Talk:Nikolai Vasilyevich Repnin

message: This is a disambig and should be labelled as such until respective persons have their own articles (see also what links here, and note that redirects to those people link here, as well as articles about the family).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a full-fledged article about the Repnin family imported from EB1911 article "Repnin". Please read WP:DAB carefully before going into revert warring. I'm deeply disappointed with your recent trolling, which reminds one of Molobo more and more. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EB1911 needs a lot of update. This article about the family is just a stub, and most of the article are longer stubs about two important members, each deserving their own article. Thus the article should be split, and the links piped (or the page transformed into a disambig, although I'd prefer the first solution). You are correct it is not really a disambig, but a split-to page. Corrected the tag accordingly. I guess there is no point to teach you civility and ask you not to offend others with every second edit summary or talk content, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith and leave the article alone. Splitting is out of the question. I don't see what happened in the 20th century that the articles about the 18th-century figures should be "updated", that is, pumped full of Polish nationalism. If you have nothing better to do, pay attention to the pitiable sub-stubs that constitute :Category:Polish nobility. it's not likely that Russian editors are going to let you reduce the coverage of Russian nobility to the same low level. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for going with my suggestion of split. Now Wikipedia has several new articles, each of them notable. Isn't it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been better if you didn't spoil it with the sloppiest edit I've seen in weeks - deleting a bunch of corrections and wikilinks in order to duplicate the image, disrupt the grammar, uglify the Britannica article with pointless tags, and add a couple of unreadable names (I have little cubes instead of them on my screen). You needn't edit so absent-mindedly really. It would have been nice if you laid your obssession with refs aside for a moment and paid attention to the content of the articles you edit. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to prove any of the above with specific examples (to a fact, not edit)? Other than the fact that you apparently don't know how to use Unicode?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the world didn't stop in 1911. Lot's of new 1911 Brit articles need updates. If you have a problem with any of my sources, please don't hesitate to point out which specific source is biased. I am of course assuming that you can prove such statements with your own (English and online) sources?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled