Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
::I'm watching the article and reviewing the references, see you.--[[User:Marrovi|Marrovi]] ([[User talk:Marrovi|talk]]) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
::I'm watching the article and reviewing the references, see you.--[[User:Marrovi|Marrovi]] ([[User talk:Marrovi|talk]]) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Syrian Civil War general sanctions notice == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|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. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
|||
:The appeal to cease edit warring doesn't work if you accompany it by a revert that continues the edit war. Please discuss, same as with everyone else. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:15, 17 April 2017
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Happy Christmas
Yo Ho Ho
Yo Ho Ho
Eid Mubarak!
White people by country
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)
NPOV Noticeboard
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)
- Thank you for informing me. I've responded there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers: Current edit warring
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)
- Hi, Lklundin. Thanks for the heads up. Sigh, an IP hopper... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Did you just assume I was using an IP hopper to "hide"? Because clearly you have not heard about what a dynamic IP address is. On the other hand, this user by the name of 'Lute88' has repeatedly ignored my points, and has only reverted what I've done without giving any reason, of course, constantly reverting without giving a reason is not a valid action. What I did was re-phrase about the Holodomor being a "genocide that was engineered" (and this paragraph has no sources), into being neutral, as of course, anyone with basic knowledge (and I've told this user to read the page a few times) that the Holodomor being "genocide" is disputed, there is no consensus, and many historians do not consider it to be a genocide being engineered, and this is still being argued, so there should be no side being favored, because WP is neutral - Holodomor_genocide_question. I hope you understand this. So far, all I've seen from the user is favoring one side according to his contribution history. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good. Take it to the ANI below. Both of you have the same WP:POINTy gripe against me... on opposite sides of the fence. I'm busy IRL and am about to log out for the day... or perhaps the next couple of days. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Did you just assume I was using an IP hopper to "hide"? Because clearly you have not heard about what a dynamic IP address is. On the other hand, this user by the name of 'Lute88' has repeatedly ignored my points, and has only reverted what I've done without giving any reason, of course, constantly reverting without giving a reason is not a valid action. What I did was re-phrase about the Holodomor being a "genocide that was engineered" (and this paragraph has no sources), into being neutral, as of course, anyone with basic knowledge (and I've told this user to read the page a few times) that the Holodomor being "genocide" is disputed, there is no consensus, and many historians do not consider it to be a genocide being engineered, and this is still being argued, so there should be no side being favored, because WP is neutral - Holodomor_genocide_question. I hope you understand this. So far, all I've seen from the user is favoring one side according to his contribution history. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 20:48, 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)
- That did not need clarification. You are both arguing that I am breaching NPOV regarding the same subject matter, but on opposite sides of the pole. Try reading WP:NPOV carefully. I don't believe that you actually understand the concept as it is applied to Wikipedia (or encyclopaedic resources in general). I've already explained to you that your proposal is flawed WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Clarification
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:
- The vast majority of academics consider the famine to be a genocide, Tauger himself acknowledges this.
- There is still a sizable subset of academics who do not consider the famine to meet the definition of genocide, and using Tauger as a stand-in for this viewpoint doesn't make sense. Again, the article mentions Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft as critics of Tauger, but it does not mention that they do not consider the famine to be a genocide. The article mentions James Mace's view ... but his view has been notably inconsistent through his articles, as the Bilinsky piece points out.
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)
- I do not disagree with you that the article is problematic. We have another article (Denial of the Holodomor) which is equally problematic. The content overlaps and, in both instances, there are serious POV problems. My thinking is that the 'denial' article is essentially a reiteration of the same subject matter, and that they are WP:POVFORK articles trying to fly under the radar. Initially, they were treated as separate questions, but mass refactoring of both articles has made two versions redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay! I'm glad we can agree on the NPOV issues. I absolutely agree that the articles seem redundant. I'd suggest merging Denial of the Holodomor into Holodomor genocide question, simply because I'm not sure (following the Bilinsky piece) that there's enough academic consensus to call the null hypothesis "denial," but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to make that decision. That'll be a really tough discussion, but it probably is worth having. I'd like to add {{context}} {{POV}} and {{condense}} to the Scholarly Debate section of the latter article. I will be very clear that I do not mean to suggest that we should have a 50/50 split, only that one side isn't adequately represented; I apologize that I did not do an adequate job of articulating that earlier. (The other templates only being added for the fact that context is necessary for the quotations; I think ideally we could have two sections outlining general reasons for acknowledgement / skepticism over the claim, and then lay out specific authors who are particularly notable.) I'm also striking the ANI seeing as it sounds like we've come to a solid agreement; sorry it was such a rough go getting there.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
RFC
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)
March 2017
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)
- Did you even read the whole diff? L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: Have you read WP:DTTR? Have you bothered to check anything (particularly the references used for the content = predominantly WP:SPS) ... and you're accusing me of sloppy use of rollback at the ANI? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I've read and am familiar with DNTTR. Thats why I wrote down below the template. Did you check to see if your revert would leave the article in a better state than before, rather than just rollback all three edits? I don't care about the 3 edits made by the other fellow. I care that you didn't notice that your reversion now leaves the article with many misspellings and other errors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Which I will get to if I don't keep getting pinged every two seconds. The content has stood in its current state for ages. A couple of spelling errors and awkward grammar should not be usurped by POV and UNDUE development. New content must be up to par and reliably sourced. You may have a different outlook because your main role here is anti-vandalism, but I focus on the development of content from an NPOV and well sourced stance. To my way of thinking, you have your priorities wrong... but our personal opinions on minor spelling error is neither here nor there. I'm about to revert you reintroduction of POV and badly sourced content, then fix the handful of outstanding lowercase uses of Euromaidan and spelling errors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers, L3X1. It wasn't my intention to be gruff with you, so I hope you're not offended. Thanks for pulling me up on the fact that the article could do with a good copyedit. I've made a start, but might not have time to do more for a couple of days. Nice to meet you, and keep up your good work! It takes all kinds of editors to make Wikipedia work... and work in a collegial manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you too, I now see I went about it in the wrong manner to begin with. It was to have met you too. Happy editing! L3X1 (distant write) 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers, L3X1. It wasn't my intention to be gruff with you, so I hope you're not offended. Thanks for pulling me up on the fact that the article could do with a good copyedit. I've made a start, but might not have time to do more for a couple of days. Nice to meet you, and keep up your good work! It takes all kinds of editors to make Wikipedia work... and work in a collegial manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Which I will get to if I don't keep getting pinged every two seconds. The content has stood in its current state for ages. A couple of spelling errors and awkward grammar should not be usurped by POV and UNDUE development. New content must be up to par and reliably sourced. You may have a different outlook because your main role here is anti-vandalism, but I focus on the development of content from an NPOV and well sourced stance. To my way of thinking, you have your priorities wrong... but our personal opinions on minor spelling error is neither here nor there. I'm about to revert you reintroduction of POV and badly sourced content, then fix the handful of outstanding lowercase uses of Euromaidan and spelling errors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I've read and am familiar with DNTTR. Thats why I wrote down below the template. Did you check to see if your revert would leave the article in a better state than before, rather than just rollback all three edits? I don't care about the 3 edits made by the other fellow. I care that you didn't notice that your reversion now leaves the article with many misspellings and other errors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: Have you read WP:DTTR? Have you bothered to check anything (particularly the references used for the content = predominantly WP:SPS) ... and you're accusing me of sloppy use of rollback at the ANI? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced tag
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)
Talk page formatting
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)
Why revert my question?
