Jump to content

Talk:Oleg I of Chernigov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move: Oleg of Chernihiv→Oleg of Chernigov

[edit]

This is the conventional name, and gets 212 Google results instead of zero.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

IF YOU CAME HERE JUST TO VOTE FROM MAIDAN.ORG.UA PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION FIRST and THIS. ONLY THEN VOTE. YES! YOU DO HAVE A VOTE! Now 12:12.

We should really disqualify a number of votes of those people who came (most likely) from that Maidan place. Can you imagine what's gonna happen here if I post a message at some Russian website? What Andriy did at Maidan is not fair, if you ask me. Only registered users with a history of contributions (participation, if you will) should be allowed to vote. And not people (like MaryMaidan, Paul_Kiss etc.), who voted here, and then went on about their daily business somewhere in Ukraine without even knowing what Wikipedia is. If this goes on like this, I will have to withdraw my vote and avoid participating in this farse. KNewman 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more, but then we can always try and get some more people from Ukraine from here, here and here. So your suggestion, you invite people over.Kuban kazak 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, as per my message at this very page posted earlier to this very issue, bringing people from forums, especially in response to AndriyK's and Andrew Alexander's trolling at Maidan is admissible but please use care if you choose to do so. The only thing that worries me about such action, is another flood of users with no understanding of what to do and the resulting debates, even at the settled topics (see below). The real solution is the policy which sets some minimum requirements in terms of time on WP and/or number of edits before one can vote. This has been discussed with no result so far. Please use caution, that's all I am saying. Thanks, Knewman and Kuban kazak for drawing the attention to the problem. --Irpen 17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose Modern Ukrainian spelling is Chernihiv--Ahonc 07:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OpposeAlbedo 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Chernihiv applied by creadible sources to all periods of the history --AndriyK 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose -- Yakudza 16:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Chernigov is a Russian transliteration of a name of an Ukrainian city, it is unacceptable. --MaryMaidan 16:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, this user has made 4 edits only since 22 Oct 2005 User:MaryMaidan/Contributions; three of them are two oppose votes for requested moves on this very subject on 28 Oct; the fourth edit was a reversal to the copyrighted (!) content in yet another unfortunate disruptive edit war over Ivan Kotlyarevsky (which ended up in that article being protected.) It wouldn't be accurate to count such votes in here, my opinion - Introvert talk 18:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second that. --Irpen 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen that, but discounting a vote just on that basis is still not right. Wikipedia is a democracy in a sense that everybody gets to vote. If someone joins Wikipedia just to vote against the issues not to one's liking, that, while unfortunate, is still not the reason good enough for us to discount such votes (not until such user is proven to be a sockpuppet, anyway).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is a democracy..? in the sense that everybody gets to vote, perhaps; in the sense that every vote counts equally - may I disagree. I believe we are here trying to reach consensus by way of voting, so it matters whether participants have - or may not have - a correct understanding of the mere subject of voting, or lack awareness of the wikipedia ethics. That is why my earlier comment; I should have worded it more clearly and accurately. - Introvert talk 09:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • When in the same sentence something is asserted to be a democracy (and yes, I am aware of the "not a democracy" statement, which applies to a different aspect of Wikipedia), yet denies the right to count each vote equally, it only means there is something fundamentally wrong with voting as a method utilized to achieve consensus, but not with the rights of individuals per se (in a real world democracy, everybody's vote is counted equally, that of a Harvard graduate and of an elementary school dropout). This is exactly why some wikipedians strongly discourage use of polls for problem resolution, but since voting is employed here, let's at least try treating it as democratic and not make up rules as we go along.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --ashapochka 19:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) for the reason outlined here Portal_talk:Ukraine/New_article_announcements#Usefulness_of_Correct_Spelling[reply]
