User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Rape during the occupation of Germany

The reason I made those detailed changes was that putting "Russian Children" first and then the amount of women and girls made it look like 2 million babies were born if you didn't read it carefully. Wouldn't you agree it's better structured the way I put it? --Steverci (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steverci: Agreed. I took a look at it and, aside from the attributed quote, there's not need to attribute and break it up into sections per source. I'm afraid I've still got the jitters after a protracted piece of POV pushing by a now blocked user (which didn't end until about mid-way through 2015). It got to the point that attribution became the only way of separating non-mainstream (read as FRINGE) views from mainstream views. You 'done did good', so I've reverted it back to your original change. Thanks for pulling me up on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, you're welcome. --Steverci (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, Steverci, wishing you a Happy New Year! Hopefully the infobox gallery business will be resolved one way or the other at the RfC so we can stop pulling faces at each other through the monitor and get back on track to collaborative editing. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! I thought the RfC would've banned galleries by now per overwhelming support, but I guess they're hesitant to make such a huge decision. Will probably happen any day now though. --Steverci (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's actually a tough call on any admin making the decision (I certainly wouldn't like to be the one calling the shots). Personally, I have no objections to the use of galleries or individual images in the relevant position (i.e., the 'notable X's' subsections or, preferably, a separate article/list). It's still going to end in edit wars when it comes to who and why. Meh, it's just one of those things that happens on Wikipedia constantly. Like everything else, if we don't roll with the punches we may as well give up on being editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Weird

Someone is trying to paint https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ben_Klassen as Ukrainian.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Galassi. The editor is edit warring false content into the article. I've left a warning on the contributor's page and have started a section on the talk page addressing the fallacy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Another ruPOV pusher at https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Khmelnytsky_Uprising&action=history --Galassi (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

At ANI but called something about trouble ahead. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, Doug Weller... but I've already been pinged. It's hardly unexpected. If there's an argument to be had about the decisions, I'm up for it. Happy New (Wikipedia) Year! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year (belated)

I hope you are doing well, and wish that you'll have a pleasant new year. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, RGloucester. Wishing you the same. As you can see from my talk page, it's the same old same old in terms of Wikipedia. Some of us are just cut out to be in the thick of things. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You handle it better than I, which is admirable. I appreciate your taking on the grunt work of moving the various singular people articles to the plural. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery removal

