User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

Primary sources

"The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." WP:USEPRIMARYRathfelder (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Assistance against possible unsourced POV-pushing

Please, if you can, keep an eye out on these articles: Battle of Marinka, Battle of Avdiivka, Battle of Svitlodarsk, Second Battle of Donetsk Airport‎. An apparent newly-created single-purpose account has been replacing the DPR/LPR throughout the articles' infoboxes, which is sourced, with Russia, without providing any sources. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, EkoGraf. A lot of these articles have fallen off my watchlist 'radar' (just too many articles on my watchlist, I guess!). Judging by the limited editing interests, it smells like an SPA. Cheers for now, and keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've just made a couple of copy edits on the relevant articles in order to bump them back up on my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! And thank you! :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have also added them to my watchlist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I left the user a TP message. I am not sure this would help them from being blocked but let us try this avenue first.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Toddy1, Ymblanter, thank you both as well! EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@EkoGraf, Toddy1, and Ymblanter: Thanks for the backup. A lot of these articles have been all but abandoned, giving POV-ers free reign to get away with destroying the integrity of the content. It's good to know there are a few editors ready to reign them back in again! Happy editing, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Anton Herashchenko

I noticed that the name Anton Herashchenko kept appearing, so I have started a stub article on him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddy1. I've added it to my watchlist and will see if I can find any additional sources for the bio. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Note that I did not do a test edit. It's my assessment in my best honesty. Ominae (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ominae: Responding (with apologies) on your talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Interview request

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Etchubykalo (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Fact proposal for Kiev page History section

Hello Iryna!How are You? Is it vacation time yet? Interesting fact, ancient road Via Regia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Regia), Kiev is mentioned on map. -- Best, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illucent (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem editor

Regarding Talk:Ruthenia#Recent edit IP edit war introducing non-consensus new text, and removing consensus text: the IP editor kept hopping IPs, so an admin (EdJohnston) gave the problem editor a one-month range block Special:Contributions/2601:191:8402:5f89::/64, on 20 September. I suspect that once this block ends, the IP editor will resume his/her problem edits across a wide range of Ukraine-related articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There is another tiresome IP-hopping edit-warrior who is also from New Jersey and also has a Ukrainian-nationalist POV at Special:Contributions/2601:84:C800:1BD0:3C53:D12F:1673::/64. But I do not think that he/she is the same person. Their patterns of edits are different, and the second one has different edit-summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Toddy1: Ugh. I've added the articles from that particular IP's contributions to my watchlist, and I'll keep my eyes open. Let me know of any other similar activities. I agree that it's not the same person, but we know there are hundreds of these spiders hiding under rocks waiting for editors to not notice them. Unless it's an obvious farm/sock/etc. situation, the only way to deal with them is one at a time with at least one other editor to let them know that Wikipedia (and 'we') don't tolerate their nationalism and bigotry. I'm only glad of the fact that we don't have to have anything to do with them personally. Imagine knowing people like that! Well, I guess I've met these types in real life over so many years: it doesn't make them any less ugly... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Blue Army

Hello! There is a discussion on the neutral point of view noticeboard [1] and article talk page [2] on a topic you had once contributed to/discussed. Feedback would be welcome!Faustian (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Translation?

Hello, Iryna. I hope you're doing well. I've been working on an article about Mikhail Borodin, and noticed the existence of an article about his son, Norman, on the Russian Wikipedia. I don't know if there is anything worthwhile content-wise, but perhaps the article could be translated for the English Wikipedia? Perhaps if you're bored and looking for something to do, you could take a look. Cheers, RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well

Hope you feel better soon Iryna! Sincerely, Darouet (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Iryna Harpy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My Accurate Posts

Absolutely none of my posts are anything but factual. Maybe you should focus on your health and look up "objectivity" rather than undermine the country you wrongly claim to be from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8402:5F89:252D:BF9E:6A07:FC26 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Happy New Year!

Iryna Harpy (Irynochka),
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2019}} to user talk pages.

Hair Peace Salon

Hello, Iryna Harpy! First of all, a happy New Year and Merry Christmas! (◕‿◕✿)

During the recent month a discussion was taken place in order to delete the Hair Peace Salon article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hair_Peace_Salon). Users who took prosecutor roles do not understand neither Russian, not Belarusian, but are striving to make serious takeaways, so if I did’t come with a few admins mainly operating in the Belarusian Wikipedia that kindly chimed in, it would be predominantly deleted.

Unfortunately, these members are not stopping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup#2018_posts). doomsdayer520 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=doomsdayer520) and Bbarmadillo (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Bbarmadillo) are destroying what has been built, removing links on references supporting the subject's notability, the alleged lack of which was being initially handled as a deletion trigger (and large chunks of text with them) by eye in a row, including sites like Generation.by, appearances on TV shows featured the band on YouTube (so where else videos have to be shown in public?), sources from the record label West Records (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Records) itself, 34mag.net, European Radio for Belarus, Tuzin.fm (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тузін_Гітоў) (despite this was actually highlighted to them in the deletion discussion that it is a worthy source), the music portal of xlam.by... On top of that, some of the deleted links were used in the text several times to bolster up all of written takes with reliable sources. Given a look on the profiles of the involved participants, it is clear that both are living in the English Wikipedia space and cannot rightfully evaluate Russian and Belarusian sources.

Please give me an advise what to do, cause you have experienced something like that, I believe. I think that to fight with “foreigners” rejecting changes 24/7 in the “real-time” is uselessness. User W from the Belarusian Wikipedia in Taraškievica has advised me to make articles in Belarusian first to be chosen as good articles over there, get a honorary “mark” (★), then to have them at hand to reference as good text examples to. But to make changes into a single article on 3–4 languages (English, official Belarusian, Taraškievica, Russian) at the same time is very difficult, especially when something is being changed on the one side somewhere, handling with keeping all the pages content synchronized, being faced with a task to recover and re-translate edits, and more… So I felt that on Gentleman. So, for example, before making an English Palina article, I became sure, that its Belarusian is pretty dope. It is much easier to just translate an already done and stable article)

Trying to involve into defense even more local wikipedians are a hard one, cause the Belarusian Wikipedia is relatively small compared to the English Wikipedia, the number of its active editors is limited, and the number of members that are good enough to argue in English with its native “juggernauts” from our community here is extremely limited– (〃A〃)ゞ

Thank you for reading this. Have a nice day! ʚ♡⃛ɞ(ू•ᴗ•ू❁)

P.S. I just kindly want to dive you into context that all articles in the field of rock music in Belarus have to fight for. As we may witnessed, 90% of them are stubs, lacking sources or so. Even the most good written one about Krambambula lacks references on takes, especially for sentences about early years of the band. Internet access was a luxury in Belarus (unlike more richer countries) until the start of the 2010s, so to support text topics about activities in the 90s and the early 2000s is a tough one( At its time we had the music newspaper Muzykalnaya Gazeta (closed in 2007). Since the second part of the 2000s, we were lucky to visit newly opened music portals like Памяркоўны Гук (p-guk.org) (closed in 2013), xlam.by (xlam.of.by) (closed in 2010), LiveSound.by (closed in 2009), ultra-music.com (became “frozen” in 2013), experty.by (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experty.by) (became “frozen” in 2017), another.by, Generation.by (both are “frozen” since 2017), etc. often. All of them were facing hosting bills, weak ad revenue, and more problems that caused all that general oblivion. Some works of their contributors have been archived by the Wayback Machine, some din't– Nowadays, just aforementioned Tuzin.fm (this one mainly covers the music being sung in the Belarusian language) and 34mag.net (this one is like a tabloid “everything about everything” and only a part of it involves into covering the local music scene) operate in the music field here. It's unfair to be punished just for the fact that a primary country is not wealthy(

Pr12402 | January 6, 2018

Could you try to write this piece again, User:Pr12402, but then in a polite and matter-of-fact way? So without the attacks and accusations? The Banner talk 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear The Banner, thank you for visiting here! My bad for letting you feel attacked( There are not many editors from the Belarusian Wikipedia who can step up and speak up in fluent English to participate in various discussions across the English Wikipedia which already has many co-workers. Otherwise, their number could let me bring up more opinions from who is native in Belarusian and Russian. Recent Hair Peace Salon cuts were made by a single person, highlighted “not trusted sources” like band’s website, label’s pieces, TV appearances on the CTV channel, Tuzin.fm, and more as minor edits are not worth a discussion upon them on page’s talk page to gain consensus while the sources of such kind are actively used in the similar Nickelback, Motörhead (Roadrunner Records and bands' websites) articles, for example. Given that into consideration, the official website reference and the text piece it bolsters up shall be deleted from the page Noel Hill you were contributed to making its subject even less notable. It’s frustrating to read long stories. That’s long story short. More can be seen just compared page revisions to dive into the matter of a fact way by yourself. Have a nice day! Pr12402 | January 7, 2018
Common policy is indeed Wikipedia:Reliable sources and that is asking for independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (no social media like YouTube and Facebook etc., no other Wikipedia-pages), prior published sources. But every language is permitted.
Given what you stated above, that editor is right to shoot down the own website as a source as it is clearly not an independent source. Sources provided by their label are more tricky. For basic info it is okay but you should be aware that labels list bands for reasons of marketing. I hope this info helps for the improvement of the article. The Banner talk 09:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Ow, and that you know go after the article Noel Hill (where I only added an infobox) is a bit childish. You better start improving your own article. The Banner talk 12:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of edits

Hi,

Recently you removed my creation of page for Joint Baltic Committee of Sydney. I am member of this committee and one of the latest task is to add information about the committee and the concert it organizes. Your comment: "Strange goings on by new user who seems to know how to make changes, redirect, etc. after only a handful of edits." I do not understand what my technical knowledge has to do with providing information about community organization?