  7. Oppose Google argument provides loads of results from Wikipedia and mirror sites. So it's like a AI program doing 'Maria' to 'Anna' replace in sanctuary including Madonna's name. Ilya K 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. --Gutsul 07:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose It's Ukrainian city and it's name is Chernihiv. English users know nothing about political issues connected with names, they should have correct spelling to read. Correct spelling is Chernihiv, and there would be nothing to argue about here, if political issues would be thrown away. Wikipedia should use the correct up-to-date Ukrainian name. --Yalovets 20:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's make something clear, this article is not about Ukraine, but about history. History which Ukraine, Russia and Belarus shared at this time. Thereby privitising the article to Ukranian is incorrect. Considering that back then Ukraine did not exist (nor did Russia or Belarus for that fact) we cannot give a Ukranian name for a city just because events which took place centuries later decided for it to end up as a Ukranian city. Finally English users have the full right to know why there is a problem for misunderstanding of the names. Nevertheless this article is historical and the convention that Wikipedia uses is that there was a Kievan Rus not Kyivan. Therefore Chernigov period.Kuban kazak 22:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --paul_kiss 21:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose See Chernihiv on map of Ukraine from Russian website) --Andrew Alexander 05:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Chernigov is a russian spelling, but this city located in Ukraine. So it's logical to use transliteration from the state language of this country. More over, Chernihiv is a historical name of this city, which was changed during the soviet period in order to support Russian as an official language in USSR. --Shao 15:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry but if you are to look at 17th, 18th and 19th century Brithish or American maps then I am afraid you will not see the -hiv ending there. Moreover as I said before this article has little reference to modern Chernigov. This is a historical article about histrory that goes parrallel for Russia and Ukraine alike.Kuban kazak 16:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Modern English changed to use spelled names of cities expample: Pekin -> Beijing. Chernigiv is Ukrainian city and spelling is Chernigiv not Chernigov Adv94 06:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose--Dovbush 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose--Fofka 11:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose--Serghiy Riabovil 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose--Loreley-rein 14:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Chernihiv is a original ukrainian spelling. Must be Chernihiv, Oleg of Chernihiv etc[reply]
    D*mn, this is friggin' annoying... KNewman 04:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support—my request. —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 22:26 Z
  2. support. --Irpen 00:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support abakharev 03:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Introvert talk 06:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Ghirlandajo 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for obvious reasons.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Fisenko 18:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support As wikipedia has no version of the original slavonic transliteration, lets keep the name that's commonly accepted.Kuban kazak 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support однозначно. KNewman 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support for now. Alternative name/spelling may be appended with a footnote. Sashazlv 03:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'm not sure if it concerns the city, I'm convinced, that the name must sink in by itself, sometime. Maps are irrelevant, if "(some noble) of Chernihiv" could be connected to mentions in most sources, if English readers would type that first, than even if maps say otherwise it should be named that, but it is not. –Gnomz007(?) 06:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Changing names will not change the history, but in order to avoid the mess, I think, we should keep original names as it was called for ages Greka 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Greka! --Irpen 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. While I understand the reason for creating anachronisms by various Ukrainian historians, I doubt we should follow the same idea here in wikipedia. Otherwise we'd have to move the battle of Stalingrad to battle of Volgograd, since that's how the place is called now. Halibutt 18:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I realize that I initially voted Oppose but after further consideration, I have to support the name change. After reasearching the topic a bit more, and some discussion with people, I agree that historical names/events (and names of places in a historical context) should be kept as they were written back in the time. mno 18:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Trapolator 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

The user:AndriyK who moved it made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. --Irpen 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the end date of this poll?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think page moves normally wait for five days (but don't quote me). —Michael Z. 2005-10-28 20:25 Z

Ilya made a good point about Wikipedia and its mirrors padding the search results. I've adjusted the search links in the move request. —Michael Z. 2005-10-28 20:34 Z

Just want to add that not all Wikipedia mirrors are filtered out by adding the "-wikipedia" switch. Adding "-encyclopedia" gets rid of some of them, but a few legitimate results can be lost this way, too.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, while "-Wikipedia" is a correct addition to a google test, the rest is an overkill IMO. Google test is a statistical test with rather large margin of error. When the results are seen as an overwhelming preference, as here, google test is meaningful. Doing anything more than "-wikipedia" to the google test isn't necessary. If the advantage isn't convinsing, other criteria should be applied (books, other encyclopedia, media usage, etc.) Here, this is not the case and google is more than convinsing. --Irpen 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was just for the general education sake :) It is sometimes useful to filter out as many mirrors as possible, even at the expense of some valid results (you can also add "-wiki" and negate the names of known mirrors that still manage come through), but in this case it indeed does not really matter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. I wanted to point out that User:AndriyK (along with the vote) makes a statement which is not accurate. Please refer back for example to talk:Chernihiv for discussion of the naming in the English sources; the town is called Chernigov (or sometimes, Cernigov) throughout the medieval history. - Introvert talk 10:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this: I am concerned that some participants, while taking their valuable time to consider the issue and to give their vote, may not have clear understanding of the subject it is about. And it is in fact, not about the modern city name as User:MaryMaidan and User:ashapochka suggest (judging by their comments), much less about references in traveller guides (the discussion ashapochka points to) -- it is about the name of the person who lived some 900 years ago, the name as used in English in historical or other literature about that period of history.
Just for the sake of making myself clear: Wikipedia isn't supposed to invent any naming nor to publish original research of such - nor it is supposed to teach anyone by way of changing the name of the article as to "how this or that needs to be pronounced in the modern language". Is that right? We are here to accurately reflect the reproducible and verifiable knowledge. The article Oleg of Chernihiv will always remain in wikipedia as redirect - no one in good faith is going to remove it. Any relevant additional explanation of the naming, if necessary, can be added into the body of the article as a note. The name of the article though, should reflect the conventional English name.
It would be really helpful if those who chose to oppose would find it possible to clarify their position. - Introvert talk 10:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request left unfulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 12:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maidan.org.ua

[edit]

This message is for the voters who came prompted by the message posted by now unblocked user:AndriyK and user:Andrew Alexander [1] at Maidan.org.ua, a site which I, personally, respect and read regularly.

Dear guys and girls. It is highly commendable that the recent thread at Maidan forum is bringing attention of Ukrainian participants to Ukrainian topics in English Wikipedia. English WP needs more Ukrainian editors. Please note, however, that voting in the survey is a very import act. Like in political election, it is very desirable that a voter clearly understand what exactly s/he is doing by casting a vote that may decide the election. So, do not blindly vote as you are asked or ordered to vote. We've seen that absentee voting in 2004 presidential Election in Ukraine. Give yourself time to familiarize with the discussion of the issue. Contrary to a misleading subject of the AndriyK's message, this is not a question about Chernihiv article which will certainly stay at Chernihiv and will never be moved to Chernigov. This is about how to call Oleg or other historical figures as discussed at Talk:Chernihiv and other pages. Ask questions and they will be answered. Not just come, vote and leave.

Please understand that if you start to make an impression that the forum brings here users who do nothing but cast votes or help in revert wars, our eastern brothers may as well post a similar request at inosmi.ru or similar forums which will bring a barrage of users, some of whom will be real chauvinists, unlike those labeled by AndriyK, and some of those WILL cast the votes for political, rather than encyclopedic reasons. If such users get a taste of things they can do for Ukraine in WP by making it more conforming their views, which you very well know, then myself's, MichaelZ's, Sashazlv's and others' effort will not be sufficient to defend Ukraine-related articles from REAL POV problems. We should then forget about the possibility to have the Ukrainian coverage expanded in any way by any of us in any future because we will all have our hands full with discussions that Ukrainian is not a Little Russian dialect of the Russian language and such.

Again, please feel free to vote but please familiarize yourself with an issue first. Actions like voting have long term consequences. People who voted for Kuchma may have voted just for Russian to be a state language too. Instead they got his regime for 10 years. Similarly, don't make an ignorant vote here. Study the issue and then vote. Thanks, --Irpen 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...The attention to Ukraine-related articles from the Russian users of this website never stops to amaze. They want to rename every Ukrainian town and village into some Russian equivalent. Then give every famous Ukrainian a Russian name. Hilarious... --Andrew Alexander 06:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note though that the buddy of yours who made this mess moved to titles that make no sense even from a UA-nationalist viewpoint. It would be Mykhailo of Chernihiv and Oleh of Chernihiv. Mikhail/Oleg of Chernihiv sound plain ridiculous to begin with. Original names at least make sense, unlike those of AndriyK.
But the issue here is not that someone wants to name them one way or the other. The issue is that they are already named in English L. literature in a certain way as the google test shows. And that's what decides the issue.
No less amazing is your campaign to attract voters without explaining the issue to them. That reminds me of a recent Ukrainian election with absentee voters roaming from place to place casting the votes as ordered without any understanding of the rules or of the politics. However, you are warned about the possible consequences. Trust me, it will be no fun when real Russian chauvinists will start doing things around here. No matter how you label myself or others who disagree with you, that would be more upsetting to all of us. --Irpen 07:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