Iryna, I do not think that blanket removal of galleries in "ethnic pages" is such a good idea. By the same logic, one should remove all images of people in these pages. And remember that there was no edit wars on most pages with such images. I think that having even a random sample of notable people of certain ethnicity is actually informative in the aspect of how they look like. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the RfC decision was to remove them from infoboxes. If individual editors want to create galleries in the body of the article, or add images as is relevant to the text, that's something to be discussed on the talk page per article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this RfC. But if you personally "have no objections to the use of galleries or individual images in the relevant position" (as you tell), there is no any rush to implement this decision. Actually, this is one of cases when people spent a lot of time to create these galleries (that are questionable, but at least do not make these articles worse!), so that blanket removal of these galleries will lead to negative feelings/reduced participation of people in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Actually, interestingly enough there's been a surge in activity in updating the articles, copyediting the articles, finding sources, etc. I have now idea how one can benchmark enticing new editors and retaining them based on infobox galleries. The only consistent activity I've noticed is new contributors and IPs swapping around 'notables' for their personal favourites, never to edit again. Do you actually believe that these galleries are an important draw card? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not edit these pages. This is just a general observation that people are extremely disappointed when something they created in a good faith was removed. If they create a clearly non-encyclopedic content (e.g. advertisement), then the removals are great. However, if this is just an arbitrary illustration of something actually described in the page, I do not think that mass removal is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I've actually started on articles which haven't seen any activity for years (other than undiscussed changes to infobox galleries): 'X Australians', 'X New Zealanders', 'X Canadians', 'X Brazilians', and such. As it stands, all of these have a text section named 'Notable X Countrians' replicating the links. If there are any galleries to be considered, they can be added there, in the body. Of course people are going to be disappointed when a feature they've gotten used to is no longer there. All it takes is a little imagination and a little work to put some photos into the body of the article where it is more interesting and appealing to the reader. Some of these articles have come up looking wonderful because you can see the demographic and other information straight away. As you scroll down and read the articles, there are community photos, photos of unknown individuals engaged in activities, historical photos all creating a truly interesting sense of that community in that particular part of the world. It's not a loss but an opportunity to rethink the presentation in a less lazy manner that trying to present the history and presence of an ethnic group by usurping the article with multiple heads of notable individuals. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything here. I can also agree that such galleries probably should not appear in a serious printed encyclopedia (although WP is not such encylopedia and it will never be). However, speaking on a case to case basis, I can not be on "your side" in disputes like that because I think this particular image was just fine. My advice here, especially since you are not an admin: if someone wants to keep such gallery in a specific page, let them have it, instead of arguing to remove. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I've addressed that on the article's talk page. There are some articles which I'm hesitant to simply remove the galleries because I'm not so insensitive as to there being special considerations... despite the fact that other Wikipedians think other of me. I'm HERE to try to improve Wikipedia, not to OWN any of it. If that makes me unpopular, I can live with it since Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments out there (the quality of the collage is poor, etc.). Yes, it would be better to have a number of pictures on individual people who belong to a certain ethnic group, rather than the gallery. Hence replacing the galleries by pictures of individual people with descriptions would be an improvement. However, simply a removal of a gallery (that is what you do) is not an improvement because each gallery gives at least some info on which notable individuals belong to a certain ethnic group, which is a reasonable content for such pages. Only an advanced user would look through the Category:Indigenous_Australian_people and found ... that man who does not look like an Aboriginal Australian at all... My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Galleries aren't predicated on being in the infobox to be informative. There's certainly room for a 'notables' section, as well as a couple of sketches/paintings of indigenous people elsewhere in the body of the article with text noting that this and that are 19th century renditions of a member of the X tribe in region X (with links to information on that tribe). I see that as being far more informative for the reader than a 'one size fits all' collage with tiny links to that person or image crowded into the infobox. In fact, from personal experience, it's easy to be distracted and click on a link there before even having read anything in the article (which is, presumably, what a reader had been interested in in the first place). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, good arguments. BTW, I made some changes in Holodomor denial that probably need your inspection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes Yes, I've seen the notifications which I have to make some time to take a look at. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you were to take a look at a few articles that have undergone some heavy-handed content changes being made here, here, and here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is something I do not know much about and beyond my interests, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion at Hungarians reached a (local) consensus around this issue. Basically, when individuals are specifically discussed and their relevance described, portraits complement the text. But an arbitrary gallery of individuals used simply to represent the group as a whole adds little value and invariably breeds conflict over which individuals should be included. This approach puts the onus on those who insist on including a given person to actually develop the article to include that person's relevance. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: That's fairly much indicative of similar ideas being implemented on other ethnic group articles as a matter of common sense. Variants on that were tossed around on the Italians article where notables were distributed throughout the articles in line with body of the text. Unfortunately, it's now all gone over the top with insertions of galleries per section. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that applying more effort and intelligence to the layout of the articles will produce a better product/experience for the reader. There's bound to be grizzling surrounding trial and error, but tweaking is all part of the building process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion here on the wording for this policy in the MoS and on how it should be applied. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Iryna, thanks for editing my contribution of Palestinian Canadians, but I disagree with the removal of my contribution, because your editing affected negatively the article, you removed along with the figures the flags also! back to the figures, I think your editing is not such constructive because all these figures are Canadians of Palestinian descent and all referrals were linked to Wikipedia, so by removing them you only damage the article. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stifan: I can't restore the gallery per the new ruling on WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES (see point 4). What I have done, instead, is create a section for "Notable Palestinian Canadians" within the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian American

Can you please redo the page to 02:47, 21 December 2015‎?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.Brooklyn.Muller (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ви хоча б поверніть статтю як було до мене!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stifan and Peter.Brooklyn.Muller: Вибачте, але такі галереї вже не дозволені. Please read point 4 of this guideline. What I have done is transfer the wikilinks to notable people in the removed gallery to the List of Ukrainian Americans. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again?

Romanians reverted first with "Undo vandalism." then with "As per sources. There was no 2014 census and the other figures were falsified". What's falsified? Am I missing something? Please ping, watchlist full. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to like maps. Jim1138 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Er, yes... What is the point of so many demographic maps not even inline with the text. I've reverted to a stable version and posed questions as to what 'falsified' is supposed to mean, as well as asking what the purpose of the 27 map strong gallery is here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

I saw you called the discussion at the ANI regarding Volunteer Marek's behavior "silly". I started that thread because of a pretty obvious violation of WP:TITLECHANGES ("Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged....Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made") I'm sorry that a user appeared who started unrelated threats against other users, but what has this to do with my request? The closing of the threat just shows that nobody actually cares about WP:RM. And once again, it wasn't about the dispute, it's about the sheer ignorance of rules. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

White Peruvians and White Colombians

I put references in White Peruvians. I revert this reference in white colombians, the source is on a promotion duel between Shakira and Sofia Vergara is not a serious source, sorry but I'm more concerned about the reliability of Wikipedia that you--You'll come back (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it is not vandalism, the article European Costa Rican does not qualify as encyclopedic, has only one source, little information, etc.--You'll come back (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to what you did here. Removing the nonsensical reference was fine, but you damaged an archived reference and changed correct links to redirected links. Also, taking it upon yourself to redirect an article (and you didn't even use the correct method to redirect) is not your decision alone to do. Wikipedia is an ongoing projects, and articles are in place to be developed. You don't just try to eliminate them for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons: see WP:INVALID. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So in that case I apologize, I will no longer redirect more pages without the consent of others. Indeed, in Peru I put a more reliable source, Documents of the University of Laval (Canada), I hope it meets your expectations. --You'll come back (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Iryna on 'roundup' etc

I have offered my description as description, not definition. Do you have a reliable source indicating that such a roundup and resulting arrests did not take place? Diranakir (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diranakir. Would you object moving this response to OJ's talk page? I find it best (that is, most intuitive) to keep a discussion on the one editor's talk page instead of trying to jump around from page to page and have to repeat questions posed, and try to work out who is responding to what in the thread. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Poland

It is very kind of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. but I am afraid I can't return the favour. Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation. You cannot remove well sourced content from Wikipedia just because you do not like it and ask those who want to keep it to demonstrate that it is relevant. The onus is clearly on you to demonstrate that it is irrelevant. Göndul (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation." Where? !) My single revert for the article complete with edit summary. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to other editor's behaviour. 2) My single reversion to the talk page complete with edit summary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göndul (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:TALKO again. The qualification is this: "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.". This does not cover WP:POINTy changes to the neutral heading to WP:POV heading as you did here.

Serious suggestion for you to consider: Do not bound around from 'own talk page' to 'own talk page' in order to make unfounded accusations (AKA personal attacks. If you are WP:HERE to work collaboratively, use the talk page of the article in question to make your arguments and make your case there. In addendum, take note that it is considered to be bad practice to template the regulars as you indulged in as a retaliatory measure on my user page here. It was reverted by another editor on my behalf almost immediately, but certainly says a lot about your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Do not post anything more to my talk page until you have calmed down and familiarised yourself with how talk pages are used. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Making the header "less one-sided", that is exactly what the question mark is doing. "non relevant material" suggests that the debate is already settled. What's the point to dicuss then? As for abuse and peronal attacks, I have never made any. So provide the diffs before you accuse me. Göndul (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? They've already been provided, or have you not bothered to look at the response to your first accusation... plus my comment on the WP:POINTy, tit-for-tat 'edit warring warning' posted to my user page (not even my talk page!)... plus telling me that the WP:ONUS is on me to 'disprove' your WP:PPOV WP:SYNTH content. On your own page you have asserted that "Also your reverting me in a matter of minutes in support of the other editor is highly suspicious." and "... go to the talk page instead of issuing threats." Where have "threatened" you? Do you even understand what "threat" means for the purposes of Wikipedia. Enough. I'm not engaging with you any further until you make an attempt to WP:LISTEN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I will concede one point to you, and only one: the warning on your user page, that was a mistake. I wanted to post it on your talk page, but I was doing something else at the same time. I sincerely apologize. But, here is a serious suggestion for you to consider: Do not be patronizing. Whether you like it or not, we are all equal editors. Göndul (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia

Hi, Iryna -- I'm reading the article on Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, and I've got to ask you something. In the last paragraph in the section Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia#Military career is the following sentence:

• He became the commanding officer in the village of Preobrazhenskoy.