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)
- Hi, JDZeff. After I'd reverted your question per WP:NOTFORUM, I noticed that most of your contributions are queries and responses of a similar calibre and have not removed any of them. You're welcome to restore your query, but I won't respond to it on that talk page simply because you're asking about things outside of the scope of the article. The article is not a scientific analysis of the subject, and cannot address every potentially interesting question ever asked. While there is a lot of WP:SOAP all over Wikipedia talk pages, such comments and observations do not enhance the development of the article. My apologies if you took offence, but Wikipedia talk pages really aren't general discussion pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank You!
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)
- @Ctmuva2000: You're most welcome. I still haven't had time to search out a copy of Montefiore's latest book, nor to go through for overuse of Rounding, but I'll get around to doing so once my current hectic IRL commitments have eased off. If you have any queries, or want a second (or third opinion) on any other articles, please feel free to ping me. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey
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)
- Hi, Jobas. I'm well, thanks. Hope you're the same. I was just thinking on the phrasing of that sentence. It isn't clear that this refers to those who are believers, or the entirety of the Ukrainian population (which it doesn't). I think it should be amended to reflect that, of those who have religious affiliations, 63 percent are Christians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm well. Based in the survey 63% of the surveyors the been interviewed are Christians - so it's refers to those the Ukrainian population that been been interviewed not only to those who are believers -, 23% does not claim a religious affiliation, 1% adheres to other religions, 6% did not unanswered and 7% are Unknown. (so in totall all are 100% of Ukrainian population not only of those who have religious affiliations).--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jobas: Could you please read my introductory comment here again. I've gotten myself confused (again). The 2016 polls shouldn't be used in any articles until they've been broken down properly. It took a couple of years for the entire breakdown for the 2006 poll (here), but the latest one hasn't been broken down to show the entirety of those responding as yet. Please compare the two sets of results in the old survey as opposed to the results of the most recent survey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will, Thanks for your respond. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm well. Based in the survey 63% of the surveyors the been interviewed are Christians - so it's refers to those the Ukrainian population that been been interviewed not only to those who are believers -, 23% does not claim a religious affiliation, 1% adheres to other religions, 6% did not unanswered and 7% are Unknown. (so in totall all are 100% of Ukrainian population not only of those who have religious affiliations).--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Advice?
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)
- We're obviously a deadly trio[2][3], not duo. Even something this simple is apparantly way too hard to grasp, tsk tsk. On a serious note Iryna, this "user" is absolutely WP:NOTHERE, and his removal numero 8, continuous WP:FORUM-like commentaries without sources, instant removal of warnings, and battleground-loaded commentary ("Deadly Duo", "Vandalise", "cultural fascism"), attest to it. No surprise to see that we can add a violation of WP:CANVAS now to that as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I still haven't read your source to show that every Azerbaijani person has traced his roots to an Iranian ancestor. You stick to your fable and we'll manage the encyclopaedia. --OJ (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note there is no CANVAS. I am looking to have the section removed, not just your falsehoods you like to add on SYNTH grounds. This means I intend to raise a discussion, and if this happens on an independent platform project page, then you will be the first person I notify. Then I will draw it to the attention of all other individuals that I see promoting fantasy (except the IPs). So how's that for canvassing? --OJ (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment here to Iryna is an outright violation of CANVAS.
"I still haven't read your source to show that every Azerbaijani person has traced his roots to an Iranian ancestor." -- 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. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC) - Then I will draw it to the attention of all other individuals that I see promoting fantasy". Nice additional personal attack. Just wondering; got more? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment here to Iryna is an outright violation of CANVAS.
You clearly have no idea what canvassing is so I will elaborate. Here is what the opener states:
- In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
- However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.
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)
- "I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars."
- Actually, you can template "regulars" when said "regular" reinitiates an edit war.
- "Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done."
- Which is why you arrived, after Sebebineydiki was blocked for edit warring, and continued the same edit war???
- Have you read the article, Azerbaijanis?
- Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."
- Even something more interesting is stated on the Origin of the Azerbaijanis article.
- "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".