[edit]

Hi guys,

I've been queitly followling the mess that is currently going on on EN.WP regarding Ukrainian/Russian-related articles and the edit wars that have been going back and forth between two strong ideologies. One group believes that using Russian transliteration for places, events and names in present-day Ukraine is incorrect. The other firmly stands on using the "popular name" that is most widely used in the world. Both have fair points, and I am not going to really support one or the other because of the sad state this debate has now reached. I understand both viewpoints. I tend to believe that an encyclopedia should remain neutral (as this is one of the most important factors for establishing credibility). However, I also tend to believe that it is more correct to use the official names as designated by the "owner" or "authority" (for example, using Kyiv instead of Kiev in accordance to Ukrainian government laws on the subject). However, I am not one to think of this as serious enough to spend all my time arguing and changing things. To be honest, does it really matter? Anyone seriously studying the subject will no doubt have a better understanding than just "Kyiv is official, Kiev is popular". Anyone just looking up information for general knowledge does not necessarily need to know the most correct way. You may argue against this. But I think it is more important to give just factual information rather than give them a view of how to spell things. All versions should be discussed in the article, with an explanation given as to why one way was chosen over the other. Regardless, it seems this has fully gotten out of hand. The only possible way to establish some kind of stability at this point is to establish a set of guidelines for naming things that both parties can agree on. I recommend that before continuing to edit articles, we all come together and establish some hard rules on the subject.

Maybe this is not the correct place to post this message, but it seems this is one of the hot points of the arguments. So feel free to move this whereever. It's up to you guys! Keep in mind that by just continuing this battle, you are making great fools of yourselves to the rest of the WP community (Kiev has justly been called one of the lamest edit wars).

I am not going to make comments who's right and who's wrong, because everyone has good points. I will be followig this, and hopefully we will be able to come up with something that will end this once and for all. I do realize how difficult it would be, with such a complicated history of the places and the people. But we can do it. Further, I think it would be very important to make the rules be accepting of later changes (in case someone comes and has a different view that is just as accurate).

