User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

A cookie for you

No such user has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your accurate and gentle analysis [1][2]. I plead guilty to your WP:OWN charge. In my defense, I lost my temper after having to clean up after Androoox on Friday afternoon, after an otherwise frenzy work week, and he would have continued ad infinitum if I didn't step in. No such user (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

The grammatical errors I fixed have nothing wrong with them? They do make it easier to read because there was incorrect English grammar in the article. There was nothing wrong with that I added; I made the article have correct English grammar. Without my edits, the article has many grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the grammar of the sentence you 'improved' as it stood (and will continue to stand until the article is copyedited by someone who is a copyeditor for Wikipedia, such as myself, or someone with the proficiency of a copyeditor). Having taken a look at your talk page, it is evident that your English skills aren't up to par. Please, take my word on the matter.

While it is appreciated that you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, perhaps there are other areas you'd be interested in tackling. You may wish to look at some of the project groups in need of assistance for fighting vandalism and other specific areas in urgent need of as many volunteers as they can muster. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There actually was. Many of the sentences had misplaced clauses or commas. How could you not tell there were misplaced commas? Take, for instance, this sentence from the unrevised version of the page: "Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Armenia supports the de-facto independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which arose after a long and bitter war in the early 1990s."

There is a grammatical error in that sentence. There should be a comma after the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic."

This is just one of many cases throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies, Penguins53. I was charging through quite a few pages simultaneously and failed to scroll down. Only having noticed one edit, which was neither here nor there, I went into auto-revert mode.

I assume that you checked that the article is predominantly GB English (if memory serves me correctly, it is) in order to maintain consistency. If not, I'd be grateful if you could give it a glance to ensure that there are no residual Americanisms remaining. Personally, my preference it to err on the side of GB as I can't abide by using 'that' where 'which' is required. In the meantime, I've reverted myself back to your version. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I speak Spanish

I speak Spanish and was just translating the word. My edits were not disruptive. I was just trying to improve the articles by giving the translation. AbelM7 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of whether you speak Spanish or not. Please familiarise yourself with WP:MOS as you are misunderstanding the fundamental structures in place. Per MOS:FORLANG (explicit directives for the lead of an article), the brackets are not for a thousand and one convolutions of translations of the text into Spanish, but the Spanish variant alone. As an example, see the corresponding article for Cuban American in the ES Wikipedia: "El término cubano-estadounidense (en inglés Cuban-American) se utiliza para referirse a las personas de origen cubano que viven en Estados Unidos." Do you get the gist of the issue at hand now? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Americano is the translation of American. It's just two translation, not a thousand and one. There is no other word in English to call Cuban Americans so the Spanish article cannot use another one. AbelM7 (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the guidelines having become the common rationale for use of non-English varieties of a name when dealing with non-English subject matter. You would have noted that, not only I, but other editors have reverted on articles you've added the 'americano' translation to, also citing 'no sources' as the rationale. In conducting a google search, I couldn't find any references to the use of the term 'Cubano americano', nor using google ngram. Unless you can demonstrate that it is used (that it, provide citations to WP:V and WP:RS) it's just redundant information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I also used google ngram for 'Cubano estadounidense' and got no results so I guess we should just delete that too. Cuban American isn't really much of an official name, just a term. If we were talking about, say, countries then we can say that Estados Unidos Mexicanos is the official name of Mexico because it is officially. This translation doesn't need a source, it's just common sense for a person who speaks Spanish and English. Cuban in Spanish is cubano and American in Spanish is americano. Put those words together and you get cubano americano just like putting Cuban and American together gets you Cuban American. If I want translate Cuban American National Foundation to Spanish then it will be Fundación Nacional Cubano Americano. If you just want one translation then use cubano americano since it is the translation. AbelM7 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that you've finally worked out how to source for yourself. If a term is in common use, there should be ample sources for it. Arguing with editors (such as myself) over a piece of what is, ultimately, WP:INDISCRIMINATE information is not a method by which to win community confidence when you're a newbie. I actually have hundreds of articles on my watchlist, am involved in developing complex articles (as well as resolving disputes and acting as a neutral moderator in highly sensitive areas of Wikipedia).