Regards, Alfonsas Stonis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsas.stonis (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alfonsas.stonis. My apologies for the uncharitable summaries, however we do have paid WP:COI editing, people who are not here to build an encyclopaedia, advocacy and editors who intentionally disrupt Wikipedia's processes for the sake of being disruptive. These editors have been banned a thousand times, and keep returning over and over with new accounts, or editing from IP addresses (sometimes using illegal software & hacks to bounce their IP address to appear to be from other parts of the world), etc.
If I believe myself to be a good Wikipedian, I should have assumed good faith on your behalf. That was extremely bad practice on my behalf, and I apologise for the cynicism of years editing Wikipedia. I didn't redeclare myself as trying to practice good faith editing when there was a community redeclaration being signed informally a couple of years ago as I wasn't sure I could genuinely adhere to it and, as you see, I failed with you, whereas I have succeeded in my interaction with so many others. Of course you could have a natural aptitude in working with referencing, redirects, etc. It isn't difficult to look up processes, nor is it unlikely that you've edited as an IP before opening an account (I certainly did), hence your familiarity with the editing process. But I digress...
I see that you have declared your COI on your own page. That's a good first step. Please don't inform me of anything else about yourself, nor your editing activities. I don't want to know want you to write anything else on public pages that may lead to WP:OUTING. As you are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, I'd suggest that you read the link I've provided (also known as WP:PRIVACY) and think carefully about how much information about yourself you'd like to be disclosed, then contact a Wikipedia Foundation functionary (I'll ping @Whatamidoing (WMF): as she may be able to assist you further) in order to discuss your working in your specialised area. At the moment, please don't make any more changes as you didn't actually provide any reliable sources to back up your content changes. It is also imperative that you communicate with an appropriate Foundation member for purposes of identification as being who/what you say you are, your legal position as to editing articles in your area of expertise, and for the purposes of protecting your own rights. The first rule of anything to do with your relationship with your professional life and knowledge is to cover one's own backside. That a life lesson I learnt decades ago. I have no doubt you know it very well yourself. Unfortunately, I am not the right person to help you out on this matter, but I wish you all the best, and sincerely hope you will become the valuable contributor you wish to be. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, It has been years since I used talk page last time. In my memory it was much simpler :). I apologise in advance if I am using it wrong. Lucky I am persistent and information is here. I also had 2 reasons to help me: 1) community requests to correct information on Wikipedia and my own willingness to prove that you can improve information on Wikipedia (common knowledge among our community members is that all edits will be removed by default, so I was a bit prepared). Your apology accepted all good :). At the end I was able to fix some errors and add some information, so Wikipedia got better :). However, I have to admit deletion of my text felt quit discouraging, so I stopped editing, but I will come back when I have time.

Cheers, Alfas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsas.stonis (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

By all means, do come back to edit, Alfonsas.stonis: every editor who can add to the knowledge base that is Wikipedia is a precious commodity. Please do read the policies I directed you to before doing so. Kind regards to you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the Wikimedia Foundation is not generally concerned with volunteers creating pages about other organizations that they volunteer with. That's a matter for local communities. User:EdJohnston or User:Justlettersandnumbers have spent a lot of time at WP:COIN over the years and might be able to help, if there are any specific questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, Alfonsas.stonis, I'm happy to try to answer questions if there are any. I've restored the redirect at Joint Baltic Committee of Sydney for now because, although there was some content there, it was without any independent reliable source and so not verifiable. The best place to discuss that article is the talk-page, Talk:Joint Baltic Committee of Sydney. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi and History of the Russian language

Hi Iryna. I happen to know User:Incnis Mrsi and I met him in person on one occasion. Whereas his interactions with other editors around are not always ideal, I would be, let me put it like this, highly surprised if he starts using socks to advance his viewpoint. Therefore I think your comments at Talk:History of the Russian language miss the point. I think he behaved constructively there, and the sockpuppetry accusations were completely unjustified (no opinion on two other users involved).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yes, I'm now fairly certain this is the case, making it awkward to deal with this change to the article's talk page. For Incnis Mrsi's benefit, I think it's important to understand TPO, and that it's not okay to make any form of changes to anyone's comments other than his own. I would have been quite happy to offer an apology on the talk page. This has now become embarrassing, making his own changes on the article's talk page makes it look as if I have been publicly reprimanded via an ANI deciding that my comments need redaction. Unless you're happy to openly chastise me by taking on board as as admin to do so in his stead, I haven't even been given an opportunity to make appropriate amends.
I'll let Incnis Mrsi's changes stand if you deem it appropriate. Bad faith or not on my behalf, the man isn't paying attention to anything he's been told, and is making no effort to understand Wikipedia's protocols. I'll await - and respect - your judgement on this should you think his redaction be righteous. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not really ok to edit others' comments, but, on the other side, I was repeatedly told in the past that it is not ok to accuse someone in sockpuppetry without either going to SPI or having very clear proofs. I think, all in all, it is best to leave it as it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: As the young would say, it's "my bad". I guess that we see so much of it going on, it becomes second nature to assume bad faith. It's a bad attitude to adopt, so I agree that it's best left as is. I'm probably well, well overdue for being 'shamed' since the last time at an ANI. I needed a kick to remind me that Wikipedia is not my personal preserve to patrol, and that I don't know that anyone is anything other than who they say they are, even if I'm reminded of other editors I just can't quite put my finger on.
Hmm, can I still allow myself a modicum of cynicism for accounts that are so blatantly socks of long-time sockmasters that it's just embarrassing to interact with them? I say this on the proviso that I save the accusations for tangible diffs & comparative linguistics traits, etc. at an SPA rather than public declarations on article talk pages... Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I block IPs and users for block evasion without going to SPI and sometimes even not being exactly sure who the sockmaster is. If you see an obvious sock I think it is ok this is an obvious sock. However, I can also understand that, if you make a mistake and accuse a user who is not a sock in being a sock, the user gets offended.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

wishing a speedy recovery

hello Iryna I just wanted to drop by to wish you a speedy recovery. Hope you get well real soon. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, IP 199.101.62.225. That's very kind of you, and I deeply appreciate your good wishes. Good health to you... and happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Note at my talk

You're really reading too much into the situation. I took you to be a bit confused, and I wasn't embarrassed or angry at all :-) But thank you! When it's a longstanding editor who has no history of edit-warring blocks, I don't in the least mind an unblock long before the block expires; we all get tempted to edit-warring every so often, and nothing is a more obvious case of "blocks are meant to be preventive not punishment" than a first-time edit war. (Look at my block log; once you get past all the blocking tests and the time someone blocked me by mistake, you'll see that 3RR was my only "real" block.) Yes it would have been easier if you'd asked me directly, but it's definitely not a big deal. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Nyttend. I should have initiated a more civilized method for the parties involved to actually communicate with each other, and I accept that it was my lack of tact that was unnecessarily embarrassing to you, and has left Scholaire feeling further disillusioned with Wikipedia, that demonstrated extremely bad judgement on my behalf. That's still at the heart of the matter, and I have more than enough experience to know and do better on behalf of the community. I won't absolve myself, just try to do better on the COMMONSENSE front. All's well that ends well (but it should be better). Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, stop reading too much into it and stop thinking you need absolution or additional common sense. Everything was good through the whole procedure :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: LOL! Don't take my absolution talk too seriously. I'll 'trespass' again as soon as scratch my beehind (in the privacy of my own home, naturally, not in public). One thing I've learnt during my (many) decades on the planet is that I'm irredeemably arrogant, superior, and really very, very silly. I forgive myself. I should try harder, but I won't. I just like other contributors and admins to know so that they don't feel uncomfortable about telling me that I'm sucking on my teeth too loudly. If I deserve to be told to shut up, I need to be told to do so for everyone's good: I just ask that I be told to do so gently so that I don't pout publicly. Like many people, I take myself far too seriously. Perhaps unlike many people, however, I tend to find my taking myself seriously extremely amusing. The only thing I try to take seriously is NPOV, BLP violations, and trying not to be hurtful towards others in general (even if they're schtoopid and deserve to be humiliated to the nth degree). NPOV is, however, far more important than being nice to someone with a slightly wicked sense of humour coupled with no noticeable short term memory. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You are missed

