User talk:Iryna Harpy

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)