Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 8

message: First we can stop putting inflammatory, unnecessary, "opinions" that cannot be verified and make no difference to the specific argument. Balcer, I did not protest the original insertion of the above remark of yours, because it was sufficiently negated by others (specifically Piotrus), and I do not feel that everyone has to comment on everybody else's comments, over and over. You know like the the brilliant comment, "ditto" that's quite popular. Please be assured that I was by know means outraged by your statement, Surprised, amused, and now bored maybe. Surprised because you typically are not known for such "gems". My problem with the remark is one can not judge the importance or power of these states by 21st century standards, and serves no purpose other than being inflammatory. It's like if I said Jogaila, the Polish ruler of Lithuanian ancestry, who formed the greatest dynasty in Poland's medieval and pre-Renaissance history, put their house in order. And when this Lithuanian established order ended, typical chaos returned. Or better still, Pilsudki, the Polish leader of Lithuanian ancestry, created modern Poland, and when he died the usually bałagan returned. Even if absurd remarks like those were completely true (because some parts are), I would oppose them as infammatory. Oh, and regarding Halibutt's remark that he ruled Poland unopposed, the article ambiguouly states that he ruled by default. That hardly seems true, and creates the perception that his rule was tolerated, but grudgingly so. Dr. Dan 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your lack of protest, I was referring to the original point made by Calgacus, in whose opinion Lithuania was twice as powerful as Poland, which elicited no reaction from you (I guess such comparisons are OK if they favor one's "own" side and anathema otherwise).  No one proposed to judge anything by 21st century standards.  The discussion above actually attempted to judge the relative strength of Poland and Lithuania by the standards of the time.  Anyway, just like you I don't like to get into discussions about the relative power of states, as this leads to all sorts of acrimony, except in this particular case it is unavoidable.  If we have a ruler who rules in two realms under two different names or titles, which one should take precedence?  In this one case the relative power of the two realms becomes a valid part of the determination which title is more important (see the case of James I of England and England vs. Scotland).  Furthermore, believe me, I feel no insecurity or a sense of inferiority over the fact that Jagiello, one of the greatest monarchs of Medieval Europe and the longest reigning king of Poland, was a Lithuanian, or that Pilsudski called himself a Lithuanian.  So your attempts to inflame this discussion (I don't buy your disclaimers "it's like if I said...") completely miss their mark.     Balcer 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I take back my accusation that you attempted to inflame the discussion and offer you my apology.  Now that I am reading what I wrote, it comes across as much harsher than what I intended to say.  Sorry, I got carried away.  May I only suggest that in the future we all avoid statements of the type: "it's like if I said <enter  inflammatory statement here>."  Just a suggestion. Balcer 01:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What We Can Do

message: All right ladies and gentlemen, a month has passed since someone moved this article against consensus to the place it is now. I see two options now:
# Move the article back and start a proper WP:RM vote on the move to Jogaila
# Leave the article where it is and start a proper WP:RM vote on move from the proper title to Jogaila. 
I would strongly encourage everyone to support the first option, as it seems the most sensible, at least to me. Also, some of the supporters of the current name claim that it reflects consensus, despite the fact that they form but a minority of those who voted. But what the heck, if they claim that the current name is ok, then why not put it up for voting to check whether it indeed was ok to forge a voting and move the article from its original title? //Halibutt 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read what you wrote above in the 2nd option: the proper title is Władysław II Jagiełło. Renata 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice try, Halibutt. The article can't go "to Jogaila" because it is already at Jogaila. The article stays where it is unless it is moved by WP:RM, per the result of the last vote. If you wish it to have a new name, put up a WP:RM for that new name. But maybe before raising this all up again, you might like to think about coming up with a name which will bring more consensus. This if I remember correctly was what Elonka suggested a while ago, and I agree that it should certainly be tried first.  Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice try, Calgacus, but there was no last vote. It was but a poll, not a WP:RM. From the comments of a large number of people above and in the archives, it seems that it was obvious to most of the people to take part in the poll, including those who supported the move. The article was moved in violation of the rules of Wikipedia in the first place, so the first logical step would be to undo that. Then we could start a vote on the controversial name the article was moved to. Of course, we could set a dangerous precedent which would allow anyone to move any article anywhere, and then require those who oppose the unilateral move to start proper WP:RM, but that's not what WP:CONSENSUS is about. //Halibutt 09:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's been a vote and the article has been moved, and it is at a more popular name. Live with it. All you're after is a supermajority, as you hope that will be enough to keep it away from Jogaila. This is bad faith, and not a good way to re-open this discussion. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely it would be either Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Władysław II Jagiełło, but not Władysław II Jagiello, no? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jagiello is more popular in English then Jagiełło, so I'd suggest not using diacrics (just as we talk about Vasa, not Waza), but Władysław is his proper name. Although I could go with Wladyslaw if somebody thinks it's a crucial difference, I am inceeasingly beyond caring - as long as it actually resembles something used by majority of academic sources (which criteria Jogaila fails).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pool on what kind of pool to have, again?! Renata 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Setting besides how last vote was abused, I do agree that we should try a RM for Wladyslaw II Jagiello (unless sb has a better idea?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of better ideas in archives of discussions. Polish King Name II Polonised Name is not a balanced name for Jogaila of Lithuania originally. And talking about how last vote was abused, dear Piotrus, there are archives with sockpuppet Appleseed votes and Molobo is a major figure in those votes too. Talk about abuse... Juraune 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with me, then talk to me instead of recycling those same old infantile accusations against Piotrus. Appleseed (Talk) 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have problems with you now, unless you multiply into many appletrees and each apple tree will vote :), I do not accuse Piotrus, why do you think, I accuse him? And I had enough of compliments from Polish editors of being childish or infantile, thank you very much :D Juraune 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet (of Piotrus, I assume?).  It's probably too much to ask for an apology. Appleseed (Talk) 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appologise. Juraune 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: She's probably confusing you with some other Polish sockpuppet that voted several times in these polls. It's probably a mistake on her part. Maybe she meant user: KonradWallenrod (what an extra disgusting user name for a sock puppet, in that it demeans Polish-Lithuanian relations, and Mickiewicz, to boot). Dr. Dan 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: She also forgot to mention that neither Anatopism nor any other of Logologist's sock-puppets took part in the voting at all. //Halibutt 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They took parts in previous votings that I remember very clearly, and sockpuppet votes brougth majority for Piotrus wish to have fully polonised name for Jogaila. When so many Polish sockpupets are voting, it is easy to confuse who is who. And you forget to mention, that there was a majority vote to keep this article named Jogaila for 6 months, also there was a majority for keeping this article at Jogaila name for ever. These votes are in most resent archives. Please do not stage theather perfomances with each new fresh talk page. Juraune 07:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's always good to accuse your opponent of sockpuppetry, no matter whether the accusation is right or wrong, some of that filth will stick... As to other issues, 18 for moving back or waiting a month (not six) hardly beats 16 for legalizing the forgery.. Please do not stage theatre performance with each new fresh talk page. //Halibutt 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Halibutt, for example, I have voted for waiting a month, not for moving back! My intentions were to find a compromise for a stable article name, acceptable for both sides. Orionus 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's always good to accuse your opponent of sockpuppetry...ha, as if that remark negates the filth that happened and did stick. Nor has there been an apology from your hero. In fact there was an accusation of sockpuppetry against Calgacus and myself from him recently. So maybe you're right afterall, but I don't remember you trying to make any witty or pithy remarks then. You must have missed them. Dr. Dan 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A month has passed