
At this stage, sorry, as Kahastok put it in the ANI, this is taking the piss, or as WCM put it some days ago in Irondome's talk page, poking the bear, making a fool of me, and the whole WP community. I am really fed up, more so if the WP does not tackle this issue decisively. I only see one way out for me now, another incident, for which I have enough evidence to start with. Of course he will come back to his claims that I am recurrently attacking him with new sockpupetting allegations. Very sad, but leaves me little leeway. (He should have been banned.) However, I would like to hear from you first. Best regards Iñaki LL ( talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Should we have an article on the current frontline shelling at Avdiivka that has left 10 Ukrainian soldiers and one separatist dead in three days? And if yes, could you maybe create a start-up article? I will expand it later. EkoGraf ( talk) 01:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
...some of your contributions and discussions, you have a new fan, based on expertise, and your reasonable approaches in applying it. Cheers, look forward to an occasion where we might work together. Note, I am absolutely awful, for reasons of time constraints, and effective use of public service time, at dialogs of any sort here (avoiding at all costs, the tendentious and combative ones), but will try to look in at this place, in future. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 09:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy, hope you are well on your way to a good place to live! I am sorry to come back here to notify of the breach of agreement by Asilah1981, with no consequences whatsoever. I find that baffling, but anyway I reported that violation for an enforcement (request), turned down in the grounds that it is not the place. So, yes, there may be another ANI... Best regards Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! :D EkoGraf ( talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Name "Ukraine" as name for the essential central and western part of modern Ukraine appears for the first time in historical document in 1187, as well in a few historical documents in 1189, 1213, 1280, 1283 and later on. In 16th century it became common and was widely used in letters and documents within territory of modern Ukraine and Poland. Statement "With the appearance of the ethnonym "Ukrainian" in the 19th century..." is definitely wrong and non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czcau ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like your quick advice on whether or not
Sevastopol’ and
Sevastopol' (both are redirects to
Sevastopol) are more than random typos. I was going to take them to
WP:RFD, but it occurred to me that the addition of the apostrophe might be a language thing. I tried reading
Romanization of Ukrainian, but couldn't glean anything useful. So I thought I'd ask you, who edits there and probably knows a little lot more about the topic.
Redirects are often created for typical typos and misspellings. Is this the case here? Thanks in advance for any comments you have. And no rush—I know how all-consuming and exhausting moving can be! — Gorthian ( talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin ( talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Iryna,
I appreciate your response and I agree that the Thirty Years War was religious rather than racial or ethnic. However, having read on the military conduct of various parties during the war it is clear that the Thirty Years War could fit the modern definition of genocide since it was an attempt to destroy in part, members of a religious or ethnic group. And even if we can debate and conclude that the Thirty Years War was not genocide it still would not justify being removed from the aforementioned lists of other atrocities listed as "non-genocidal mass killings". The fact is that even though the Thirty Years War may not have a scholarly consensus of being an act of genocide it certainly is an episode in history that involved mass killing. This is the reason why included it among the list of other "non-genocidal mass murders". If the Indonesian politicize and Great Leap Forward which are certainly not genocidal on ethnic or racial grounds can be mentioned then why not the Thirty Years War? Also, I would like to point out that there is no citation in the article supporting the inclusion of all the atrocities mentioned which are referred to as non-genocidal mass killings. Lastly, I'm not sure why nearly all those mass killings listed are from the Asian far east when there are so many examples of mass killings that have taken place throughout the world so I believe some balance ought to be implemented here. I certainly look forward to hearing your feedback Iryna. --Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I've seen you around doing great things so part of this is a friendly hello! I also wanted to ask a bit further about the AfD discussion on White people by country. I feel like this is for my own edification as opposed to relating to the deletion of the article, so that's why I'm not asking there. At risk of WP:OTHER, I'm curious why, if the term "White people" is seen as OR, other articles including the obvious White people doesn't face the same scrutiny. My guess would be, as described in this section, the definition isn't consistent across countries, but because it's sourced as such it isn't seen as OR. WP:MERGE aside, if you pulled that table out into it's own article and called it "White people by country" I really don't see why it would be deleted.
Now that I think about it, the fact that table exists seems like a sound enough reason to dump the article. Anywho, since I'm sure you have more experience than I do with these things, you're feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and again, hello! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [1] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 ( talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
216.12.10.118 (
talk)
20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryna Harpy,
I see that you are currently involved in a discussion stemming from an edit war on Holodomor genocide question.
This edit warring seems to have spilt over to Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers.
You have a lot more experience in dealing with these difficult topics than I do, so I would appreciate if you could consider some appropriate action also there.
Thanks.
Lklundin ( talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - just to clarify: I (the user who has contributed to the Holomodor genocide question talk page's most recent section and who added the neutrality tag two days ago and then yesterday) am not the same as the user above.-- 216.12.10.118 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Media of Ukraine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
L3X1
(distant write)
22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to clarify, my argument is that the article itself isn't internally consistent – so it's not so much that I'm on one side of the fence or the other, as I think from a neutral perspective the article fails. (I responded to your SYNTH suggestion, with the reliable sources you requested, to no response.) You also accused me of vandalism, which you fundamentally cannot support. Regardless of that, The following are both true:
This is an article on the "question," so the above deficiencies aren't really acceptable, and they do compromise the article's neutrality. What I'm trying to detail is that the article can acknowledge the consensus without being biased, but it does not currently do that.-- 216.12.10.118 ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I wanted to touch base about the question of unsourced BLPs as I've been working through the (daunting!) backlog. A critical function of the unsourced BLP cleanup tag is that it indicates which BLPs are eligible for the special BLP deletion process, BLPPROD. I don't know how much, if at all, you use BLPPROD and it's a legit complicated process (which I naturally got wrong the first time I tried to use it, despite reading the directions repeatedly!), but in short, a BLP is only considered unreferenced and a candidate for BLPPROD if it has zero references of any kind, good or bad. So if you could please tag BLPs that have any source at all as needing more sources (or more reliable sources, or sources independent of the subject, etc. as applicable) rather than tagging them as unreferenced, unless there's truly no reference whatsoever, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
How can you say my edit was not constructive? If Armenia is not geographically apart of Europe and historically has no connections with Europe other than in political aspects (since 1920), how can you call Armenians "European-Americans"? That literally makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzazaian11 ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by your request to not use "blank indents" to format a talk page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists, list items (including indented comments on talk pages) should not be separated by empty lines in the Wiki markup, as this disrupts screen readers. The guideline recommends adding colons in place of empty lines, as I did at Talk:Stolen Generations. See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Layout.
Also, I have seen no policy or guideline against using {{ reflist}} on talk pages. I would appreciate it if you could point out such a guideline. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
RGloucester —
☎ is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Seryo93 (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Salam aleikum (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I asked about why rye toasts the way it does because that's what I came to the article to learn, and didn't find it. I figured that if I wanted to know, others would too. And, if you don't approve of my asking, you can always add a comment, as I've seen hundreds of times in different talk pages. Removing my question seems more than a little bit heavy-handed, considering the number of forum-style comments there are on talk pages. Not, however, that I'm not reversing your changes; if that happens, it's much more appropriate that you do it. JDZeff ( talk) 20:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations about my Catherine the Great comments! Sorry I am just now writing you back. I am going to try writing and editing Wikipedia articles again. Sincerely, Christopher Moore Ctmuva2000 ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey how are you?. I just wonder what was the wrong to add (63%) in the text, this figures are from the source itself that supported in that text. Thanks and have a nice day.-- Jobas ( talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Iryna. I know I have broached this in recent weeks but it is high time this project moved on with regards this "related ethnic groups" nonsense that plagues so many articles. You are familiar with the conversation on Talk:Czechs but this for me has taken place amid an equally bitter debate on the same issues on Azerbaijanis (see Talk:Azerbaijanis#Ethnic group). I'm up against a deadly duo that are able to double-team to avoid 3RR whilst the only other editor who approved my revision found himself blocked for violating 3RR when the fantasy version was being constantly reinserted by the deadly duo and some suspicious IPs. The page is now protected and the duo can no longer depend on their "mystery friends" (or edit while logged out) which means they have to vandalise the article by themselves!!! Anyhow, I'm not going to get anywhere attempting to discuss a topic with editors who resort to profundly inconclusive "ethnogenesis" arguments. I can see no better solution than to have the "related people" section wiped permanently from ethnic infoboxes. It is a can of worms. Our definitions versus theirs. The damn thing impels WP:SYNTH. According to your own story regarding your acquaintance, Greeks and Ukrainians are related because a woman with Greek parents identifies as Ukrainian. Can you remind me again where to launch a discussion or where you know this may have already been taking place. I'll lead the way because I am not prepared to compromise my account by further engaging with the deadly duo. Thanks in advance! -- OJ ( talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what canvassing is so I will elaborate. Here is what the opener states:
By informing the likes of you and the editor who is helping you evade 3RR of a discussion, it is not "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". Even so, I would propose a removal of a section as a solution to a conflict which is totally different to what I have been hitherto doing. There is no attack full stop.
