Open main menu


Contents

You are missedEdit

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)

Incnis Mrsi and History of the Russian languageEdit

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)

The first sentence on your pageEdit

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)

wishing a speedy recoveryEdit

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 talkEdit

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)

RE:June 2019Edit

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 June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Return to the user page of "Iryna Harpy".