Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka

message: This is so dispiriting.  The discussion of the topic just started today, no one has yet made any edits to the article, so far everything is being discussed reasonably and rationally (for the most part), but already User:Ghirlandajo has mentioned this article in the Urgent Announcement section of the Portal:Russia/New article announcements, under the divisive heading: Polish editors propose a new name for the article.  Talk about an overreaction. What next, any edit by a "Polish editor" in the discussion space of a "Russian article" will cause Ghirlandajo to ring the alarm bell on the Russian noticeboard? Balcer 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're being generous to Ghirlandajo when you say that everything so far has been handled reasonably and rationally. During this short discussion he has already managed to make a condescending comment ("Only a child may not understand"), assume bad faith ("deliberate provocation" and "It's a pity to see you both back to polonization of the Russian place-names"), make threats to report other editors, and use a vulgarity. Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I guess you are right.  Maybe I am getting so used to Ghirlandajo's debating tactics that I sometimes forget how inappropriate they are. Still, by being boorish he is only undermining the very arguments he is making, so I am not even sure I want him to stop :). Balcer 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please note that the mentioned annoucement on the Russian new articles section is civil; I have no problem with annoucing renaming issues or other interesting discussions on a wider forum, if done in a civil manner. Thus why one may criticize Ghirla for his uncivil comments above, I am afraid I cannot see anything wrong with this annouement on the noticeboard.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to disagree with you here.  Making a notice on a regional noticeboard presenting some discussion as a "us vs them" fight is hugely counterproductive. Balcer 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreeing with you in theory I am not sure it is the case here. Is it really 'us versus them fight'? The note is just saying 'Polish editors propose a new name for the article. Please opine.'. There is no mention of 'polonization' or anything that would be right out offensive or combatant. It is mostly correct (if missing to state that it was Ghirla who changed the name without any discussion in the first place). Sure, if I were to nitpick I'd say there is no reason to stress the nationality of editors involved, but let's not overinterpret the note; I see no harm in it. The comments above are another thing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this annoucement by Ghirlandajo is much more civil than his other annoucements (like this one).  Still, what would prevent him from simply announcing that a renaming debate is in progress, without adding this "Polish editors" bit?  Would it be so hard for him? I for one don't appreciate being reduced to a simplistic national category.  Really, I am just a Wikipedia Editor, period, and not a Polish, Canadian, Catholic, Atheist or Republican Editor.Balcer 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per above: I agree it was uncessary and possibly disruptive, but I think it is a minor infraction not worth that much comments  as we already wrote :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My biggest concern right now is being able to contribute without being insulted by Ghirlandajo every time our paths cross. Appleseed (Talk) 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ghirlandajo's interaction with other editors often leaves a lot to be desired.  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but he apparently believes that he is the expert and any discussion of his edits with others is a waste of time.  Thus, it would also be nice it he did not make announced, unilateral edits to important article cycles, like his changes (and attempted undiscussed move) of Muscovy to Grand Duchy of Moscow and his completely unilateral creation of a brand new article Tsardom of Russia (to illustrate with an example from today). Interestingly, I am sure there will be plenty to work on in those two articles, once Ghirlandajo's inserts his point of view there. Balcer 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, that's a messy fork/move, the history of that article seems to be messed up. But we are going OT - let me suggest we EOT the issues in this thread for now (as Ghirla doesn't seem to reply to our concerns of his behaviour, and other issues are more relevant to other articles). I do agree with Irpen that there is no point in beating a dead horse (i.e. our criticism of Ghirla's behaviour) on the talk of this article anymore, especially as no incivil comments have appreared since this thread was started.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvassing by Ghirlandajo