User talk:Iryna Harpy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Opinions

I'm dealing with reality here. Although there are no formal requirements, the reports that get the most attention are the ones from people who:

1. are technologically skilled in general (e.g., software developers),
2. are very familiar with VisualEditor (either from using it or from cleaning up problems that VisualEditor or Parsoid made), and
3. are active members of the affected community.

So If I say, "Hey, we should delay the rollout to small wikis, because Kww says there are problems", the WMF is collectively likely to say, "Ah, Kww: tech-savvy, highly experienced, in the top 500 list of prolific editors on the English Wikipedia, essentially exclusively at en.wp, not averse to taking unpopular actions, knows how to write a useful bug report, knows how to test bugs reported by others, doesn't confuse 'I hate it' with 'it's objectively broken'. At minimum, we should find out what his concerns are, because he's often right on the technical side (and he's not likely to make proclamations about what non-en.wp communities will like, so his concerns are almost certainly technical in nature)."

If, on the other hand, I go back to them and say, "Newish editor, barely edited two dozen articles, used VisualEditor twice, doesn't deal with VisualEditor in RecentChanges, basically doesn't edit outside the English Wikipedia, no reason to think that she's tech-savvy—but nearly stopped editing to spend her days loudly expressing her opinion that VisualEditor will hurt small wikis", then the response is likely to sound a lot more like "Why should anyone pay any attention to that editor's opinion? Anybody could be valuable for writing encyclopedia articles, but being able to write an article doesn't mean that you're able to correctly evaluate software for a particular community. She doesn't seem to know anything about software in general, anything about VisualEditor in particular, or anything at all about any of the small wikis."

So help me out here: Why should your apparently unfounded opinion about some software that you've almost never used, and your apparently unfounded opinion about its suitability for some community that you're not a part of, matter more than the opinion of the actual users of the software and the actual members of those communities? If you've got a good explanation for why you are a knowledgeable and valuable voice on software that you don't seem to know anything about as it might affect communities that you appear to know nothing about, then I'd be happy to include your views. But you need to give me a reason to believe that your opinion is based on something more solid than a gut feeling, because otherwise including your personal dislike is just going to detract from the more fact-oriented ones that I am reporting. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be certain that this is clear: if you do have some special expertise in these issues, then I really do want to know that. Until I hear otherwise, though, I'm going to keep assuming that your opinion about these small wikis is no more (and, of course, no less) valuable than the opinion of any other typical editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already noted that you should beware of reading your stats so lightly. What has been overlooked is that I only set up an account relatively recently, being too busy IRL to get involved with the bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia. In fact, I've worked on many, many articles 'on the fly' over the years as an 'anonymous' contributor. As for my development expertise, I've been a web developer since the mid-90's working on the stabilization of unicode, online teaching delivery methods for a major university and brought on board steering committees for the rolling out of newly developed software. Granted, I've been out of the picture for several years in the development and stabilization aspects as it has become a highly specialised and I am, essentially, an 'academic' (apologies if that sounds immodest as I'm certainly not claiming to be a genius, just fairly well acquainted with a few areas in particular fields).

If I may, I'd like to point out that the are articles and there are articles. I'm certain every Wikimedian is familiar with what it means to get involved with anything to do with the history and politics of Eastern Europe. Well, the ratio of actual editing comes down to 10 'talk' pages per squeezing out a coma, let alone an entire sentence. There is a lot more going on behind the article than simply "be bold" editing. In these areas of Wikipedia, being bold is the equivalent of being banned. I'm spending most of my time trying to develop relationships with nationalistic interest groups and trying to establish ways of seriously cleaning up a massive number of articles that carry the same information on opposite ends of the spectrum which should be amalgamated. What seems apparent to you doesn't even begin to reflect the actual work I've undertaken, nor the amount of work I've already put in (including planning: something that isn't apparent in number of edits).

VE has been extremely disruptive. It's difficult enough to keep on top of reverts and trying to establish what new contributors are trying to convey and, if they actually have a valid point, attempting to work it into the article in a reasonable manner without being pounced on by other interest groups. In terms of time & energy, I have spent days reading sources referred to me in a number of languages in order to establish the the credibility of the point being made. Having someone doing a hit and run edit has left me having to go through the entire source code because it HAS bollocksed up more than just the section they've edited.

If I could foresee VE, in its current state, as just going through some initial teething phase I wouldn't mind having to expend a little energy on such clean-ups. I've stated that I like the idea of a visual editor in principle. As it stands, given my experience with how high impact software should be rolled out, the rolling out of VE is nothing short of a fiasco. WMF should still be testing it, not rolling it out.

