Talk:Ilia Chavchavadze

message: Kober, are you sure Chavchavadze was born in October? As I know he was born on June 07 (they celebrate his birthday every year in Georgia) Ldingley 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: This article desperately needs more information and additional information about the following: 
# Chavchavadze's activity in creation and editing newspaper Iveria
# His relations with Ivane Machabeli, Nikoladze, Tsereteli and the Georgian bank which Ilia chaired. 
# More information about his poetic and literary work
# His role in national-liberation movement and national awakening, political aspirations, trips and representations in 1905 First, Second Duma, etc
# New facts about his assassination (involvement of Bolsheviks and alleged involvement of the Social Democrats)  
In other words, this article needs tons of input and help. Thanks to all. Iberieli 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info needed

message: In the article, his famous play is translated "Is a human a man?!"  While I was in Tbilisi this summer, it was performed under the English title "Is He Human, This Man?"  
I don't know Georgian, so I don't feel qualified to change the article--but does anyone know for sure?  At any rate, the play' title should be in title case.  --Andrew
24.193.79.91 03:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Andrew. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. The title is corrected.--KoberTalk 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this. Geagea (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Is a human a man?!"

message: It is said: 
"...It is thought that the noble Chavchavadze family came from the Pshav-Khevsureti region of Georgia, and, in 1726, King Constantine I granted the Chavchavadze family the rank of Prince in recognition of their knighthood and valor to the nation..."
Or the year is wrong or Constantine I. Geagea (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Geagea. I'll fix that. Thank you, --KoberTalk 04:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantine I

message: In the wake of that Wright Flyer discussion, on February 12th, 2021, someone came here to this article and switched, after almost 7 years of stable consensus, to THIS edit with a black & white image.  I would have reverted it immediately to the colorized, long established infobox image, except for the fact that the justification that was presented in the Edit Summary was:
:"replace digitally colored photo with more natural looking"
Followed 5 minutes later with:
:"better quality photo"
This rationale was regarding image quality, with nothing to do regarding whether the image was colorized or not.  And that is where the situation remains today.
So it is clear that the nearly 7 year Consensus on proper use of colorized images still stands.  Once again, over on the Wright Flyer article, everyone else involved there absolutely refused to follow this Consensus.  And the Admin who intervened, likewise refused to uphold Wikipedia Policy regarding Consensus.  In the end, I was blocked.  And voluntarily, I left the issue through the end of the calendar year.  I did this in hopes that others would come around to see that Consensus & Consistency are vital principles to uphold.
I am back now.  My first edit since returning to editing here was to ADD an extremely high quality colorized historical photo of the Wright Flyer, with Wilbur Wright still at the controls.  I am very glad to see that this colorized addition has been supported over there, into its fifth day now.  That appears at the very bottom of the article.  (The infobox has been maintained as the non-colorized image, with my continual protest and objection that Consensus was refused to be upheld.)
So it is clear that there is proper use of colorized images of historical import.  Yet my repeated introduction in the infobox of the colorized version of the most historical image was vehemently rejected, going against WP, in a manner which can be characterized as nothing short of cyberbullying.  The prevalent attitude over there took on the apparent form of:
:"I do not like established Consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."
I experienced it like a virtual "storming of the Capitol" moment.  A mob refusing to follow the rule of law, given WP regarding Consensus, etc.  Except there is one major difference.  And I had expressed this PRIMARY POINT quite early on in our exchange:
:The primary problem we were dealing with was the absence of a Wikipedia Policy regarding the use of colorized images.
That was the fundamental problem back in 2014, when Consensus was established here regarding infobox use of a colorized historical image.  It was likewise the fundamental problem when I jumped into this issue in February of 2021.  And it remains the underlying problem today. 
But even without any WP on Colorized Photos existing, it REMAINS a problem today that the Infobox Consensus, set and established and maintained here of this period of plenty of years, was violated over there in that article.  And remains unfollowed to this very day.  This is an issue that still needs to be fixed.
It is up to us as editors to either follow WP, with the policy on Consensus being one of the most important ones, or we don't.  And if we don't, this introduces an unnecessary level of CHAOS to the Great Experiment that is Wikipedia. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I have not reverted back to the colorized image

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ilia Chavchavadze. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/CC19/2/georgian.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ilia Chavchavadze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223231724/http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000099/Ilia%20works.pdf to http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000099/Ilia%20works.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified