User talk:Iryna Harpy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dymitr Wiśniowiecki[edit]

This is not a transliteration, this is just the name was using and how he was called by his contemporaries. Even on his painting he is named Dymitr Korybuth Xiąże Wiśniowiecki. All members of the Wiśniowiecki family have correct Polish spelling of their names, why Dymitr must be an exception? Marcelus (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Marcelus. Yes, I know it may seem unnecessarily complex, but give me a chance to look into this a little further as there doesn't seem to be much Anglophone information indicating this as being the WP:COMMONNAME in the Anglophone world. Polish Latin script and commonname are not necessarily the same. I haven't much time today (it's early evening here in Australia), but I'll do a more comprehensive check around Google Scholar and reliable, verifiable sources. Just at a quick glance, both versions are used in English. I can see that it would be tempting to simply go with Wiśniowiecki, but he is a very specific entity, therefore using the more generalised version of the surname seems like an easy outcome, but not necessarily the correct one (I note that the Polonised version already appears as an alternative spelling). I'll get back to you on the matter ASAP, and we'll get it sorted. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in my opinion it is wise to use the same name for all members of the same family. Otherwise it is unnecessary confusing. Historically speaking looking for "correct" spelling of the name is futile, because there wasn't one, especially in 16th century, and the ssame person can be named differently within one document. What is more confusing for 16th century Grand Duchy the language used in writing was old chancellery Ruthenian, which is different than modern Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish or Old Church Slavonic. For example in "Description of Volhynian Castles" from 16th century Dymitr is called (mind this is 19th century Polish transliteration): "Dmytrey Iwanowicz Wysznewski", "Dmytreia Wiszneweckoho" (in genitive), and his cousin is called "Fedor Wisznewskii", the family is called "Wiszneweckii" or "Wisznewickii". In other documents we can find also: "Visniowieczky", "Wysniowieczky", "Vysniowieczky". But the name "Wiśniowiecki" is well established in histriography so I don't see any reason why to use different spelling Marcelus (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As a general premise, I agree with you, Marcelus. Unfortunately, we have a lot of POV-pushers coming up with names that agree with a nationalistic agenda rather than sources and WP:COMMONSENSE. Take a look at Wikipedia's article on Kirill Razumovski with the 'Razumovski' having being pulled out of the Germanic history books and completely overlooking the predominant usage as being Kyrylo Rozumovsky (which I can attest to easily without a more comprehensive search of academic texts) just on a quick check of google.
Again, I want to get it right as this would mean a change to the WP:TITLE of the article and, given that the article has become default consensus under the current title, would require me to follow WP:RM#CM (that is the protocols for a potentially controversial article move, with the WP:BURDEN being on me to demonstrate the COMMONNAME preference in Anglophone texts for the sake of other editors/contributors when/if the change is merited). I know it sounds a bit unnecessarily convoluted, but it wasn't followed in the Kyrylo Rozumovsky case, and the editor got around the process by moving it during a short period of time that the article's title wasn't protected. I'd actually forgotten that I needed to change it back, meaning that I have to put a case together to get that article moved back to the title it originally and legitimately occupied. I promise, I'll follow best practice and put together the best case I can for the sake of the reader. Still trying to find a moment to look into it properly just to get things on track. You and I don't WP:OWN articles (which is a good thing!), so gathering the most reliable information and making the best, honest case is how it's best approached. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019[edit]

Messed Up[edit]

Hi Iryna, I hope you are doing well. It has been a long time since we last talked as I have been much less active on Wikipedia until more recently. However, whenever I encounter a problem with stubborn vandals, admins, POV-pushers, and all sorts of other things - I almost always think first of turning to you for help, as you have always been extremely kind and helpful to me in the past. I have recently created the Messed Up page about a group of young Belarusian punk girls who formed a band four years ago and are getting some attention in independent media outlets now, especially since the release of their first full-length album. They are the only all-female punk rock group in Belarus and possibly the second ever Belarusian band signed to a German record label, so I think it would be a real shame if an article about them was deleted based on some absurdly lazy claim of "unreliable sources" - especially considering how difficult it is for them to function in Belarus, as well as how easily information about Belarusian dissidents is being deleted from Wikipedia. If you can offer any help, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messed Up (2nd nomination). Thank you. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

personal attacks[edit]

"As for the WP:BLPVIO attempt at a defence... how much more desperate and lame do tactics have to become?" You should never say that. You don't even seem aware of these discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#Category:Antisemitic organizations. You should probably apologies for this unfounded accusation to me and to others who have voted not to include these categories.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated here[edit]

What do you think? It is for the Polish–Ukrainian War article. You know policy better than I do.


Faustian (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)