To all intents and purposes, I AM representative of "active members of the affected community." I also belong to a group you don't have a category for in your less than exhaustive list: someone who has been actively involved with the development, testing and rolling out of software to be used on a massive, corporate-equivalent scale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that being involved in software development counts as being technologically skilled in general. The WMF follows the agile programming philosophy, which you may not be familiar with. It is based on the idea that there must be many, small, incomplete, "too early" releases to gain feedback. It is not popular with many end users precisely because they start interacting with a product when it is half-finished, but the theory is that the end result is more likely to be what the user wants.

I don't, however, have any reason to agree that you are representative of the active members of the small wikis, and only the small wikis can be affected by the schedule for providing VisualEditor to the small wikis. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am well acquainted with 'agile programming'. While I applaud it in principle, I loathe it in practice (having been involved in 3 horrifyingly failed projects for delivery of teaching modules; having staff and departments update their own university pages; ad nauseum). I'm prejudiced & admit it freely. It reminds me of aversion therapy: end-users end up hating the systems so much that they form a mental block which transfers to future software learning curves. I'm absolutely serious on this matter. Behavioural Psychologists were brought in to monitor test trials after the first two fiascos with a view to addressing the human factor & softening the blow/emotional fatigue. What a waste of time, budget & resources it was. Not that my experiences are going to impact on what the WMF is doing. I only wish I was at liberty to share the findings with you but am contractually obliged to keep my mouth shut ever after. My conclusion has been that 'agile programming' should never be used on sites like Wikipedia which (one hopes) depend mostly on volunteers. You can keep forcing paid staff to work around bugs but you're only going to repel contributors/masochists who are only in it for the lulz.

Does already having begun to dabble in getting involved with Wiktionary, Wikimedia and both the Ukrainian & Russian versions of Wiktionary not count as small wikis? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have checked my contract, and I'm not required to keep my mouth shut: Yes, you're right: agile programming has Certain Inherent Flaws. It might be better suited to some environments. It is better suited to some of Wikipedia's users than to others. Some of our editors are actually happy about this, especially once they learn how to use that system to get what they want in the final product. But that's what's going on, and at least now you know. If the idea of agile programming makes you want to run away, then tick the prefs switch and forget that it's even happening.

Work at Wiktionaries does not count as work at Wikipedias. The cultures are very different in some important respects. But this is fair warning: someday, VisualEditor (with some specialized tweaks) will become available at the Wiktionaries, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion number two (cup-of-tee?)