Note that, in the case of 'Cubano americano', you've cited an article which explicitly uses the term 'Cubanoamericano'. Does that mean that a third convolution needs to be added to your 'translations'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum - please restore the language template as per my edit here. The language templates are important for search engines and for Wikipedia data maintenance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Central europe

Wow, Iryna, you are tracking on the issue way too good :). I do nonetheless believe that West Ukraine (including Halychyna) is part of the Central Europe. I also oppose to the Germanized name of Galicia for Halychyna. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Which version of the English language do you speak

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to source that assertion. Croat, wikt:Croat, http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Query=Croat http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/croat etc - none of them even allow for the possibility that there's a pejorative meaning to the term. This is not "Paki", it's merely an unambiguous version of "Croatian". Likewise, "Bosnian Croat" is a derived term with a fairly ordinary meaning. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is used as a pejorative, I fail to see why using the formal terminology (Bosnian-Croatian) on a surnames page is so offensive to you that you're prepared to edit war over it. The convention is already in place with Croatian-Australian, just as with surnames of Ukrainians, Russians, etc. None of them abbreviate to Ukrainian Pole, for example: Ukrainian-Polish would be used. You seem to have latched onto this with unwarranted aggression. It seems that what you're trying to present is that this is a Croatian from Bosnia rather than a neutral entry. Fine, that may be the case but the link is there for the details on this person. In fact, the point is made in the first line of the entry! Formal disambiguation page: formal presentation. WP:COMMON includes the use of common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Croatian" isn't as common as "Bosnian Croat". I realize "Croatian Australian" and "Bosnian American" etc is common, but in this case, the hyphen wouldn't really help understanding - would this person be a Bosnian person from Croatia, or a Croatian person from Bosnia?

I'm sorry if I appeared to be aggressive, but I'm advocating what appears to be the organic consensus on the English Wikipedia - I've seen the phrase "Bosnian Croat" (and likewise "Bosnian Serb") used on hundreds of articles and disambiguation pages, and I've never heard of this kind of a complaint. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You "appeared to be aggressive"? I could hear the shrieks through the monitor! Fair enough if this is consensus. Just point it out without uncivil edit comments. I don't need to be abused to catch on if it's the reality. I sincerely hope you don't conduct yourself in the same manner with other contributors you've never encountered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Our edit summaries said:

• note ethnicity, goes to pattern
• Better presentation. Croat is usually used as a pejorative.
• "Croat is used as a pejorative"?! Undid revision 590570483 by Iryna Harpy (talk)
• Reverted good faith edits by Joy (talk): In Australia IT IS USED AS A PEJORATIVE TERM FOR CROATIANS!!! (TW)
• per Talk, there's nothing pejorative about Croat and Bosnian Croat, at least as far as mainstream use, Undid revision 590582137 by Iryna Harpy (talk)

I don't really see the lack of civility, let alone abuse in my edit summaries there - you and I both first made a bold edit each, after which I challenged your assertion, admittedly without further explanation, and then you used all uppercase, which implies yelling. Based on that, I'm afraid I could give you much the same lecture as you just gave me :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're revisiting this after a week? Frankly, I haven't given it a second thought. LOL, see Wikipedia:The Last Word. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Maladzyechna

You wrote that "Polish name is irrelevant. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages of the country". I do agree. Actually my correction was that I deleted Polish and Lithuanian names. I also added spelling "Maladziečna", noting that this is the officially recommended transliteration. But now I see that my corrections were cancelled and Polish and Lithuanian names of Maladzyechna are present.

As I understand from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:BELARUSIANNAMES#Belarusian the discription of a city may/should include the following:

• Name by BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) - Maladzyechna
• Name by Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script - Maladziečna
• Belarusian name - Маладзечна
• Russian name - Молодечно

All other variants including Polish of Lithuanian should be deleted.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumash (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite right regarding the Polish and Latvian names, Tumash. Thank you for reminding me that they should be removed. I'd noticed them myself, but was distracted by a vandal on several of the Hispanic pages and forgot to return to them and remove them (which I have now done).

Unless the region has strong, demonstrable and relevant historical ties to previous occupying Kingdoms, Empires, etc., there is no argument for lengthy lists of its name in other languages unless compelling evidence is presented on the talk page of the relevant article and consensus is reached on whether they should be added, or whether such an entry is gratuitous and adds no value to the article for an English reader).

Please note that, according to Wikipedia recommendations, "The renderings of the Belarusian geographical names in the national Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script... may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version." In this instance, it would be considered that Maladzyechna and Maladziečna are easily identifiable as being one and the same without confusing the reader with too much information in the lead.

Again, thank you for pulling me up on my error. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm happy to have made your acquaintance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Respond

Thanks for understanding. Regarding usage of the "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script" I see that we need a concensus within the Wikipedia. But now among Belarusian scientists it is considered the best way to translate names into Latin script. As well it is approved by the State Committee on land resources, geodetics and cartography (2000-11-23) and recommended by UN GEGN.

These days all the signboards in Minsk are being prepared using this particular method and the Official maps are prepared according to these rules as well. Obviously using of the "Instruction..." is the only way to avoid multiversion. --Tumash —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Belarusian nomenclature for geographic translation and/or transliteration headache club. If you check the talk pages for the relevant policy and recommendation articles, you will find that there are a lot of us beating our heads against a brick wall for a long, long time in trying to find a solution that will be accepted by an RfC which will involve editors and administrators from across all of Wikipedia. The fundamental policy surrounding this issue is WP:COMMONNAME. The English language media and other bodies used as a guideline for 'standards' don't adhere to the Belarusian recommendations. The Belarusian government sites (from top level to Voblasts and Raions) are inconsistent with each other (and don't use the Belarusian recommendations). Any attempts to try to push it through are greeted with WP:OR as it is not in line with other English practices. In the meantime, all of the Belarusian articles have become a mess with articles being created using whatever system a contributor wants to use. And the fact remains that, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there is no method of establishing consensus without it being perceived as being a WP:POV-push and told that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frustrating, to say the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Tarnopol Voivodeship‎

The Tarnopol Voivodeship was an administrative region (administrative subdivision) of Poland and not a historical area. Its like to add Polish names to all Oblasts of the Ukraine.--Sobiepan (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am confused..., could you please explain why you removed Polish name of a city which was part of Poland in the past: [3]--Sobiepan (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Was this your argument: "Polish name is irrelevant. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages of the country".?--Sobiepan (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from spamming my talk page with one message after another.

In answer to first of your 'confused' questions, if you look at the demographics, this was arguably occupied territory and your arguments are a denial of facts about the existence of the Voivodeship.

Second question: this was in consultation with another editor. If you wish to discuss whether the Polish nomenclature is relevant, I am more than happy to discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article. Alternatively, you could simply restore the Polish variant with a quick edit summary and your rationale on the talk page of the article. My only interest in the matter regarding the article in question was the unnecessary addition of the rendering of the Belarusian geographical names. I'm not sure that a short-lived, inter-war governorate qualifies. Do you think that Russian and German names for many Polish areas should be used? Well, after all, much of Poland was occupied by various interlopers over the centuries... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from spamming my talk page with one message after another.

Im very sorry. If you consider my messages as spam, I will never again leave a message on your talk page. Sorry.

When I attempt to post a reply and encounter an e/c not once, but twice because you are adding yet another sentence, I would call that spamming. Sit down, think about what it is that you want to say to me, then add a comment in its entirety. Please don't write the first thing that comes to mind, then add the next and the next in quick succession. It is extremely frustrating wondering whether I have to start from scratch or append an additional response because you're treating it as if it were a chat room. Naturally, you are welcome to leave comments, objections, etc. The fact that we are disputing the addition of the Ukrainian name is not what I am objecting to, but the manner in which you've posted one comment after the other (i.e., at 00:22, then 00:28, then 00:31). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again: the Tarnopol Voivodeship was an administrative region of Poland and never part of an Ukrainian state, so the Ukrainian name is irrelevant. Thank you.--Sobiepan (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It was on Ukrainian land: or are you suggesting that the number of Ruthenians/Ukrainians virtually matching the number of Poles is an indicator of a mass migration of Ukrainian farming villages into Poland? If so, could you please provide WP:V and WP:RS regarding records of this mass migration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's forget it. It's not so important to me. --Sobiepan (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Novelas ejemplares is a set of novellas, not short stories

Dear Iryna Harpy,

i'm sorry, but Novelas ejemplares is a set of novellas, not short stories.

Best regards,
--Hgfernan (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to why you are directing this at me. I was following the trail of a well intentioned IP user who had made several awkward, but terrible, changes to the text on a number of articles. The 'short stories' description pre-existed from the inception of the article.

Personally, I think that, as the lead, the paragraph is ludicrously long and doesn't merit explaining the current Spanish use of the word. 'Novella' is self-explanatory in the English language. If convoluted explanations are necessary, they should be in a relevant section in the body of the article.

That said, I have had nothing to do with the article before or since, therefore did not wish to tread on anyone's toes had there been editor disputes over this in the past. You are welcome to edit the page yourself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian

There is a chance to end the conflict: Talk:Silesian_language#If the name with the words of dialect, language, Polish are POV, what the name of the target. Please vote, which option is better according to You. Regards, Franek K. (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:CANVASS. I've noted that you have left the same message on other talk pages. Persisting in this behaviour will lead to your being blocked again.

That said, I am following the talk page and the article itself and am aware of the POV push taking place right now. Should this escalate to unilateral changes to the article, I will most certainly step in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Khokhol edit revert

You recently reverted my commit to the khokhol page. I'm Polish and I never heard people use the word chochol in a deragatory or racial slur way towards Ukrainians. It is more of an endearment or humourous way to refer to them. I wanted the page to reflect that. However I don't feel strong enough about this to discuss it further, have it your way :)

It isn't a matter of 'having it my way'. This may be correct from the contemporary Polish side of things, but the article is examining the historical usage, not simply current usage. The Russians distinctly used it as a pejorative... and continue to use it as a pejorative (feel free to go to YouTube and check on videos dealing with Ukrainians and Ukrainian issues per Russophile comments). It is used by Russians as katsap (kacap) is used by Ukrainians and Poles as a pejorative regarding Russians.

I'm quite happy to clarify distinctions when I get the chance to clean up the page after having collected historical references to expand on this usage.

In the meantime, if you wish to make a comment on your WP:POV observations, it would be useful if you were to leave a message on the article's talk page to the effect that, as a Polish person, you have only encountered it as being a jocular/endearing term. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you very much for your help in dealing our dispute with giorgi. And for your warning. Thank you, in advance for your work on observation me, but i dont know about any my transgressions, if you referring in this warning on some specific case, please tell me which is it.

Please sorry me that i didnt answered on your wish. I didnt note it because i dint work on English wiki then. And now is maybe little late :D.--Dag13 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I've been involved with so many edit wars, POV pushes and administrative investigations into warring party's conflicts in order to calm them down that I kept losing track of getting back to you.

I've seen that you have been blocked for 3 days on Wiki Commons for further warring with the same 'party' as the one you've had run-ins with here. Whether you like it or not, for example, NATO does not officially recognise South Ossetia, therefore trying to upload NATO maps of its European alliances depicting South Ossetia is merely going to create trouble for you as it is WP:OR. Whether you and I agree that this is just or fair (or that it somehow makes us 'Russophiles') is of no consequence to Wikipedia.

I truly believe that you have your heart in the right, humanitarian place, and that you are approaching matters in good faith but, quite honestly, the fact that your English language skills are too weak to be able to set out a logical, articulate argument/debate in order to state your case is only going to keep frustrating you. There are political battlegrounds that cannot be 'won' on the basis of 'justice', and I think you should take a little break before it breaks you. Work on some articles that you have no emotional investment in; improve your English enough to be confident in making yourself and your intentions clear; develop some more skills which you can use... then you might be prepared enough to work on politically sensitive areas.

In my opinion, you have the makings of an excellent and valuable contributor for English Wikipedia and it would be a shame to lose you because you have been disheartened over not being able to make any progress without antagonising other contributors. I truly hope you are willing to work on your English in order to empower yourself and the balance you could bring to overtly nationalistic articles. Best! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry.

I have no idea how that edit occurred. I am truly sorry and a bit confused. I have been surfing page histories but did not intend to make that, or any, edit. Please revert it, or I will. Again, my sincere apologies. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you were to revert it yourself and leave an edit summary to the effect of it being an accident. If I were to do it, it wouldn't allow you to make it clear that it was unintentional. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done so. Once again, I am very sorry! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry! I think we've all made weird mistakes when editing. My best effort was pasting a section for another article I was working on into another and overwriting half of the existing content. 'Stuff happens' when we have too many windows open. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for welcoming me. May I ask, what's it like having an account? I've considered making one but I get kind of scared every time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.91.112 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can have a quick read regarding all the benefits of having an account. One of the unmentioned benefits is that regular editors tend to be more predisposed to reverting an IP edit where you might forget to add an edit summary (having an account also means you can go into your preferences and check the prompt box for a reminder to leave a summary for other contributors!).

Incidentally, as I seldom work on biographies, you were quite correct about the use of U.S. without a wikilink per the Manual of Style... oh, and nice catch on 'De jure official and national language' in List of countries where Spanish is an official language! Please try to watch for spelling errors, as you wrote 'langage' instead of 'language'. That isn't really a great problem as it is easy enough for an editor to do a little copyediting if English isn't your first language.

On that note, I hope you sign up. There are useful features available to you when you have an account, and we love having quality recruits, such as yourself, join us! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll create one tomorrow, I'm done for the night lol. The letters on my keyboard don't go all the way down sometimes so I think that's why I put "langage" instead of "language", thanks for fixing it :) 50.48.36.213 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC) (Same person, IP address changed for some reason)

Have a good rest, and hope to see you with your own, exclusive username soon. Your IP address being revealed is something else you won't have to worry about. Drop me a line when you've set yourself up & I'll put you on my watchlist in case you run into problems while you're still a 'newbie'. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Thank you for disagreeing without being disagreeable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

I'm still waiting for you to address my point for Yambaram's section. All you did was call me a POV-pusher and that just shows ill judgement by giving a poor excuse. Since only you've talked to me, I think we need to settle this dispute. Khazar (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response on the relevant talk page. Also note that I may not be able to respond in full for a couple of days as I was made aware of a family emergency just after having engaged with you on that talk page yesterday afternoon. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC Lemkos

Just wondering if I can get an outside opinion on this argument. Essentially, a user wants to combine people in Poland who self-identify as 'Lemko' as 'Rusyn', despite what the census actually says. I've provided sources with quotes describing the ethnonym situation but to no avail. If you have time to check it out, thanks in advance. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion in India

Time for ANI? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly... although there hasn't been any activity from the account or IP since all of the warnings were issued, and I'd consider the activity to constitute vandalism (POV vandalism: but vandalism). Unfortunately, I have a family emergency on my hands and probably won't be able to any work for at least a day or two. If the spate of nonsense breaks out again, perhaps you could start an AN/I and ping me (or just leave a message here with the link to the AN/I). Let's just cross our fingers that it's over! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's typical for this area of articles: groups of people trying to push their POV. Fortunately, they are usually not very good at it :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know, I know! I work on ex-Soviet republics, the Balkans and the Middle East. There's a POV fanatic hiding in every corner. The most irritating aspect is that, rather than working on your own 'to do' list, you end up expending inordinate amounts of time following their trails and reverting. Such is the life of the NPOV Wikipedian. Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, working their agenda indeed. Thanks for the encouragement! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

.

	Happy Valentine's Day
	............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! After one of those days of staving off POV-ers and wondering why I put myself through the Wikipedia experience, you've reminded me why it is worth it! The pleasure of working as part of a team of intelligent, thoughtful and pleasant people, like yourself, is one such reward. Happy Valentine's Day and hugs to you, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Of Jewish descent

Thanks for the thanks but my two edits removing "Southwest Asian descent" were reverted. I think some people have have all Jewish categories on their watchlist. The edits didn't last very long before they were reverted. :/ Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well. I've been keeping my eyes peeled as much as possible but, you know how it is with watchlist notifications... less than half get through. I guess we just have to keep playing 'Snap'. I'm still trying to massage a bit cooperation on the Ashkenazi Jews article, but DNA is the flavour of the day. Keep up your hard work. Seems there's more anti-vandalism than development on the horizon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East-Central Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)