![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Taras Fedorovych appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Polish wiki states he was repalced by Timofiej Orendarenka as hetman, but the list at Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks shows his replacement as Ivan Sulyma. Which is the correct answer?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, why do you keep removing the link to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (isn't this a 3RR by any chance? please be careful)? Cossaks rose against the szlachta which was indeed often identified with 'Catholic Poles' and which represented the Commonwealth. I see no reason to remove the useful link to PLC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I was expanding the article. If this is called revert warring by someone's book, too bad. I am fine with the final compromise offered by Piotrus. Also, I am bemused that Piotrus recruited someone to help and that fellow reverted my copyedit with "-POV" summary, followed by incivil foreing language entry at Piotrus' talk. -- Irpen 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You are responsible of course for what you do after trolls show up. You either encourage them because they happen to troll in the right POV direction, or you block them for disruption (which I have yet to see in respect to the "correct POV" trolls). One more time, let me refer you to Nixer's activity and block log. -- Irpen 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, your threats are unimpressive. I expanded the article a great deal, added sources and made a good use of tem. And than comes someone whom I never met and accuses me in "Marxism" at your talk, refuses to use English, reverts my good faith edits with frivolous summaries and does not get reprimanded by you. Take it to WP:PAIN if you like. -- Irpen 07:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am upset by Piotrus' revert warring again! There cannot be a Fedorovych article without uprising! Fedorovych's own life is so little documented that you take the uprising out and there is nothing left. In this case there is no need to fork. But there is even less need to keep reverting me without using the talk page. -- Irpen 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But as of now it's being a redirect back here, what the point for a wikilink? OK, in the PL-history articles you can link to [[Fedorovych Uprising]] instead of [[Taras Fedorovych|Fedorovych Uprising]] keeping in mind that one day someone would turn a redirect into an article. I understand that. But what sense does it make to wlink this article to itself? Anyway, have it your way. -- Irpen 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you find that this old article discusses the uprising in too much detail? If so, why and what should be removed? -- Irpen 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So, we are not shortening this one. Since the so called "new" article is an exact copy of this one, I nuked it. If this here was a summary of the more detailed text from another article, that would have made sense. Having two exact mirror articles makes none of it. We would have two identical texts devoted to the same subject whose independent editing would just make them contradict each other at some point. Unless there is a more detailed article elsewhere and a summary here, we do not need to undermine the Wikipedia integrity by producing the rival articles with the identical content thus creating a fertile ground for independent edit conflicts on the same subject that would produce intra-wikipedia contradictions. -- Irpen 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do not think I need to respond to a provocative allegation that I wrote an article not using refs, perhaps inventing the events and the whole story. I do not have a history of inventing massacres, slaughter and victories on wikipedia. For those you would have to look elsewhere in the WP rather than in the articles I have written.
I said, there is nothing to shorten here and I restored all the referenced, valuable and notable content in which I invested much of my time and effort. I will convert the refs to the inline ones.
And I notice that you already started POVing the fork you created away from accuracy and neutrality. This was my major concern: having two independent edit conflicts on the same subject instead of one one. But while you play with the other article, please do not damage the integrity of this one at least. There is a lot of hard work, negotiations and compromise behind its current status. -- Irpen 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Per above discussion, I've split off Fedorovych Uprising, which is a notable subject. Per WP:SUMMARY and our other policies, notable events should be described in their own articles; this one is a biography and as such should not go into all details of the uprising. Thus the uprising article can have also appopriate categories (ex. Category:Cossack uprisings) and people looking for it will not have to search for information in other article(s). It appears that Irpen disagrees with me. Please - explain your reasons why you think Fedorovych Uprising is not notable enough to deserve its own article, and why do you want to keep all details related to the uprising in this (Taras) article. PS. As for references, please copy the ones you used in uprising paragraphs to uprising article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So, once two editors did not give you an opinion you wanted to hear, you went further in your search. Not unexpected knowing your past habits. As for moving the fork away from reality, you changed a referenced claim about rebel's victory already.
I wonder what would happened if the article is left you your own devices. -- Irpen 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, as I said, I freely admit that this article should be rerefed with inline refs. I did not have time originally because it was under an attack by you and another user, the attack described in detail at your arbcom. So, the claim about rebel's victory is referenced. Once the edit war and the wierd DYK nomination were in the past, the article remained on the backburner.
The only thing I've done with it now, was structuring it into sections. This innocuous edit provoked you into a new round of fierce activity. I regret doing that. The article was not too bad but slight a improvemenet provoked a new series of your inflammatory acts. -- Irpen 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the request for an outside opinion on this article, my observation is as follows:
First, the article itself is quite short and there seems no real need to break off over half the article into a new piece. Second, Upon reviewing the new article, it is clearly derived from this one and is similar in length and content to what is here.
My opinion is that it makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles with virtually identical content, and it's even worse if two articles about the same event go off in opposite editorial directions, based on the viewpoint of the respective editors. There is a need for a consensus to be reached as to content, or at least a fair discussion in a single article on the differing viewpoints. The solution is not dueling articles. Sometimes a content dispute can be solved by proper references, perhaps explaining each side with NPOV: Saying something like the following often works: "While expert ABC takes position A (then insert footnote to expert ABC's work), others disagree. For example, expert XYZ supports position X. (and insert footnote to expert XYZ's work). That said, I take no position on the actual content of this article, as your request was solely on the question of creating two articles.
For your immediate problem, I will offer two possible solutions. One suggestion is to make the article currently titled Fedorovych Uprising into a redirect (using #REDIRECT [[Insert text]]) to this biography and simply continue to work to improve the overall article here until it is meaty enough that the uprising has to be given its own article in order not to make this one too long. The advantage of a redirect is that people looking for information on the event will be able to be promptly sent to the correct article and not have to search further. The other possibility is to use the {{main|[[Insert text]]}} template at the beginning of the uprising section here to remove almost all content about the uprising in this article, other than a short sentence or two that summarizes the incident and refers the reader to the other article, which can then be expanded if needed. That would have the effect of making this article very short, however. You would want to put some work into expanding the remaining article, if you split out the duplicative material.
I hope this third opinion gives you some neutral ground for settling your dispute. Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Am I to assume that unhappy with the response you are to proceed to ask for more opinions now? -- Irpen 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is presently not too long. Also, I don't see from the article if Fedorovych has any notability outside of the uprising. I second Montanabw's recommendation to add a redirect and leave the article with its current contents and title. VisitorTalk 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, you said recently (and not once) that "PLC was Poland":
While, I think calling PLC as "Poland" is not always correct, I agree that the use of Poland is preferable in many cases, including in this article, as I argued above. Now, that you also stated that "PLC was Poland" I was glad this dispute resolved. All the more, I was surprised by your revert done so eagerly, as even to restore typos. -- Irpen 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Taras Fedorovych appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Polish wiki states he was repalced by Timofiej Orendarenka as hetman, but the list at Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks shows his replacement as Ivan Sulyma. Which is the correct answer?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, why do you keep removing the link to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (isn't this a 3RR by any chance? please be careful)? Cossaks rose against the szlachta which was indeed often identified with 'Catholic Poles' and which represented the Commonwealth. I see no reason to remove the useful link to PLC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I was expanding the article. If this is called revert warring by someone's book, too bad. I am fine with the final compromise offered by Piotrus. Also, I am bemused that Piotrus recruited someone to help and that fellow reverted my copyedit with "-POV" summary, followed by incivil foreing language entry at Piotrus' talk. -- Irpen 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You are responsible of course for what you do after trolls show up. You either encourage them because they happen to troll in the right POV direction, or you block them for disruption (which I have yet to see in respect to the "correct POV" trolls). One more time, let me refer you to Nixer's activity and block log. -- Irpen 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, your threats are unimpressive. I expanded the article a great deal, added sources and made a good use of tem. And than comes someone whom I never met and accuses me in "Marxism" at your talk, refuses to use English, reverts my good faith edits with frivolous summaries and does not get reprimanded by you. Take it to WP:PAIN if you like. -- Irpen 07:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am upset by Piotrus' revert warring again! There cannot be a Fedorovych article without uprising! Fedorovych's own life is so little documented that you take the uprising out and there is nothing left. In this case there is no need to fork. But there is even less need to keep reverting me without using the talk page. -- Irpen 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But as of now it's being a redirect back here, what the point for a wikilink? OK, in the PL-history articles you can link to [[Fedorovych Uprising]] instead of [[Taras Fedorovych|Fedorovych Uprising]] keeping in mind that one day someone would turn a redirect into an article. I understand that. But what sense does it make to wlink this article to itself? Anyway, have it your way. -- Irpen 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you find that this old article discusses the uprising in too much detail? If so, why and what should be removed? -- Irpen 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So, we are not shortening this one. Since the so called "new" article is an exact copy of this one, I nuked it. If this here was a summary of the more detailed text from another article, that would have made sense. Having two exact mirror articles makes none of it. We would have two identical texts devoted to the same subject whose independent editing would just make them contradict each other at some point. Unless there is a more detailed article elsewhere and a summary here, we do not need to undermine the Wikipedia integrity by producing the rival articles with the identical content thus creating a fertile ground for independent edit conflicts on the same subject that would produce intra-wikipedia contradictions. -- Irpen 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do not think I need to respond to a provocative allegation that I wrote an article not using refs, perhaps inventing the events and the whole story. I do not have a history of inventing massacres, slaughter and victories on wikipedia. For those you would have to look elsewhere in the WP rather than in the articles I have written.