Just wanted to let you know that I am very glad for your input in the RFC page. Not that our opinions will make any difference, but from a human point of view. Personally I do not think that "gut-feelings" or intuitions or insights (never sure about these terms really) should be disregarded about this issue, as what is attempted may well cause so many years of efforts to go the way of sand mandalas. When the VE was first unleashed I had a reaction of panic. At the time I didn't make thoughts about end results. It was just very intrusive (GooglePlus-like somehow). I kept hitting the "wrong" edit button and had the long-long loading time disrupt my editing. Then I found that in settings I could turn off the extra edit tab, and so I tried to forget about it. Meanwhile someone "contracted to assist with the rollout of the new VE" contacted me in case I wanted to help translate the VE/documentation for the Greek wikipedia. I tried to let it go by but I started having various second thoughts. So lately there was this notice asking us to offer our opinion on HOW we want this software (bloatware so far) served, with lemon or milk? This is where something happened inside me and I came to the RFC page only to find that a lot of people were desperate about it while others kept a liturgy going, praising its motives and the future results that they see in some "possible" unbuggy future version of the VE. Its motives are highly questionable. From my understanding and experience with such things, this software will run well only for faster computers, while the majority of the "anybody" around the earth, including me, are not likely to ever own such machines. Then I am also becoming aware that regardless of the arguments we get from the contracted users, the WMF is out for ANY kind of input, even just vandals and anti-vandals, so long as people keep using (or misusing) Wikipedia. I have nothing to say about what decisions are correct in view of the survival of wikipedia, but I feel inundated from false (or even pretentious) arguments, tech arrogance and marketing bullying. I do not need to raise my voice, but you see I HAD to share this with someone. Thank you for your time listening to my exasperation. Hoverfish Talk 20:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I welcome any ordinary, marginalised Wikipedians who, like myself, work in isolation from any interactive environment/as contracted staff within Wikipedia (or any of the other wikis/wikas), Hoverfish. Rest assured you're not alone in feeling completely disempowered & disenchanted. You're also not the only one who was instinctively clicking on the beta edit & cursing Wikipedia while it loaded. I haven't turned VE off as I feel compelled to know how the pages are looking for anyone else and, on occasion, quickly checking its functionality in case something miraculous has happened but not daring to save from VE. As it happens, I also responded to the notice because I wanted to voice my opinion somewhere - ANYWHERE. I didn't see any kind of message suggesting that only power-users & highly visible long termers (read as the minority even though they're responsible for the majority of the material) need apply. I didn't even realise that it was a given that such a proscribed group of individuals were the only ones privileged enough to count. Wikipedia culture is a nasty piece of social ordering. I have no qualms about talk pages beings kept terse but, when it comes to having no one to vent to, it's a desolate place unless you can find a door to knock on. Having talked to a few friends about how it presents to those who use it as a starting point for informing themselves on any given subject, it hasn't surprised me to hear that they consider it to look desperate now: screaming for anyone who's ever had an opinion on anything in their lives to add their 2 cents. Is that what Wikipedia wants to be? Yes, I, too, would love to know whether they value quantity over quality. That makes at least two of us who have considered the same issues &, resultantly, are asking the same questions. Could we be alone in the universe? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I also want to let you know that I think it's good that you expressed your opinion in the RFC. I don't think only power users (whatever that means) vote should count, but every editors/readers of wikipedia. I just have the impression that WMF is simply looking to disregard users feedback when it doesn't go with their view, regardless of their involvement, experience, ... They thanked several new editors when they posted a good feedback (good=good for WMF) even when the editor had 0 edits with VE, but when users with 0 edits came in the RFC they were asked how they could say that VE should be opt-in... Quite the same kind of different treatment for experienced editors... --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 18:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The "power users" was a term used to describe those who add most of the quality content in Wikipedia. But here above, Whatamidoing admitted that we were all called to comment in a page where we would be disregarded unless we were somehow technically qualified to do so. No wonder he didn't make that statement in the RFC as there would be an uproar of frustration. I have wasted plenty of time in my life, so a few hours more won't hurt me, plus we get to see from a bit closer "what the world is coming to". Are we alone in the universe? I don't think so, but we have too great a distance from them "up-there" to ever meet them for a cup of tea* and compare our views. (*funny how being a coffee addict I misspelled that word above). Thanks again Iryna. Hoverfish Talk 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for your input, Hoverfish & NicoV. I don't think it's escaped many of us that enthusiastic pro-VE comments were greeted with pats on the back while naughty nay-sayers like ourselves have been derided & discouraged from continuing any dialogue by blatant intimidation techniques. Whatamidoing (who is a female & has informed me that she is not a programmer) is simply following directives as a paid employee. What I object to strongly is the desperation with which she (and others) have pursued this 'dissuasion'. Early in the piece, she started a campaign of public humiliation by adding what I laughingly call 'comments' to points made by nay-sayers pointing out that their records show that they don't appear to have ever actually used VE, etc. Her bringing the discussion to my personal talk page was a tactic to drawing me away from the public RFC after a supposed 'outing' of my lack of experience (therefore credibility) based on actual edits in English Wikipedia. That's posted for public record & dragging the discussion here has effectively tied my hands in terms of disputing the veracity of my true contributions. Such a blatant disregard for the different forms contribution can take (as well as the complexity of the work) is either ignorant or intentionally ignored. Resolving disputes on article talk pages; seeking consensus & making slow progress towards turning confusing & controversial areas into relatively neutral & reliable sources is laborious work. What is Wikipedia really aiming for: churning out articles about nothing of particular consequence or working on dubious content on fundamental areas already in place?

While my urge is to get on with what I've been doing is overwhelming, I don't believe it is worth my effort - and the effort put in by so many people over the years - to continue this if Wikipedia is going to change from being something that has been perceived as slightly laughable for years due to the lack of quality of content to a resource perceived of as being of no merit whatsoever. I'm absolutely with you, Hoverfish, in finding a way of tabling the issue with the WMF where the 'right questions' (the most fundamental questions) are asked. The issue of 'wrong questions' has been discussed & deliberated over on the RFC page at length. Time for a strategy/cup of Tee? (P.S. I actually read this as being tee'd off/ticked off.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be out of computer reach most of today, so I'll use the time to think about it. One image that plays in my mind is Jimbo Wales being "blackmailed" to do this, possibly by an army of employees that need to keep their employment and have to find a big-all-important project to do so. To me this seems very close to the case at hand, though it could be much worse. I am no giant and cannot think in terms of one, so I will have to think whether any possible input from us, no matter how correct or wise, can be anything than just a pointless headache for them, which equals to energy wasted on both sides. Till soon. Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Hoverfish. I'll be thinking over pulling out the salient points brought up in the RFC and cobbling some draft questions together as Whatamidoing appears to be throwing us a lifeline: "There is always a problem with selection bias in RFCs. If you wanted to reach a representative sample of users, you would have to deliberately seek out a representative sample, use proper polling software, and ask well-written, ideally validated questions. I believe there are a couple of people here who could help design a more neutral poll, if that were actually wanted." In the meantime, I'll be here, on and off, throughout the day today, but will be away from my computer tomorrow (and trying to block images of Jimbo being kidnapped... and why, after the bliss of getting away from a working life of steering committees & drafting policies, I feel compelled to stick my honker into places I never wanted to go again). Back to our chat again soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The RFC you were commenting on is mostly about what happens here, and anyone here is qualified to express an opinion about what happens here. You were "called", by the way, by your fellow editors, not by the WMF. It is not an "official" RFC in any sense.

However, Iryna has been claiming that she should be permitted to decide happens elsewhere, not here. Iryna's complaint is about the future rollout schedule, which has zero effect on the English Wikipedia. She would presumably be very unhappy if people who edit exclusively at (for example) the German Wikipedia unilaterally decided whether or not she had access to software features that they don't want, like WP:Notifications of when someone reverts your changes to an article, regardless of her own views. After all, she's the person affected by the decisions here, not a bunch of German-only editors! Similarly, the people at more than 100 other Wikipedias are IMO equally justified in believing that they should get a say in their wikis, and that total outsiders (like Iryna) should get none. However, even though a locals-only rule would be justifiable, the WMF's practice is generally a little less absolutist, and they seem to listen occasionally even to total outsiders, provided only that these total outsiders have some specific, relevant, directly applicable knowledge. Without that specialized knowledge, though, people deserve to have their voices heard only as speaking for themselves, not as the self-appointed non-consensual representatives of all editors everywhere.

So the bottomline is yes: Please have your say. But, speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for other groups. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a desolate place unless you can find a door to knock on. You are welcomed to vent (or even converse!) on my talk page if you need an outlet (not that anyone besides me will ever read it, but it is something). Also, I echo the thanks for your input on the RfC. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Vasily Rodionovich Petrov

Thank you. Lawrentia (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Пожалуйста! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for Russian. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to communicate with me in Russian if you have difficulty expressing yourself in English. Я хорошо по-русски понимаю. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо большущее. Вы очень помогли со статьей. Моего английского на хорошую статью не хватает. --Lawrentia (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's my pleasure. Unfortunately, due to its attitude to the Soviet Union, largely ignored the great artists in Eastern Europe and the level of high culture produced during the 20th century. It's good to see some of my childhood 'heroes' being represented in English Wikipedia! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the Russian culture in the English Wikipedia. Вы написали, что сами не пишите статьи, но можете перевести на английский. Я сделала много статей на русском языке по русской культуре: http://cyclowiki.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%3A%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B&namespace=0&username=Lawrentia, и если бы вы не отказали мне в помощи по переводу – с чем я очень плохо справляюсь, я была бы вам очень признательна. Спасибо. Посмотрите, пожалуйста, вдруг вас что-то заинтересует. При всех случаях – огромнейшее спасибо. Lawrentia (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am developing and cleaning up a few articles already (and have promised my services to another entry), but I'm more than happy to help out where I can. It might be better if you let me know which articles are of top priority to you and, if you can begin on a translation (even if it's a bad one!), I'll step in and develop it from there. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I am very grateful. I will do so. --Lawrentia (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky block

Hi. Yes, I would back grounded actions against that user given their behavior at the Ukraine. Would you please file the appropriate procedural steps? Thank you, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not quite sure as to how best to deal with this one now. I've added some massive blurbs on why he/she should not have added a 'translate, cut & paste' into the already crippled Name of Ukraine article (see the talk page). I suspect that it's best done by bringing in a 3rd party mediator. I see it as a straightforward case of reckless editing and absolutism which neither I nor any other contributor should even need to counter, so put out a couple of requests days ago: no takers. I don't blame 'em for steering clear. Any suggestions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, he seems to cool off a little, at least at Triune article. However, I'm ready to comment and discuss his conduct anywhere you bring it up. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm mildly aggravated by the way in which he simply used a cut & paste method to overwrite the Name of Ukraine article which I'd actually only started on a couple of weeks before he completely changed it without so much as a single edit comment (not even just generic 'improving citations', etc.). I guessed that his lack of edit comments was a reaction to having used that snide 'nationalist BS' on the article you'd reverted when it came back to bite him... so, considering that the Name of Ukraine article was already rife with now redundant references, hidden categories & absolutely no attempts to translate pertinent citations into English, his 'contributions' may be a mixed blessing. I'm only interested in making it as neutral as possible and avoiding loaded value judgements, and blatant nationalistic absolutes in the interpretation. Will give you a shout if he starts trying to change the complexion back to a diatribe about the stupidity of 'Ukrainian nationalists' (whatever that concept is supposed to mean to his mind). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Iryna Harpy. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank User:Kenneth C. Zirkel at Commons

and Wiki Loves Monuments in general. I know something about why there is no Aussie WLM this year, but please keep on trying! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iryna Harpy. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Sorry it has taken me a while to reply, but I have been busy recently, and had little time available for Wikipedia.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

...and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with section in article which is superfluous to already lengthy article

The factually historical article on Kievan Rus' has had a section entitled Novels about Kievan Rus' -- which I'd consider to be redundant in the first instance -- further populated over the last few days. The section, itself, was added some years ago (perhaps as padding?).

The article already suffers from multiple problems. Featuring a lengthy listlet of novels is byte-heavy, undesirable and certainly not encyclopaedic (I can't find any precedents on comparable articles).

While creating a stub page is the most desirable method of dealing with information which may or may not be of relevance (under 'Category:Historical novels' creating a subset 'Kievan Rus''), I'd like to check on whether it should be approached in this manner. Other editors have agreed on the need to move/remove it, but we've all identified it as problematic considering that it may well be a category other contributors will want to expand & contribute to. We have no problem with having a wikilink to a relevant stub/article, nevertheless deem that it does not belong in an article specifically dedicated to historical facts.

Any suggestions as to how best to move the section out and into a more appropriate venue? Thanks in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A category would only be appropriate if we had articles on those novels, which, for all I can tell, we do not, and I doubt they are all notable enough for articles of their own (some might be; then a category could be created). A separate sub-page, say Kievan Rus' in fiction, could be written if we have reliable sources discussing this sub-genre of historical fiction in some detail. Similarly a list, say List of novels about Kievan Rus', would have to establish that the topic is notable; see WP:LISTN. All of those methods would involve massive amounts of work and some reliable sources. My suggestion would be to remove the list of novels outright and to copy it to the talk page; then it won't be lost completely if someone wants to do the work and write articles on those novels or the genre. Huon (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Huon! Frankly, I very much doubt that anyone is going to create articles concerning the novels as they're basically well intentioned contributions from people whose English is very weak. I did do a quick search on Russian, Ukrainian & Belarus Wikipedia for any further information, but found virtually nothing worth an entry in English Wikipedia (an author of dubious notability, for example, but nothing on the novel listed).

In reality, we were only being polite in retaining a section with only 4 novels listed, but a couple of people have gotten a little overenthusiastic over the last few days. It's been noticed by others who are now turning it into a major subheading. I didn't want to brush it under the Wikipedia carpet and make it someone else's problem by sneaking it in as a stub. I'll bite the bullet and paste it into the talk page. Thank you so much for your assistance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OWNTALK

Since you have expressed concerns about other people's comments being visible more or less permanently, you might want to read WP:OWNTALK. Archiving is "preferred", and there's a link to directions, but even some very experienced editors just blank the section whenever they're done with a discussion, and other people do a mix of the two styles (like blanking routine announcements and copying interesting discussions elsewhere). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I am already aware of how to archive and the 'mixing of styles'. I'm not sure of what your point is.

My preference, regardless of whether I am an experienced editor or not, is to keep discussions directly related to public pages on that page. Of course you were welcome to state an opinion on this page however, over my long working life, I have established that people are more likely to be courteous & stay on track in the relevant forum, particularly when things are getting nasty/could get nasty. I have had no dealings with you outside of that forum and, given that our 'relationship' deteriorated quickly there, I considered it to be all the more reason not to continue discussions in other venues. Personal preference: poisoning future interactions unnecessarily is of no benefit. If that was not made clear during the RfC, I am making it clear now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Novels about Kievan Rus'

Iryna, it's very simple to delete works of other members. But my section wasn't off-top!!! Анна Волкова (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And Kievan Rus' in fiction is good title. Анна Волкова (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Response on the relevant talk page. There is no dispute as to whether the list is a 'good' topic/title, only over its being appropriate to the article in question as fictional novels is off-topic for an historical entry. It needs to be developed properly, conforming to Wikipedia guidelines, as a separate, comprehensive list on a stand-alone page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)