I wondered whether "Preobrazhenskoy" should be "Preobrazhensky", which would match the linked term two sentences back. Corinne (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good call to check, Corinne. No, the title of the Regiment was taken from the village of Preobrazhenskoye (now in the district I've linked to). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Iryna! Corinne (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

CEE

Hi Iryna, I hope you've had a lovely Christmas and Silvester. Sorry for bothering you about this again, as I'd understand completely if you didn't want to have anything to do with this by now, but I feel there might finally be a solution to this issue regarding Poland. This time it seems as though the question here is phrased better and allows for a more productive discussion. Plus it seems to me like the best and most encyclopedic option out of all the possibly feasible compromises between the two camps. I'd love to hear your views on the matter, whether you'd support the idea or not - your input in previous discussions about this was more mature and insightful than most of what I read (and wrote) there. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec: Hi. Yes, I've had a chance to read through and I suspect it's going to get stuck in the same rut as previous discussions: same people, same ideas. I need to think on how to best respond there. It's pretty evident that it isn't going to be resolved any time soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It saddens me to hear that, but you're probably right. Although I wouldn't say it's all the same people and ideas - I personally tried to argue from a different stance this time. Strangely enough, the RfC was closed today (2 days earlier than it was supposed to be) and with a strange verdict, considering there actually was a consensus for Central and Eastern Europe and no other option offered by the opposition gathered as many supporters. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind about the early closure, LavaBaron provided a good explanation for it. I feel like I'm just wasting my time and won't ever make progress with this. No matter how many concessions are granted to them in discussion, those arguing for Central Europe only will seemingly always unite in their opposition against anything to do with the East. It bothers me even more that much of this attitude stems from prejudice. Well, at least this time some of the reasonable users from that camp got more actively involved in the discussion. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to put the closing conclusion to the test. Let's see how that goes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: Ethnic galleries

Hi Iryna. It's necessary to delete the ethnic galleries in Afro-Latin Americans and Afro-American peoples of the Americas? --Bleckter (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bleckter. Yes, I've removed the gallery from "Afro-Latin Americans", but have recreated a list of notable people in its own section in the article.

I've also deleted the gallery from "Afro-American peoples of the Americas", but it doing so noticed that African Americans from the United States have a large number of 'list' articles about notables in the area of politics, the sciences, etc. I can't see any such parallel lists for other parts of the Americas. I've left a comment on the article's talk page regarding this as I think it's worthy of developing such lists for Hispanic/Latin America and Canada. Feel free to comment on that issue on the talk page as I believe it's a woefully neglected subject. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to make a list of notable people and update information in the article. Thanks! --Bleckter (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Yulia Tymoshenko page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, ReferenceBot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

Hi Iryna Harpy. I don't think Special:Contributions/Bizertshine these are in accordance with what was covered in that RfC and what is not in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I guess there's a chance of WP:POINTY since it is a fairly new account, but they might have been made in good faith. Any suggestions on how to proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Bizertshine is wrong. WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES is only about the lead/summary of the page. The RfC only applied to infoboxes. There is no any reason for the blanket removal of all image galleries from from all pages on ethnic groups. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and My very best wishes: Bizertshine is possibly removing the galleries in good faith, but an all-out blitz removing galleries from the relevant section within the body of the article is a distinct no-no... as well as a great way to antagonise editors who feel grumpy about the infobox decision even further. Consequently, if this is a WP:POINTy editor, I'm not sure of the intent at the heart of this (could it be WP:PRAM?).