- So, does Oranges have source(s) that refute these academic sources??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Users playing with numbers in articles about religion in Slavic countries
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)
- Ah, I note that you included Jobas as a potential sock (with which I thoroughly disagree). I've had a good working relationship with him for a long time, and there is nothing of the strident POV-pusher about him. He works collaboratively, constantly consults with other editors, and is a rational thinker. As for the IPs and the others named, if it isn't sock puppetry, there's a distinct smell of WP:MEAT about them. As soon as I have time to get more pro-active about the articles, I'll be reworking the Religion in Ukraine lead to exclude the 2016 results and correlating pie chart. Thanks for keeping both in check until such a time as there's an opportunity to focus on the well documented issues illustrating the lack of consensus for these 'alternative' versions. It's a matter of matching persistence with persistence, and I'm still stuck with logging in sporadically until IRL circumstances have settled. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES
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)
- Are you discussing the massive gallery of churches in the Religion in Ukraine article? If so, no, the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES ruling does not apply. What does apply is WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:PERTINENCE. Per WP:TITLE, it is about the broad scope subject of religion in a particular country/nation-state, not a List of cathedrals in Ukraine, an article about Wooden churches in Ukraine, or any other form of architectural features. There are ample images illustrating various sections, and the appended gallery looks like a travel brochure for church buildings. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- No no. I am discussing the gallery sections on ethnic groups' articles. 85.110.178.202 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. There are some of the higher level ethnic group articles doubling up with both text and gallery, and some which just have a gallery. This is problematic in that the NOETHNICGALLERIES ruling applies to infoboxes, not the body of the article. Once we get to diasporic communities, there are a hefty number using both. Where there is both a list and gallery, it becomes an issue of doubling up on links, therefore I've been trying to remove the galleries as redundant. While this is fine for articles where most of the content has been developed by inexperienced editors or one-off IP edits, I've been removing the galleries per WP:BOLD and explaining guidelines and redundancy issues on the corresponding talk page. Long standing versions become consensus versions after a while by default but, according to WP:CCC, actually making a rational argument for removal requires other editors to make a compelling argument for keeping the gallery. Arguments revolving around, "but other similar articles use them", and WP:DECORATIVE don't cut the mustard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No no. I am discussing the gallery sections on ethnic groups' articles. 85.110.178.202 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Request of Help
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)
Control-Patrol
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)
- Hello, Akapochtli. I've added the article to my watchlist, but it may take me a couple of days to get around to checking through the content carefully. Thanks for the heads up, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, we keeping in touch. --Akapochtli (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Iryna, I make changes in this article, I'm the first autor, Do not delete the information in form arbitrary, it's necessary to complement and format with new information, is not correct to erase, that is why I put notes and I have got with the books in case to required references. Knowing all the case, this lends itself to manipulation and beginning of a new war. Thank you very much for patrolling, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 08:08, 15 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 don't want any war. Here we don't let you your personal interpretations, the page is alright, let it thus. --Akapochtli (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Iryda, I can notes and references inside the discution page or talking in Teotlalpan and Talk:Teotlalpan, we make science no personal interpretations, if you want, you can to look the analysis the all references and bibliography about Teotlalpan area. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Marrovi: It's irrelevant whether you were the author of the article or not. Please read WP:OWN. As observed by Akapochtli, it's also irrelevant whether you live in the area: your observations, and what you believe you know are WP:POV. Finally, let's keep content discussions on the talk page of the article where they belong (for the sake of transparency and for the edification of other potential editors). I'm not going touch the article until I've had the time to read through it carefully, check the sources, and look for further reliable sources. For the time being, I've checked Google scholar which doesn't actually yield much to substantiate the article you've written. I'm not a Spanish speaker, so I'll be pinging a few trusted fellow Wikipedians (who are) to see what they make of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Iryda, I can notes and references inside the discution page or talking in Teotlalpan and Talk:Teotlalpan, we make science no personal interpretations, if you want, you can to look the analysis the all references and bibliography about Teotlalpan area. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War general sanctions notice
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.