I said, there is nothing to shorten here and I restored all the referenced, valuable and notable content in which I invested much of my time and effort. I will convert the refs to the inline ones.
And I notice that you already started POVing the fork you created away from accuracy and neutrality. This was my major concern: having two independent edit conflicts on the same subject instead of one one. But while you play with the other article, please do not damage the integrity of this one at least. There is a lot of hard work, negotiations and compromise behind its current status. -- Irpen 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Per above discussion, I've split off Fedorovych Uprising, which is a notable subject. Per WP:SUMMARY and our other policies, notable events should be described in their own articles; this one is a biography and as such should not go into all details of the uprising. Thus the uprising article can have also appopriate categories (ex. Category:Cossack uprisings) and people looking for it will not have to search for information in other article(s). It appears that Irpen disagrees with me. Please - explain your reasons why you think Fedorovych Uprising is not notable enough to deserve its own article, and why do you want to keep all details related to the uprising in this (Taras) article. PS. As for references, please copy the ones you used in uprising paragraphs to uprising article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So, once two editors did not give you an opinion you wanted to hear, you went further in your search. Not unexpected knowing your past habits. As for moving the fork away from reality, you changed a referenced claim about rebel's victory already.
I wonder what would happened if the article is left you your own devices. -- Irpen 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, as I said, I freely admit that this article should be rerefed with inline refs. I did not have time originally because it was under an attack by you and another user, the attack described in detail at your arbcom. So, the claim about rebel's victory is referenced. Once the edit war and the wierd DYK nomination were in the past, the article remained on the backburner.
The only thing I've done with it now, was structuring it into sections. This innocuous edit provoked you into a new round of fierce activity. I regret doing that. The article was not too bad but slight a improvemenet provoked a new series of your inflammatory acts. -- Irpen 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the request for an outside opinion on this article, my observation is as follows:
First, the article itself is quite short and there seems no real need to break off over half the article into a new piece. Second, Upon reviewing the new article, it is clearly derived from this one and is similar in length and content to what is here.
My opinion is that it makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles with virtually identical content, and it's even worse if two articles about the same event go off in opposite editorial directions, based on the viewpoint of the respective editors. There is a need for a consensus to be reached as to content, or at least a fair discussion in a single article on the differing viewpoints. The solution is not dueling articles. Sometimes a content dispute can be solved by proper references, perhaps explaining each side with NPOV: Saying something like the following often works: "While expert ABC takes position A (then insert footnote to expert ABC's work), others disagree. For example, expert XYZ supports position X. (and insert footnote to expert XYZ's work). That said, I take no position on the actual content of this article, as your request was solely on the question of creating two articles.
For your immediate problem, I will offer two possible solutions. One suggestion is to make the article currently titled Fedorovych Uprising into a redirect (using #REDIRECT [[Insert text]]) to this biography and simply continue to work to improve the overall article here until it is meaty enough that the uprising has to be given its own article in order not to make this one too long. The advantage of a redirect is that people looking for information on the event will be able to be promptly sent to the correct article and not have to search further. The other possibility is to use the {{main|[[Insert text]]}} template at the beginning of the uprising section here to remove almost all content about the uprising in this article, other than a short sentence or two that summarizes the incident and refers the reader to the other article, which can then be expanded if needed. That would have the effect of making this article very short, however. You would want to put some work into expanding the remaining article, if you split out the duplicative material.
I hope this third opinion gives you some neutral ground for settling your dispute. Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Am I to assume that unhappy with the response you are to proceed to ask for more opinions now? -- Irpen 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is presently not too long. Also, I don't see from the article if Fedorovych has any notability outside of the uprising. I second Montanabw's recommendation to add a redirect and leave the article with its current contents and title. VisitorTalk 00:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, you said recently (and not once) that "PLC was Poland":
While, I think calling PLC as "Poland" is not always correct, I agree that the use of Poland is preferable in many cases, including in this article, as I argued above. Now, that you also stated that "PLC was Poland" I was glad this dispute resolved. All the more, I was surprised by your revert done so eagerly, as even to restore typos. -- Irpen 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)