User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 5

Article Russian Federation. completion pleas.
Would it be possible articles   with a few words about Putsh by GRU RF burst, while describing very good choice under President in 2012, from which complete division was the GRU, Nr. 12 ? was the Tschutschmeki? Mogametaner's? Thank you Malisuperbrand (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

❌ Could not establish what user was trying to convey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CIS maps
CONTEXT FOR EDITORS I'VE INVITED FOR COMMENT: Dag13 began changing the maps for CIS member countries several days ago without any indication as to what they were depicting. As I saw no indication as to their context, I immediately jumped to conclusions and even submitted a couple of deletion requests myself at Wikimedia Commons (which I've since retracted). Please see this discussion on the. I'd consider it to be useful to depict the CIS countries within a context (i.e., as per EU countries, the Germany page map and EU context as an example), I proposed that the legend be fixed and that they must be added with a link and legend simultaneously in the infobox, plus a clear edit summary as to what the maps are referencing. I'm envisaging that editors on some pages won't be as receptive to the idea as I am, so just wanted comments from others who might be interested. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed world maps on Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine maps and changed legend texts on all maps, if there is another mistakes pls tell me about them and i will repair them, if no i will change original maps to my maps. And I want thank you for helping and for adding categories.--Dag13 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Dag13. It all looks fine to me but I'm going to call in a few other editors involved/interested in the CIS geographical regions for their better informed opinions.


 * Please abstain from changing the maps until we hear from them. In the meantime, I'm putting all of the CIS signatory countries and the de facto one on my watchlist. I think you may have to consider creating another set of maps with Ukraine in an even paler green(?) for the legend to illustrate that it isn't a legal signatory. While I may be of the opinion that a de facto relationship is still a legal relationship, I doubt that this will be greeted as receptively by other contributors/editors working the page in question.


 * The Moldova map, for example, will be added with the following parameters in the infobox: – in the Commonwealth of Independent States (green) — [ Legend ] in line with the German example for the infobox as |image_map = EU-Germany.svg |map_caption =


 * In order that Dag13 doesn't have to deal with the fallout on his own (and I predict there will be some fallout!), I propose that he change the maps, then I go in directly with the modifications to the infobox. Considering that his English isn't up to par to argue his case, it requires that someone with a better command of English be prepared to tackle potential disputes on the talk page.


 * The proposed new maps to substitute the existing ones are as follows:
 * Armenia map for Armenia;
 * Azerbaijan map for Azerbaijan;
 * Belarus map for Belarus;
 * Kazakhstan map for Kazakhstan;
 * Kyrgyzstan map for Kyrgyzstan;
 * Moldova map for Moldova;
 * Russia map for Russia;
 * Tajikistan map for Tajikistan;
 * Uzbekistan map for Uzbekistan;
 * Ukraine map for Ukraine.


 * Any further comments or recommendations would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of an opinion here. On the one hand, I don't think that the CIS is of as much geopolitical importance for its members as the EU to mark it in the relevant countries' main maps. On the other hand, the change is relatively small. *shrug* One thing should be changed, though - Moldova and Azerbaijan should have their breakaway regions marked accordingly. The file names should probably also be translated into English, for consistency. --illythr (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observations, Illythr. I agree with your points. Transnistria is certainly currently depicted. I'd also envisage that, unless the maps are accepted by editors on every article, for the sake of consistency there's no point in having a patchwork of some with, some without. I suspect that, rather than maps, simply an infobox link would suffice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late input (I was gone and then busy), but I'm pretty much with Illythr on this one. The CIS is not the EU, but my philosophy is that it's better to have appropriate maps than to not have them. These may or may not need to be as prominent as to be put into the infoboxes, but I'm sure they'll find other uses elsewhere (perhaps further down in the main articles, in the International relations sections). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 12, 2013; 17:47 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making time to consider the proposal, Ezhiki. Agreed that the maps will be useful at some point. As noted to Illythr, perhaps just a link to the CIS page in the infobox would suffice if editors/contributors on all the relevant pages agreeable. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops
hi Iryna,

This isn't the first time I've had to say 'oops' after a discussion board posting. I use them to speak to a wider range of people, and use other editors' points to make mine. However, I remain unskilled at stating my piece and keeping it clearly impersonal. My comments about "head in the sand" could not have been taken any way other than personally by you, and for that I am sorry - the entire paragraph was meant to speak to the proposals up for debate, as well as a recent ANI, and to editors who will recognize themselves if they read it. But it was not in any way directed at you, I merely used some of your points as a jumping off place. I do this all the time, and later realize that it looks like I have slammed the editor who last commented. This may not make sense at all, but I did want to make sure that you knew anything seeming personal was in fact not. And I very much like interacting with you. In joy,   petrarchan47  t  c   00:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the apology, Petrarchan47, but it truly was absolutely unnecessary. I'm so thick that I can't actually see what could be construed as an insult. Just go to any article I've worked on, take a look at the talk page, and you'll find an elephant in the room: me. I'm agonisingly verbose, tangential and, unlike you, I can't even find a pattern as to how my written communiques stumble into place. I'm far better in face-to-face natters where people can get a grasp of how obscure, obtuse and wicked with my humour I actually am. Don't you just wish we had the option of going back to talk pages and editing them like an article? Uff! Lovely to meet you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good God, you're hilarious. Yes, I wish I could edit talk pages and my own RL history for that matter!   petrarchan47  t  c   01:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In RL I ought to stuff a teatowel in my mouth as soon as I've cleaned my teeth in the morning and not take it out again until I clean my teeth before going to bed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, me too! My meditation teacher would love this idea. I did think about your idea - if we could erase any past edits, what would they be? I would delete every single thing I've 'said', and leave just contributions to articles. If only...  petrarchan47  t  c   21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I do actually use talk pages for consensus building (other than flame wars, they are desperately underused on the most contentious POV articles). I don't think I'd want to delete everything... but, boy, would I love to be able to redact my own babbles. I swear, many of them look as if I'm an agent provocateur who can't remember who they're working for. Strike the elephant in the room and replace it with a shark circling itself. If only I could stop biting my own bottom. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A mouthful there, Iryna. True, much of my edits to articles could only happen or remain due to my chatting on the talk page. It's just that recently i've realized that i can only pull off sounding smart or cool for so long, unless i just shut up, which i seem unable to do. It may be too late. Anyway, good luck with that bottom-biting stuff! Hopefully no one but you has noticed ;)   petrarchan47  t  c   03:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that I've confused covering my arse with biting it. If anyone has noticed that I'm actually a nincompoop they're either too polite (frightened?) to say anything or my personal suspicion that I've confounded them into believing that there's an astute observation lurking in there. Different strokes for different folks. If waffling on talk pages assists in developing a better article, all the more power to us. I don't really have enough of a sense of dignity to let it stand in the way of creating a better resource. At least you know that, should be bump into each other on a talk page, we don't have to go through the process of apologising for our thinking out loud - a lot - processes. I'd rather massive talk pages full of analytical processes than edit wars in articles with no information as to the why, who and when. Keep up the good/weird work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers to that! There's something to be said for letting it all hang out, even in RL. Nice to have met you, Iryna. No more apologies from me.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Вiтаю Вас Iрина. Я вибачаюсь, але я ще не дуже добре вмiю користуватися Вікіпедія. Якщо ви маєте менi щось сказати, або спитати, то можете написати менi на адресу: valero72@mail.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valero123 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Galicia (central Europe)
Dear Iryna, I have standardised the naming on English Wikipedia (before that it was referring to Galicia as a part of either central Europe, or eastern Europe). Now it is standardised to one. I did it in good faith because the current situation gave an impression that there are 3 Galicias (1 in Spain, one in central Europe and one in eastern Europe) to suit all other Wikipedias. Geoographically Galicia is in central Europe and I thought it is the most neutral POV, hence the changes made.--Martina Moreau (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, Martina. I've understood where your mistake lies. Please refer to the current discussion for further information. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Iryna Harpy! Thank you for your thanks!

To be honest, if I had known how much time it would take to undo all of this mess, I probably wouldn't have been so eager! I hope Martina thinks twice about mass changes in the future. It takes more time to fix mistakes than to do them in the first place! Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As you've noted on one page or another (I'm losing track!), it's worse than mindless vandalism. Much as I hate quoting Monty Python, I am compelled to say, "My brain hurts!." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, thanks! We have enough serious work in getting and keeping articles up to par without disruptions. Whatever our personal preferences may or may not be, the policies and protocols make sense. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I second that barnstar! Well done, great diplomatic work and a truly tireless Wiki contributor :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Chaosdruid. I'm touched by both of your votes of confidence regarding my little contributions to Wikipedia. I just try to do what I can. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Kamianets-Podilskyi
I think it should be necessary to put the Russian version of the name of Kamianets-Podilskyi (Kamenec-Podolskij) beside the Ukrainian, the Polish, the Romanian and the Armenian ones. After all, the city was part of the Russian Empire, and then of the Soviet Union, for almost two centuries, and some people know only its old Russian name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.72.225 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pulling me up on this. I'm making a public note of my agreement with you on the article's talk page underneath the comment you left there. Cyrillic scripts are so much second nature to me that I tend to just recognise the names written in Ukrainian, Russian or Belarusian without thinking about them. For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that the pronunciation was identical in Ukrainian and Russian which, of course, it most definitely isn't. Cheers for your patience! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert at Premishlan (Hasidic dynasty)
I'm sorry; I did not understand your edit summary: what did you mean by the "category you've created", and what are the "correct channels" via which one should by approved?

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sincerest apologies, הסרפד. I was in exhausted panic-mode and completely misconstrued your edit, reading it as the addition of a non-existent category. You may have noted that a certain user had made a unilateral decision to create a few new categories and move existing categories into them (including Jewish Galician categories). It's taken a couple of days of painstaking manual work cleaning up the mess as simple rollbacks would have lost constructive changes to articles involved. I just saw 'non-existent category' and reverted! I've just restored your version and hope I haven't given you too much of a headache trying to figure out what was going on.


 * As you've contacted me, I may as well make the best of my faux pas by extending an invitation to join in on a discussion regarding changing the Galicia category as it would also impact on any Jewish projects (historical, familial, etc.) surrounding the region. A quick look at the headless chook panic of November 2013 might provide you with a little insight into my embarrassing revert. As I'd intended to touch base with those working on related Jewish categories anyway, please feel to invite any potentially interested parties as all input would be appreciated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, I was sure I was missing something... but in any case, I am aware of the Central/Eastern Europe debate about Galicia, but I don't car enough to involve myself in this nationalism-tainted issue. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 19:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS In the Western Hemisphere, we don't know what chooks are, were it not for Google... הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear! My apologies! I seldom use colloquialisms and, wouldn't you know it, when I did decide to throw one in I was unaware of its being Australian-New Zealand specific. At least you'll be able to remember me as the woman who provided you with yet another piece of useless information which doesn't enrich anyone's life in any meaningful way.


 * I empathise with your not being interested in the discussion as I've been caught up in the discussion by default. I just wanted to ensure that anyone/any projects associated with potential 'recategorization' was aware of it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Off
This may seem a bit out of the blue, but have you perchance shared anything with me on GDrive?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 20, 2013; 14:05 (UTC)
 * No. Had I done so, I would have informed you. Sounds interesting... or ominous. Good luck in finding your anonymous tipster! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know and sorry to have bothered you with this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 20, 2013; 21:44 (UTC)
 * Not a problem (or a bother)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine
Dear Irina, Crimean Khanate was occupied firstly by Russian Empire in 1736 during Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39), secondly in 1771 during Russo-Turkish_War_(1768–74), thirdly in 1778, fourthly in 1780 and fifthly in 1782. It was finally annexed to Russia in 19 April 1783 after Catherine the Great's declaring manifesto. So, conquest of the khanate was occurred in 1783. Finally Russians formed Taurida Oblast (later renamed as Governorate in 1802) the territories of it except them at east of Strait of Kerch, was divided between Azov Governorate (in 1783 was merged into Yekaterinoslav Governorate), Governorate of Taganrog, Black Sea Cossack Host and Don Host Oblast.
 * Thanks for the information (as there was no citation provided as to the date in the first instance). Could you provide me with the relevant sources/a relevant source, please? I don't mind whether it's in English, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus or any other language as I'll be able to translate the relevant section for English Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Prince of Kiev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)