Talk:Taras Fedorovych

message: 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)
replies: text: Ukrainian sources I cited state Tymofiy Orendarenko as his successor. I will start the Mykhailo Doroshenko and Treaty of Pereyaslav (1630) today/tomorrow. --Irpen 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does Polish Wikipedia; shall we than correct the error on Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks and put Orendarenko between Fedorovych and Sulyma?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hetman succession is not as easy as the royal one. Several hetmans could coexist with the rival claims, like those confirmed by Poland and those selected ad hoc, especially by non-registered Cossacks. So, compiling a comprehensive succession table would be tricky. --Irpen 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well, first, we should note in relevant articles that there were rival hetmans, second, I don't think a succession table would be that tricky - we can just note that there were rival claims and rivals claimed the title from x to y.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: 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)
replies: text: If the compromise idea by Piotrus  is not satisfying, I suggest to create article about Fedorovych Uprising and put required and verified informations about statements of rebels there. And then if it is necessary, put them back here, but at that time we will have the proper context. Visor 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not responsible for actions of other editors, Irpen. I reverted Matthiasrex and made a critical comment in edit summary about reverting useful changes; in the meanwhile, would you like to tell me why I'd recruit Matthiasrex for the revert which I later reverted... :>-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah. So now you are calling User:Mathiasrex a troll, and me a 'troll encourager'? May I point you in the direction of WP:PAIN, or refer you to Ghirla's activity and block log for people who throw such accusations widly?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I linked my reprimand above. But of course you insist that he 'does not get reprimanded by [me]'. Sometimes I wonder why we have those conversations at all...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against...?

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought my edit summaries are self-explanatory. I am not suggesting gutting this article, but while Fed. life may not be well documented, the uprising is. Hence eventually the uprising article will become a larger article then the biography of its leader.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fedorovych Uprising article now created.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not paper, and the article is not too long. I'd note oppose some shortening now, but I'll leave it up to you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this article having any excessive detail. So, why shorten? --Irpen 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't delete notable subjects. I left it to you to shorten whatever you feel is appopriate, but if you want me to do it - I will. And since this article has no inline citations, the spin off is unreferenced, since nobody can guess what refs - if any - were used for the uprising part.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly revert war

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Thank you very much for a very measured and valuable feedback. --Irpen 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But we are aware of both options; what we remain deadlocked on is which one to chose.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I have seen with other articles, having one article with a redirect is a more suitable solution.  As for which article to keep and which to redirect, I really have no opinion other than to be sure that one redirects to the other so whichever perspective you have, you can still find it. This version that is structured as a biography has the potential to more easily add information about the person should you find more.  The version about the event has the potential to add information about other people who were inspired by the event, started a movement, or whatever.  That may be the way to decide what to do -- which way is the article apt to expantd?  If you cannot come to a consensus on that matter, flip a wikicoin. But end up with ONE article.  Preferably footnoted. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Piotrus, you said recently (and not once) that "PLC was Poland": 
*"PLC was Poland
*Per WP:NCCN, if English literature refers to PLC as Poland, as it commonly do, in some cases so can we (to get a shorter, more common name.) 
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)
thread_title: Blind reverts