I am surely not the only one who hopes for your return to generous employment of your intellectual and moral powers. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jim.henderson! I've had (and, well, technically still have) Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but if survival rates were contingent on a positive attitude, a sense of humour about personal mortality, and having been extremely fit (and keeping my fitness levels up), I've kicked the cancer out the door and it's history. I have to say that it's uplifting to receive messages of this ilk from impartial, talented long-standing editors I have great respect for (i.e.; such as yourself, my friend). I'm still keeping my eye on articles, and am about a week past hitting the nadir after radiotherapy to the lymph glands in my neck and under my left armpit. At the end of last year, I went through an autologous stem cell transplant (more information about the process can be found here and here). Chemotherapy can leave one addled for some time, so I'm building up my mental fortitude in order that I can feel confident that my analytical skills and ability to be as NPOV as possible are in reliable working order before I do more than stick to rolling back obvious vandalism and other non-Wikipedian behaviour... but I'll be back in full swing soon enough! Again, my thanks for thinking about me. I hope that all is going well in your life, and that both your own health and that of those you love is top notch. First world or third world, there is nothing more important than health. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear this. I wish you to get better soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Spasibo, Ymblanter. I'm so glad to see you're still around Wikipedia. I know you've been disenchanted, annoyed - well, just plain frustrated - after so many years of good work here and have thought of retiring. It would be a big loss Wikipedia in general, and controversial 'not quite the news' articles (Eastern European & Middle Eastern ones in particular) in particular if you weren't around to deal with the usual POV-ers, nationalists, and 'right great wrongs' crowd. I've been doing a lot more lurking over the last few days, so I fully anticipate getting back on track within a few months. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I wish you a speedy recovery, Iryna. I see that your wit is as sharp as ever. RGloucester — ☎ 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I too had been wondering why I had not seen any of your sensible contributions on contentious issues. Best wishes for a total recovery. LynwoodF (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both, RGloucester and LynwoodF. Given that, only a moment ago, a shadow cast by my hand across the bathroom basin had me convinced I was looking at a scuttling cockroach, until I stuck my face up close to the little blighter and realised what it actually was, I don't believe I'm in a position to comment on the subject of the extent of my wit; nevertheless, I would love to believe that I have my wits about me. It's not Plato but... meh, who am I kidding? Not even close, but does Adam Sandler actually believe himself to be a comic genius?
As to my own philosophy regarding life, I've ensured (as best I could) that I've had a fantastic journey, done completely irresponsible, wonderful 'stuff' spontaneously, and have tried to do what I could to help others. I'm not writing my own epitaph, but whatever the outcome, I've ensured that I had a diverse, slightly mad and slightly productive ride. It's certainly not over yet because I intend to go down swinging... even if it is at cockroaches. Love to you both. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Try some seaweed for your glandular health.49.104.0.50 (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you for your advice, 49.104.0.50. In fact, I've been taking spirulina (a fresh water algae) and seaweed powders for years as they're all highly beneficial for our bodies. I'm hardly a health food nut, but I do take various supplements... as well as eat things that are crud for your body according to whatever system you think is the most 'rational' when it comes to do's and don'ts. The verdict isn't really in on anything. Western medicine is effective, but not holistic. Research can be interpreted by anyone: doesn't mean much until it's integrated and proven to be effective. Stress, pollution, & a plethora of other factors coming together at the right moment remain the great unknown quantity. Besides, what drug company wants to invest in cancer research when the money is in stay slim/looking young/beautiful/sexually appealing/with a high libido, & the other great first world obsessions they can rub their parasitic little front legs over when the cash flows in?
Mind you, don't believe for one moment that you'll find my personal opinion reflected in editing. It may happen as a knee-jerk reaction - even with experience - but I can and will retract a position if I am reminded that it doesn't follow what the community deems to be RS. As difficult as it may seem to be, it only takes a bit of self discipline to remove oneself from POV editing and following reliable sources. If you do edit here without an account, I hope you bring this to the table when you edit. Thank you for your advice, and happy editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I also wish you to get better soon Iryna! It would be nice to see you active as usual here on Wikipedia! Especially since I myself is winding down my Wikipedia activity to a bear necessary level... (This is due to pursuing other activities in life now and not because of anything else.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yulia Romero: Hi, and thanks. I have a feeling that I didn't respond to you as yet, although I certainly noticed your comment. It's really heartening to get messages from people I've worked/edited with over the years, and have had a good relationship with. Yes, I've noticed that you're not around often anymore, but that you've been active just recently. I've taken that as an opportunity to send you my greetings and hugs so that you hopefully get them around the time I post. Wikipedia is a hard habit to kick. Yes, there are a lot of articles you know I haven't finished cleaning up, updating, and removing trolled misinformation from but, by hook or by crook, I'll get to them. Stay well and keep up your good work when you can. No doubt we'll be passing each other on articles for years to come, and watching new editors with a positive commitment working on those articles. Just as it is with politicians and politics, it's up to plebs like us to keep 'em honest! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you + ♥ — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RE:June 2019

Hi Iryna. I consider that your reversion to Talk:Asian Peruvians is a mistake. The Asian Peruvians are one of most relevant denizens to understand is a mistake. The Asian Peruvians are one of the most relevant inhabitants to understand the Peruvian culture, such as how the Chifa food emerged, for example. They were even able to became influiencial politicians, like happened with Alberto Fujimori, who was the President of Peru in the 1990's. I classified the article as high importance, if you think that I'm wrong please talk to me. Have a nice day!

--2x2leax (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence on your page

Hi Iryna,

the first sentence on your page reads: "I am happy to avail myself for assistance in copy-editing entries, [...]" But the verb "avail" in this meaning seems to be old fashioned. The phrase "to avail myself for assistance" returns zero hits in Google. So, how about "to be helpful in" (45 millions hits)? Vikom talk 21:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: Hi. Yes, you're correct, it is a little on the anachronistic side, but it is grammatically correct for British English, Australian & New Zealand English, etc. In fact, I've already compromised my particular variant of the English language by referring to the process as "copy-editing" (note the double quote marks rather than single quote marks). I could argue that the process is actually known as proof-reading, whereas copy-editing merely caters to a US-centric bias. As it is my own page, I'm under no obligation to cater to any one MOS:ENGVAR, so I've opted to mix-and-match. The only place I'm under obligation to follow the protocols of MOS: is within the articles themselves. Google is not the be all and end all of life, the English language: it's a measure of itself and asks you whether you mean X rather than Y because it is the end product of millions of users mistyping, making things up as they go, et al.!
I'm not sure as to whether there was a question/criticism/suggestion implicit in your observation, but I hope I've answered your concern (whatever it happens to be). By all means, if there was something specific you wished to point out which I've not answered, please let me know and I hope I can assist you. I commend you for your vigilance, but wonder at what the missive is about. Please don't think I'm mocking you in any way, because I truly am not. As I say, if you wish to clarify the underlying thought behind your message, by all means do. Happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply, but I was absent from here, which is easy to verify. You probably perceived my post as spiteful criticism, which was not my intention. I would be very grateful for every mistake pointed by you in my writing because I find it extremely beneficial for improving my language skills. It's not easy to be perfect in English, because the language itself is far from being perfect. Just the opposite - it is illogical, inconsistent and ambiguous. You claim to be a copy editor, and, indeed, your English is excellent, sometimes even too sophisticated, at least from my perspective. So I thought you must be a perfectionist like me, and I regarded your page as an example of good writing. When I found a slight imperfection I wanted to let you know about it, but I couldn't find your email (do you have any?), so I decided to use your talk page, and this was a bad decision. I am sorry for my inappropriate behavior, especially that you are experiencing serious health issues. By the way, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc. are all crucial but, as you probably know, your positive thoughts can increase the ability of your immune system. I even visited all 4 links that you provided. Why? Because I know you a bit. We met (in cyberspace) 5 years ago. I wish you fast recovery :-) Vikom talk 04:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, hello Vikom. It is, indeed, lovely to reacquaint ourselves! My apologies for a less than gracious response. I seem to have become less than I should be, and what I expect of myself, so I thank you for pulling me up on what comes across as a curt response. In all honesty, I didn't mean it to be rude. I hope my explanation was clear to you: it's the honest reason I don't have a more concise OWN PAGE than the one I've had up for so many years. Yes, language is deeply complex, and I believe that applies right across the board. English grammar is far simpler than that of other languages (or, should I say, it has evolved to be so), yet spelling, exceptions to rules, and a myriad of other aspects of English can be more difficult to grasp than other (essentially European) languages. If you encounter any difficulties with editing, I'm happy to help out in as much as I'm able. North American English (US and Canadian English), for example, are ones I try to avoid. Canadian English is closer to Australian, New Zealand and British English that is US English, so the best I can do when copy-editing is follow the advice at Wikipedia:Typo Team. It provides links to comparative dictionaries and other little tips and tricks that might be of use. I also download different dictionaries for the browsers I use (Firefox and Chrome are my preferred browsers) and switch between the spell checkers dependent on the Engvar used for the relevant article. Even there, I try to check around carefully before I add or accept some of the suggestions. I'd rather double-check using online dictionaries for that region (i.e., South African English) than perpetuate errors.
I hope this helps you to some extent. Details such as punctuation are more difficult to check up. If you'd like to consult with me, please ask. With a bit of luck we'll be able to work out things we're both uncertain of together. Let's hop that two heads are better than one! Oh, and thank you for your good wishes. Best! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There are things in English that drive me crazy, for example "the reason is because" or "oftentimes". How is it that the word "oftentimes" has been accepted by the Oxford Dictionary? There are also misplaced modifiers, which I correct, like in this edit. I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool. After all, who does not read Wikipedia? The problem is that I have a "friend" here, who rejects almost all my edits, e.g. here. No one ever questioned my corrections of misplaced modifiers.
Vikom talk 04:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vikom: I applaud your for your diligence and feel equally exasperated over the speed with which contemporary dictionaries accept erroneous colloquialisms. I don't think you'd encounter disputes with removing them. I can only say that best practice is to avoid them. If it comes down to having an argument with another editor, I think it should be referred to the spelling and grammar talk pages. I've never heard of "oftentimes" outside of being an imaginary word. It certainly does not exist in any English variant other than American English!
Frankly, I'm not certain as to whether free online versions of English dictionaries (including the Oxford dictionary as some sort of authority on American English) have anything to do with the official versions, so it's best to check at the centralised talk pages for confirmation by editors who have access to the contemporary official versions. Mind you, I've had hefty disputes on those pages because Australian English recognises the Macquarie Dictionary as the authority for tertiary level institutions. I have had to beg to differ on more than one occasion where it was demonstrable that the common spelling of many words has not been Americanised in the manner that dictionary would have it... The fact remains, however, that I have had to write to conform to that dictionary (under protest) in order for my research papers and essays to carry my university's byline, as have other friends/academics. We don't have the power to change the order, and I don't recognise the English I learnt from childhood as being related to contemporary forms. Becoming the primary lingua franca has changed the language's complexion to the point where it will soon need an overhaul as it did to drag it of the Middle English rut of 5 ways to spell the same word in a single paragraph (not that paragraphs existed at that point)!
It's a frustrating old world, but we both made the same pact with Wikipedia when we started editing: we follow the recognised sources whether we agree with them or not. You'd think that WP:COMMONSENSE would prevail, but the evolution of language is not a story of logic. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I see you have appreciated my edit, thanks. Unlike you, I prefer plain English (American version) - not only here, but anywhere, because I want to be easily understood by many readers, not necessarily proverbial village idiots but non-native English speakers, which could have problems with a sentence like this: "I will try to fathom your arduous posts because I am an assiduous reader". (allusion intended, but no offense meant) For me, the most valuable words and phrases are those most commonly used. So, I don't think I will ever use the word "fathom" , "assiduous", etc. Women are known for their empathy, right? Your English is much better than mine. So, could you use plain English in your posts to me? However, if your empathy is not so good, you can make a simple experiment: Try to write anything to me in Polish, and I will be able to show you how good I am in Polish;-) English, like any other language, is only a means of communication but, unlike Polish, allows to communicate with much more people, and from different countries. If I could, I would convert [reform] English radically to make it easier and much more logical. But why reinvent the wheel? How is it that Esperanto is not taught in every elementary school all over the world? By the way, the inventor of Esperanto was born in Białystok, which is my city. If you ever visit Białystok, let me now. We could talk in Russian too :-)
Vikom talk 05:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vikom: My apologies for not using simple English. I try to be more civilised and stick to simple English when communicating with LOTE (first Language Other Than English) editors. I suppose I've been using frou-frou English for years because I've made my living from being a wordsmith. Writing for parliamentarians, for example, can mean using emotive language rather than conveying an idea as I'd do for Wikipedia. It's been driven into me so deeply that I know what to look for (and get rid of) in articles, but it's second nature for my normal speech and writing. I haven't written in the creative fields for years, but I'm a published poet and short story writer. Playing with words - especially using them to be evocative - has always been a passion. I'm glad you pulled me up on this because I don't even realise how much I do it! I promise to try to do better. I probably confuse other editors instead of clearly stating what my opinion is, and why. Just don't ask me to give up my sense of humour from time to time (only when and where it's appropriate)... Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, plain English is pretty well defined, and does not mean "simple English" or "primitive English". For example, when I am watching this or this, I understand everything without subtitles, just by listening. These guys use plain English, but they have something interesting to say. They don't use words or phrases that exist only in American English or only in British English. They don't play with words, instead, they focus entirely on concepts they want to convey and they do it perfectly. I love films like these. Should I feel inferior?

  • I'm glad you pulled me up on this [...]

According to https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/pull-up_2 :

"pull somebody up" = (British English, informal): to criticize somebody for something that they have done wrong

If you had written "I'm glad you criticized me on this [...]", I wouldn't have searched anything in dictionaries. Besides, I am not sure if I criticized you. I showed you what it looked like from my perspective - a very natural point of view, by the way ;-) In your previous post you wrote:

  • Mind you, I've had hefty disputes on [...]

But "mind you" is used only in British English. You could have used something more international, like "remember", "notice" or "keep in mind".

To sum up, Australia is far away from Poland, but I feel as if we live on two different planets;-)
Vikom talk 02:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Vikom You're out of your depth, out of your element, out of your wits, or all three. If you don't know that "mind you" is "international" you have no business trying to "fix" the "English" on Wikipedia to remove words like "tenet". I'll be reverting any changes you make like that if someone else doesn't catch them. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleting External links modified is allowed

I believe your revert on the Talk Page is a mistake. Archiving the million or so External links modified sections is not required. You can see here in the tiny small print of of this page that any editor can delete the section. It doesn't say the section has to be archived. You wrote "There's no harm in their being kept for the record, so why not just archive them (which I'll do now)." That is not necessary. There is a discussion somewhere about it and I'll search for it again if/when I have time. The consensus also was to not send a bot to delete the more than a million instances of the message on talk pages. The consensus was to let editors delete them, that it why it is indicated on this talk page for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardisoma_guanhumi - where it says, and I will quote it

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template { { sourcecheck } } (last update: 15 July 2018).

The consensus was that editors will check the archives if they want or won't check the archives if they don't want. But the text itself can be deleted, doesn't need to be archived. You can find the discussion and consensus here: But thanks for pointing me in the direction of the One-Click Archive tool. That may come in handy one day...----The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The Eloquent Peasant. Lovely to meet you. It's amazing - and rewarding - to know that there are so many fabulous editors out there who've been around for years, yet I've never encountered before. It's great to be reminded that there really are people looking out for all of those Wikipedia articles one worries only tumbleweeds ever pass through any more. Gushing aside, I'm aware of the decision. Personally, I !voted to retain the talk page heads-up as it gave me the opportunity for a second chance at being informed that dead links had possibly been salvaged. You know what extensive watchlists are like: if you've opted in for email notification of changes, most drop off soon into the piece so having both the article and the talk page modified increases the chances of being informed of the activity. This is where I used to go in for a couple of days to really do some solid copy editing, fixing ref lists, checking that the citations supported the content, ad infinitum. Still, that was only a personal methodology, so I cut my loses without feeling disgruntled.
Initially, I started removing old archive missives myself in order to declutter talk pages, but I realised that it still gave me a chance to go back to pages with lists of modified links that hadn't been checked. I don't know whether you do much work of this nature, but InternetArchiveBot gets a significant enough percentage of archives wrong (captures of redirects to 404 pages, dead link captures, etc.). It also can't find titles where they weren't included in the first instance, removes salient information from reference entries incorrectly formed, and can't translate titles. I still use unchecked lists (including going through archived talk) when I stumble on new articles to copy edit.
Apologies for the lengthy explanation as to why I archived the sections. Of course I realise that it was perfectly appropriate for you to delete them but, as it's not particularly byte-heavy to retain them, I hope you don't mind if I do so by archiving as an alternative. Glad to have put you onto one-click archiver. A word of warning: if you work with a number of windows open simultaneously, be careful not to inadvertently archive a section on someone else's talk! I did it once. Fortunately, I realised what had happened fairly quickly and I self-reverted with a profound apology to the very kind and tolerant user whose page I'd 'violated'. Facepalm moments I can't take back. Sigh.
I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended by my revert. I most certainly didn't intend to cause offence, nor did I perceive your action as being even slightly improper. What was improper was my failure to leave you a message explaining why I'd reverted. I've already administered a giant trout slap to myself, but please feel free to whack me with a whale. Best! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Good day! I was not offended at all but always try to meet people by leaving them messages or thanking them. And it is so nice to meet you too! One must have the patience of a saint to work with archived references. It's on my list of things to do but not something I'll focus on now. Thanks. It was a nice message to wake up to. I created this article, Liz Ham, a long time ago. Do you like it? I don't think anyone has really looked it over for grammar, except probably the artist herself. I would love it if you had a look at it and fixed any thing that sounded weird.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@The Eloquent Peasant: It took me a few days to get to your article as I just had a new hard drive installed on my computer, and I abhor using my mobile for reading, editing (or even responding to anything) on Wikipedia. I'm all thumbs when it comes to the keyboard on an iphone, or having to pull out my reading glasses to read the teeny-weeny pages. It gives me a headache. It's good to see some more Australian notables having articles written on them. Wikipedia is still Amerocentric with articles on very dubious 'notables', particularly musicians. I've added the article on her to my watchlist and, if I stumble across any reliably sourced info on her, I'll add, add, add! There are a few other Australian artists who dearly qualify for dedicated articles, but finding RS for them involves trying to find old physical copies of everything from "Quadrant" to older academic journals. One of these days I'm heading to Monash library with a list to see what I can dig up. Problem is, once I get immersed in there, I may not be seen again for months.
As for any copy editing, IMHO the tone and flow of the article is excellent. Nothing 'weird' going on, so any changes would just be unnecessary tampering. A little latter today (or early tomorrow), I'll just template it for Engvar, day/month/year, plus expand the references. I have some chores to attend to at this moment so, if I forget, drop me a line to remind me. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm sorry you're not feeling well. I hope you get better soon.

The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. Suits me down to the ground as I'm a cat person. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

mehr alizer

If you check history of article, its not me who add her jewish descent, I am just add categories according to information of article --FPP (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, FPP. Absolutely! I understood your fixes to be in good faith. If you check my missive again, you'll note I was aware of what had happened. My apologies for coming across as being brusque. I really shouldn't have templated you (per WP:DTTR), but for some reason I did (probably rushing through & just didn't think to self revert & just leave a quick heads up). I merely wanted to point out that we all get suckered in occasionally (believe me, I've made the same types of mistakes myself when I'm just ogreing), and that it's sometimes prudent to check that sourcing matches up with the contention, particularly for newer BLPs & those likely to attract obscure interest groups. Nice to meet you, and keep up the good work you do. In the end, we all work as a team and it goes to show that the system works because mistakes get picked up... which is the main point of the exercise. All's well that ends well, but you'd be justified in trout slapping me anyway. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Cossacks

Hi,

you may check the recent edits in the article referred in the subject. Roughly Gothic/Germanic origin substratum have been introduced, worths a look onto it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi, KIENGIR. Thanks for the heads up regarding the article. There seems to have been a big burst of activity with new editors involving themselves in DNA content in particular. What's your take on these changes? Do you think it's above board? Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the DNA content is where other editors chimed in and debated it, however, what took my attention the massive alteration to Germanic ancestry, that is for me at least interesting, I did not know about it, however reffering to them in the lead as "Slavo-Germanic" and massively push this everywhere like a recent something seems problematic, as Cossacks - regardless of early possible Germanic partial connection - are mainly of Slavic-offspring...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

Kyiv, not Kiev

Can you please correct the spelling of Ukraine's capital to "Kyiv", not Kiev.

Kiev is the Russian transliteration, while Kyiv is the Ukrainian one. Using the Russian spelling affirms this “condescending view that Russians have” of the country. ChrisRaz16 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No, @ChrisRaz16:, I can't and won't "correct" the spelling as it is the correct English language WP:COMMONNAME. This is English language Wikipedia - a tertiary, encyclopaedic resource - where we follow the mainstream conventions of the Anglophone world. The discussion page (and long-timers have given up on counting how many archived requests for moves and their parallel discussions are retained there) can be found at Talk:Kiev/naming. I would suggest that you read the years of arguments with care because it seems unlikely that there will be a change any time soon. If there is a dramatic shift, Wikipedians who work on Eastern European themed articles will certainly be aware of it and it'll be changed promptly. Until such a time, it remains Kiev per common usage in the English language. Incidentally, how it evolved is irrelevant because 'Kiev' has been used in the English speaking world for centuries. A lot of names in a multitude of languages don't even begin to resemble the native language's name (Deutschland doesn't sound anything like Germany or Німеччина, but there you have it: neither English or Ukrainian show any interest in changing the name). Incidentally, the transliteration from Russian is "Kiyev", while the transliteration from Ukrainian is "Ky'iv".Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy/Archive_35&oldid=998914648"