I haven't had a chance to look through all of the removals, but some of those galleries were probably pre-existing. While some of the ethnic group articles have been going overboard trying to overcompensate for the removal of galleries in the infobox, and further discussion is probably needed while editors are going through teething problems in trying to strike a balance, I really think everyone needs a little leverage to work things out. Whatever the POINT is, it's definitely the wrong approach. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure what the reasoning was, this is not what the RfC which led to NOETHNICGALLERIES was about at all. There's some discussion on their user talk, but much of it is not in English so I'm not sure what is being discussed. Anyay, I posted something at User talk:Bizertshine#WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, so perhaps they will respond and explain their reasoning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ah, yes. The user is Turkish, and there's a spat going on about Turks in Bulgaria between Bizertshine and the other editor, but it's unrelated to gallery removals in any obvious manner. Unfortunately, I have to log off for the day. If you don't get a response, take it to to the WP:AN in order to get an admin to take a look into it and at least curtail the editor's activities before they increase their 'portfolio'. If there's no response, and if you don't have the time to make a request at the AN, I'll try to log in a little later to do so. Don't stress about it as the galleries can be restored easily enough. We'll get it sorted. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries and no stress here Iryna. Just was a little currious if the scope of NOETHNICGALLERIES had been expanded to outside the infobox. Not sure about AN, but if they keep removing at the pace they have been, then they will end up there eventually. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly. At this point, I was thinking that it might be for the Admin's noticeboard, not the AN/Incidents in case one of the admins wants to roll back the whole lot. It's not really in the realms of edit warring (although the user has reverted a couple of the reinstatements), nor vandalism. Nevertheless, the user hasn't responded to your message, and Zoupan (who also works the ethnic groups circuit) has left a "ditto" under your message. As you say, if it continues with no response, Bizertshine will find themselves at the ANI. We'll keep our eyes open and see what happens from here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Iryna Harpy and @Marchjuly:. Since you asked, no galleries of any kind are allowed per paragraph 4 of the revised rules. The most obvious resistance to it is at Italians, with blatant back-door attempt at ramming in the galleries in subsequent sections; it's so bad it's almost funny. Below is the relevant policy:

Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion).

Poeticbent talk 21:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for passing on this information, Poeticbent. I didn't realise that the latest RfC had been closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the response Poeticbent, but I think that's a broader interpretation than was agreed upon in the relevant RfC. Item 4 is in the section MOS:IMAGES#Images for the lead, so I think it only applies to lead/infobox galleries and not in other parts of the article. I am not aware of any discussion that expands the application of item 4 to cover all such galleries regardless of where they are located. Has there been such a discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The only other RfC I'm aware of is at the MOS:IMAGE talk page. I suspect that you're correct. As far as I'm aware, the scope of the guideline is restricted to the infobox. Nevertheless, there are problems with overuse of galleries since the infobox galleries were removed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia Act 1986

Hi Iryina. I tried to add material to the infobox of Australia Act 1986, which needs the Australian and UK versions listed separately for reasons that are outlined in the article. But, whatever I attempt, some material in both parts doesn't appear. Can you assist? Wikiain (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiain. Certainly. I've just taken a quick peek, and I don't usually go into those kind of details with infobox parameters. Nevertheless, I'm not too shoddy when it comes to troubleshooting, so if you'd like to outline the details for the comparative lists, I'd be happy to try to work out the ins and outs. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Iryna. I'm not looking to compare within the inbox, but to have two separate entries, first for the Australian version and then for the UK version. That is: just is it now, but showing all the information that has been entered. I can't work out why some information isn't showing. Wikiain (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks

G'day, Iryna! Thanks for your thanks for my edit on Sameboat's talk page. Perchance, are you also interested in SVG? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ

Hi, cmglee. Yes, I am... but I'm not certain as to whether I could be bothered with the learning curve. I've been a photoshop person since the 90s, but I haven't bothered with splashing the cash for Illustrator (which would be my preferred way to export to vector). I've tried a freeware program, but it's so cumbersome that I gave up on it. I guess there's no quick cure for 'lazy'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, OK then. Like HTML, I first encountered SVG via manual editing of the code and so that's how I mostly create mine. It's quite tedious and almost definitely out for really artistic works. Let me know if you've any image requests. Some examples of my work are at commons:user:cmglee. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Romani People

I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 The correct venue for this discussion is the article's talk page, not my talk page. This allows for other editors to assess the changes and comment on them, and transparency in the processes behind changes made to content. It would be appreciated if you were to start a section there showing the diffs. Apologies for being a bit lazy on the uptake, but I'm currently caught up in other articles and haven't opened up a section for evaluating the changes myself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, Peter238. Thank you for your courtesy and, my apologies to you in return. As I recollect it, we were both a little unnecessarily curt towards each other. Sometimes disagreements 'happen' without any bad faith intent. If you ever need assistance, or a third opinion as to content for any articles, please feel free to ping me. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. Peter238 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Freaking Hi.

Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...

Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dobrom: This is not a discussion for my talk page, but one that belongs on the template's talk page. As a reminder, you have a sandbox in which to develop an alternative template... so don't use the live version as your personal sandbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Wow, that's a great advice. So thanks for that ... However it is not related to the 150px vs 300px issue. I was going to leave it 300px in my final version of that template anyway ,since I can't find a way around it...What I've meant is that if in the future somebody(or me) finds the solution to that problem then they can fix it...However to my eye there are no major problems with 300px... Thanks.

@Dobrom: Yeah, defining image size has been one of the biggest head-scratchers on Wikipedia for some time. I think PX's and EM's have been tossed out as being problematic. Just to put you in the loop, there's currently a discussion on the Manual of Style: Images talk page regarding single aspect. For my money, "upright=scaling factor" has probably been the best option applied in various instances in order to accommodate various devices, OS, platforms, etc. You might want to take a look at the current discussion and talk to one of the editors involved regarding applying this to templates so that we can build up uniformity for a lot of sad, dated templates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Romani People

I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 The correct venue for this discussion is the article's talk page, not my talk page. This allows for other editors to assess the changes and comment on them, and transparency in the processes behind changes made to content. It would be appreciated if you were to start a section there showing the diffs. Apologies for being a bit lazy on the uptake, but I'm currently caught up in other articles and haven't opened up a section for evaluating the changes myself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, Peter238. Thank you for your courtesy and, my apologies to you in return. As I recollect it, we were both a little unnecessarily curt towards each other. Sometimes disagreements 'happen' without any bad faith intent. If you ever need assistance, or a third opinion as to content for any articles, please feel free to ping me. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. Peter238 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Freaking Hi.

Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...

Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dobrom: This is not a discussion for my talk page, but one that belongs on the template's talk page. As a reminder, you have a sandbox in which to develop an alternative template... so don't use the live version as your personal sandbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Wow, that's a great advice. So thanks for that ... However it is not related to the 150px vs 300px issue. I was going to leave it 300px in my final version of that template anyway ,since I can't find a way around it...What I've meant is that if in the future somebody(or me) finds the solution to that problem then they can fix it...However to my eye there are no major problems with 300px... Thanks.

@Dobrom: Yeah, defining image size has been one of the biggest head-scratchers on Wikipedia for some time. I think PX's and EM's have been tossed out as being problematic. Just to put you in the loop, there's currently a discussion on the Manual of Style: Images talk page regarding single aspect. For my money, "upright=scaling factor" has probably been the best option applied in various instances in order to accommodate various devices, OS, platforms, etc. You might want to take a look at the current discussion and talk to one of the editors involved regarding applying this to templates so that we can build up uniformity for a lot of sad, dated templates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

On the White Puerto Rican Article

Hi.

My intents were to showcase those nationalities with considerable immigration numbers with a reliable source. 66.50.193.57 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken another look at it and don't consider it a problem either way. Feel free to restore your version and I'll expand the refs later. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you understood. Thanks! 66.50.193.57 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your valuable contributions to Victor Maghakian. I created that article quite some time ago and didn't notice how much work was needed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Étienne Dolet... and my pleasure. Wikipedia has so many articles on people whose notability is really just audacious self-promotion, it's nice to tidy up bios about people who were truly exceptional and deserve a quality article in their honour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Anders Rudling

Hi, could you clarify the situation for me? Re: "Please wait until the unfree photo is approved on WikiCommons." As it was a non-free image, I did not upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, but to Wikipedia for exclusive use in the article. (At least that was my understanding of the process). I used Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. It's also my understanding that non-free images, which are not used in any article, are subject to automatic deletion. That is why I added it to the article. So it's unclear to me what the next step is or what to expect. I would appreciate your insights. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: My concern is that neither image/photo of Dr. Rudling (as a living person) are actually usable per WP:NFC#UUI (which means 'non free content: unacceptable use of images') without permission being granted by the agency/photographer who owns the copyright. Uploading it to Wikipedia alone doesn't resolve any potential WP:COPYVIO as images uploaded to English language Wikipedia are picked up and copied to WikiCommons by bots, and that is where the primary instance of the image is kept.

I think that the best bet for you is to post to WP:IMAGEHELP and ask how best to go about using the photo, including the addition of parameters to deter anyone else from reusing it. Those who man the helpdesk would have more expertise as to the ins and outs. Good luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

History of the Jews in New Zealand

I'm watching what is going on and back you up. The IP is mistaken. Akld guy (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information on the number of Jews in New Zealand

Hi,

How are you?

According to Stats New Zealand the number of Jews (recorded in the 2013 Census) is 1,353. You state your source is the 2013 Census - but it cannot be - please refer to the URL below.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/ethnic-profiles.aspx?request_value=24768&parent_id=24761&tabname=

I don't believe you are deliberately providing misleading information - simply that your figure is out of date.

Awaiting your reply.

Thanks & Regards,

Wiki corrector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of Jews in New Zealand

Hi Iryna,

I've just done a little more delving and it appears that the 6,800+ figure is from the 2006 Census (or possibly earlier), the 2013 Census does state 1,353 recorded as Jews.

Please reply - or, if you wish, just correct the Wiki page.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, IP 121.74.103.3. I'm about to log off for the day, but was intending to look into it tomorrow. If it is correct, it's certainly an extremely dramatic plunge in numbers. I'd like to check for a copy of the actual census and the 2006 census to see whether the questions have been structured differently, and whether there are any reports available accounting for this drop. My concern is that Quick Stats expresses the figure as, "The Israeli/Jewish ethnic group...".

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you would start a section on the talk page of the article describing the changes between the census figures (along with the links you've provided). For the sake of edifying other editors (pardon the converse alliteration), it's best to keep a record of content changes for the archives. I'd also ask that you familiarise yourself with WP:WORDS (specifically WP:ALLEGED and WP:CLAIM) as your use of 'uncorroborated' comes across as editorialising. If there are other reliable sources which state something else about the census figures, they should be attributed WP:INTEXT using 'according to'. Cheers for getting back to me on this issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please write your comment

Hi. An anonymous editor (IP) ignores my edits and tries to insert his/her personal commentary in Tajikistan. Would you please write your opinion on talk page? Thanks. Talk:Tajikistan#Anonymous_editor_.28IP.29_and_Russian_language --Zyma (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response, Zyma. I haven't found a moment to take a look, but I've noted that the editing on the actual article has calmed down, and that you've managed to get the last tidy-ups in. Do you still need me to check through the edits, or has the IP finally backed down.? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Kalustyan's

It is well recorded by multiple sources, books and newspapers, as you can see in the article Kalustyan's. I can add citation in the Armenian Americans article if you like.

See for example:

• "Kalustyan’s opened in 1944, when the neighborhood was Armenian" http://www.ediblemanhattan.com/magazine/spices_of_life/
• "The reason that the neighborhood around Lexington and 28th Street became Indian is Kalustyan’s. The Indian restaurateurs told me that in the 1960s and 1970s when an Indian family immigrated to New York, there few places other than Kalustyan’s where they could go and get the spices, grains, nuts and dried fruit they needed to make curry and other Indian dishes." http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/answers-about-new-yorks-ethnic-neighborhoods-part-3/
• "The first food and spice store in what later became Little India - Kalustyan's, on Lexington between 28th and 29th Streets - was Armenian, - a reminder that the neighborhood was once called Little Armenia." http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/25/nyregion/rising-rents-threatening-little-india.html

Incidentally I have personally observed the neighborhood getting transformed since 1970s (but you don't have to trust me) Malaiya (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for the delay in replying to you, Malaiya, and my thanks for your patience in waiting for me to get back to you. Certainly, you've demonstrated that your additions are reliably sourced and verifiable. Feel free to restore your content with the references. If you're not sure of how to add references, just let me know and I'll be happy to do so on your behalf. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Illovaisk: Dispute Resolution

Hi Iryna,

 I've filed a dispute resolution request and named you as a party.  Link in here:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk.23This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters

 Hopefully we can talk this out productively

128.97.68.15 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for informing me, IP 128.97.68.15. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Afghan Americans

Show a reliable source that explains that there are 300,000 Afghan Americans. The internet is full of false information and extreme POV pushers, such information has to be verified. It must be removed if it is unsourced, especially if it based on own research and contradicts U.S. government sources. You're from Australia, you don't know much about America.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Obviously, as you live in America, you've had the opportunity to count them yourself. Please don't make silly statements based on where I live. I wouldn't normally be offended by such a remark, but you've used the same 'you don't live in America, so you don't know' line on other editors. We're all privy to as much information as you. Take it to the article's talk page per WP:BRD instead of engaging in a protracted editor war using aggressive edit summaries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I know very little about Australia because I never lived there. You proudly stated on your user page that you're in Austrlia so that means you know very little about America. There is not a single U.S. government source that supports your 300,000 Afghan Americans claim. That figure is purely based on imagination and assumption. You are following me and reverting my edits, I suggest you stop that. I'm not a POV pusher but more of an expert on what we're discussing here. It's better to respect experts instead of starting useless arguments. Even if you read the Afghan embassy site, the total number adds to c. 70,000 (now c. 89,040). Where does 300,000 come from?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krzyhorse22: Please read the second paragraph of the Embassy's article: "A general estimate of the Afghan population in the US is over 300,000."

Ultimately, this is a discussion for the article's talk page, but I will ask you to please assume good faith on behalf of myself and other editors who have reverted you. Try to stay focussed on discussing the content rather than attack editors you disagree with. Bear in mind that, while census figures are usually used, they are WP:PRIMARY sources. When there are reliable secondary sources available contradicting the primary sources, it's a matter of establishing whether they are WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Look above, I've read it. That Afghan embassy site is NOT RS, it could be the work of a single POV pushing Afghan office worker. Where did he/she get the 300,000 figure from? I'll say it again, I don't have time for useless arguments. If you think I'm violating Wikipedia go report me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's RS. It's not a blog, it's an official statement on behalf of the embassy as it does not carry any form of disclaimer as to its not necessarily reflecting the views of the embassy. Stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I will take it to the WP:RSN when I have a moment to present the source for the scrutiny of other neutral editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Manx Americans

Hi, you left me a message because I edited the page Manx American without explanations. Actually the thing is that I noticed a member (Elevatorrailfan) has edited the page English American and change the related ethnic groups and say English American are related to other Germanic Americans rather than Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans. He also edited a description about Scottish Americans which I found correct that said despite their presence in the northern states, they were mainly found in the southern states such as the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas.

I know English people have germanic roots but in the past centuries, they have been more mixing between English and other celtics group (Welsh, Scottish and Irish) rather than Germans, especially in America since this page is about English American.

This member persists to linked English American with German American or Dutch American. I also saw on his talk page that he had had several complaints and has been blocked by the administrator because of its changes. The question I want to ask you is whether it was possible to put the pages English American, Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans like it was before (only the related groups and the description for Scottish American).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.214.36.134 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Russian military articles

Would you be interested in helping translate Russian articles on the Great Patriotic War - principally units and battles? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot06. That would be dependent on whether they're lengthy, intricate academic articles. My Russian is no longer really up to par to do justice to technical articles (and it can end up being a long slow, slow, slow read for me). If there are any Ukrainian language articles covering the same material, I'm far more proficient with Ukrainian.

In the meantime, have you posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia? There are a number of editors who are proficient in both Russian and English. You may be able to recruit further assistance from there.

Nevertheless, if you have a query, or you'd like me to assist with a shorter article, feel free to ping me from the relevant article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian? How about uk:389-а стрілецька дивізія? Shortish, and all we have in that range is the 383rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union).. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Okay, I've got the stub ready for 389th Rifle Division (Soviet Union). You'll find it in my sandbox. Do you want me to pop it in and do the initial bits and pieces (interwiki +wikilink +stub, etc.)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou Iryna, please go ahead - I appreciate it. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Shall do. Just allow for a couple of hours for me to finish up cite checking an article using various Slavic language refs. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert me?

Hallo there.

Can I ask why you reverted my edit when all I did was correct a mistake? The other editor had wrongly linked to the Republic of Crimea article when the link should be to Republic of Crimea (country). I can't believe that my edit is controversial so why revert it? Qaz1984 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Qaz1984. As noted by the editor who had reverted you previously, the original link was fine as it points to the WP:RS recognised definition. As you've now created a section on the talk page, I'll respond there when I get a moment. Cheers for following WP:BRD as requested of you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--LetraCarta (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)