Going back. I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars. Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done. With regards the rest of your remarks including all mentioned in summaries, you seem to focus purely on my "disagreeable to you" conduct but never once have you discussed the topic. If my assertions were wrong, that is fine, just prove them wrong. I don't need links to articles which attack the
straw man where you're concerned. But the other editor hit the nail on the head when he stated that I should "get consensus" for my proposed revision. Consensus? Now I follow. A "community" will decide to whom a nation is related and to whom it is not. It seems everywhere else, facts speak for themselves. Even if you reached a consensus that
Zenica is the capital of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, I will continue to remove it and reinsert
Sarajevo because facts speak louder than petty local agreement.
With regards this remark, "Where on earth you have read that every single person of ethnic group "Y" needs to have ancestry from group "X" in order for "Y" to be related to group "X", is completely beyond me, and a complete misinterpretation of the verifiable facts, in every sense of the word.". If a member of ethnic group X has no ancestry in ethnic group Y, then how the heck are you saying that he is related to them? That's what I mean by "inconclusive". Obviously by your definition, Bosniaks and Turks are related because one of my Bosniak relatives is married and has children from a Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina wife. -- OJ ( talk) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The recent concerted activity of Отрок 12 and FrankCesco26 in religion in Russia and religion in Ukraine, and other articles, further strengthens my suspects about a relation between them and other accounts. To me, their edit activities are too similar to one another to be unrelated. Unfortunately an attempted investigation was archived without results.-- 82.48.11.193 ( talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm FrankCesco26 and since recognizing your experience on Wikipedia I wanted to ask if you could help me with a problem. The problem is that the user is a dynamic that repeatedly change the article on Religions in the Ukraine doesn't want to stop reverting the page and he menaces me reporting to the administrator several time only becouse I remove his data from the article. Since I am new, could you help me with this subject, perhaps by announcing it (I don't know how to do it). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the gallery sections should also be removed from wikipedia articles for exactly the same reasons discussed here. Clear OR. Does it require a new RfC or can editors simply remove them based on the same policy? 85.110.178.202 ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi, I'm not the one who made the revisions on the article about the Moldovan language (shared IP adress). Out of curiosity I read the article, some of the revisions made from this shared IP adress and your user page. If I understood correctly, you are competent in Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Belarusian and English. I think you should know Romanian to be qualified to judge the neutrality of those revisions. I'm romanian. I once saw a clip on youtube from a Moldovan language news program in Transnistria and apart from a little accent, it was plain Romanian (of course, this cannot be cited in Wikipedia, but is verifiable :). I don't get it how "Moldovan is so distinct from Romanian in terms of lexicon". It might be different because of the Russian borrowings, but certainly it couldn't be said it is "so distinct". To me it seems that your reversions are biased, sorry, or at least you "allowed subjective preferences to override" :) Wish you an easy house moving ;) (Sorry if I post this somwhere it doesn't belong, I'm not into Wikipedia and stuff. If it happened, please someone delete it immediately, because I know Russell's teapot won't help) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.10.30 ( talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Some anon removed content from Stephen F. Cohen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here with an ES of 1) Cohen's religious identity has NOT been establish by a valid reference. Wikipedia is always on the hunt for Jews and tag them as such but in this case their over zealous ambitions in this regard remain unfounded., 2) Assertion is based on phony reference; it does NOT specify his religious identity., and 3) This is the English version of Wiki. Foreign language references should not be used.. I reverted the last one which escalated to abuse and the anon being blocked. Is Cohen Jewish? I can't figure it out from the refs. (size 3 hat). Should the info be replaced or left out? I saw you had edited the article... Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I would like to ask you to patrol this page, Teotlalpan, it lacked clarity and contained information without verification. This page was deleted in Spanish, now he wants to write the same personal ideas here in English. Maybe this original author is going to commit to putting his version, I do not want to debate with him, that's why I ask you for help, you have experience as a wiki-user and you will know what to do. (I also asked for help from Ymblanter) Regards. -- Akapochtli ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I edited this article by first time, English version was the first, comparing with Spanish Wikipedia version, I live in this area and I have got books about this theme, I'm very happy by Akapochtli's editions, but I'm afraid this will serve another dirty war.-- Marrovi ( talk) 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I put vigilance in this article and i'm reading references put in by Akapochtli, here we work with community working, not politics, I 'm working in my university, I have got many work with my students. I looking books and pages about Teotlalpan and I take pictures and notes in this case by the vandalismus and teasing, thank you Iryna.-- Marrovi ( talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We need references, texts, bibliography when we can read his notes; no periods, it's a trap for to seek political helping; He don't delete information about this theme, to delete by arbitrary or personal reasons is vandalismus, all is asked and referenced in talk portal, regards.-- Marrovi ( talk) 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)