Thank you. mno 12:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mno. Thanks for your message. The guidelines are now being discussed here. Please join the discussion. Your neutral view would be very helpful. Regards,--AndriyK 16:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless it doesn't stop you guys from revertwarring, and you all but stopped commenting on the WNC/GN page. This is unacceptable, especially from the experienced editors who should well know better then disrupt Wiki. I'd like to propose a solution till a consensus is worked on WNC/GN: let one party have its way with names from A to M, and another with N to Z. Otherwise I will consult several admins and propose that we PUT ALL AFFECTED PAGES INTO PROTECTION until you reach an agreement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr, your solution is fine with me. Please restore all the pages to the pre-war state and protect them once for all. There was actually no editing for ten months between my creation of them and Andriy's first attack. So there would be little harm from protection (as it was already applied to this particular page). --Ghirlandajo 00:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the idea of A to M and N to Z. What is this, a war zone where we divide the country into pieces???? It will not work. A third group will come in, and then what? A to F and G to O and P to Z???? It seems locking all will work much better until we come to an agreement. mno 00:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I agree that this became ugly. I have no problem with protecting all articles which AndriyK messes up with his anachronistic name changes. AndriyK is ignoring the argument at Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context. This is a representative list of his contributions. Please note that this and the other article were renamed using the vote fraud described above and also at AndriyK's talk page. I am prepared to go for arbitration against AndriyK since all other attempts to talk to him by several people where tried, much more than the RfC would bring. --Irpen 20:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good that there is some kind of effort to establish a naming structure. At least this gives me hope. However, it seems we still have a continued war between the two groups, and this will have to go away. I don't know too much to judge anything, but I would strongly advise that both groups start seriously respecting each other. I think I know why this drift occured, but regardless, I would strongly urge both groups to find a common language. Simply permanantly banning a username will not work on the Internet, and will most likely cause more grief in the long run. On the other hand, one will always find someone who disagrees with their views, so simply ignoring them and forging ahead with changes will also never work. mno 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AndriyK should be banned. Less restrictive limits on his behaviour is necessary, however, such as prohinition to move articles on his own, to create redirects, personal attacks probation, incuding using of the internet forums for that, and limiting a number of reverts for him from 3 to one per 24 hr period. He is permanently one step under 3RR at several articles. --Irpen 23:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite reasonable. I don't want to have anyone banned, and I don't particularly want anyone to have any limits placed on them. However, I want to see what AndriyK will say before saying anything further. Best! mno 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, I asked you many times but have to repeat again: "please stop lying".
In fact, Britannica uses both Chernihiv and Chernigov in historical context. In the article "Chernihiv" this spelling is used everywhere and is applied to all periods of history, while "Chernigov" is mentioned as Russian name. Why did you decide that "Chernihiv" is anachronism? Do you pretend to know better what is correct usage and what is anachronism than Britanica's editors?
Concerning the alleged "vote fraud". I asked you on your talk page: "If you doubt the validity of the vote, please provide the reference to WP Policies confirming your assertions." You did not answer. If you cannot confirm your assertion, please stop slandering.
Dear Mno, I agree with you that the A to M and N to Z idea is certainly unacceptable as a WP rule. Still, it's quite reasonable as a temporal solution to stop the edit war. From this point, I stop correcting/reverting the names that start with the letters from the second part of the alphabet (i.e from N to Z). This is also a good occasion to see whether the opposite party is able to accept any compromise in principle, or the edit waring is the primary goal of Irpen and alike.--AndriyK 09:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this compromise. Then questions arise as to why you selected A to M? Irpen may say that many of the recent articles that have had a lot of reverting fall into that category. I don't like this idea at all. I think the only compromise that is acceptable is to finilize the rules for naming as soon as possible and then follow those. If we cannot wait to make reverting to the articles until that point, then the articles should be locked. I am not sure that I speak of Irpen, but I think the general movement on EN.WP regarding use of Ukrainian names is to use the "popular" transliteration, which is usually determined by Google and/or Britannica. I don't really agree with this policy. I would much rather see WP support the country's official naming methods, with redirects from the popular transilaterations to the proper ones. Of course, there are those that will heartily disagree, and those who won't care. This issue goes deep beyond the scope of the Internet into who Ukrainians are and where they come from. So, to be the devil's advocate here, I am going to agree with AndriyK when it comes to using Ukrainian transliteration part-way. I will also agree with Irpen et al's way of doing this (I hope not to offend anyone by grouping people this way) - especially when it comes to historical articles. I will make further comments on the appropriate page. However, I think the proper solution would to combine the two. It would be difficult, I know :) mno 13:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is only a temporary solution, till we finish the rules at WP:NC/GN. This temporary solution is designed to do one thing only: stop revert wars messing up pages history. If the revert wars continue, I will raise the problem at WP:AN and this will likely result in a mass protections of all affected pages - but this would be far from constructive solution, as it would stop many beneficial edits, so I'd really not have to do this. A temporary cease fire based on 50/50 alphabet division sounds much better, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is WP:NC/GN? Since there are more subpages and votes and discussions under naming conventions than stars in the sky, it would be nice if you provided a link.
This is dumb even as a temporary solution. Gene Nygaard 16:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe dumb, but easy to implement and showing the willingness to compromise. Are you going to suggest something better instead ? --Lysy (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

Revote

[edit]

I propose a revote, this time without interference from a foreign, unrelated site. Kuban kazak 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's too early and may not be necessary. As the current arbitration is going, we are likely to get the ruling that would apply universally to all moves that were made with a dirty trick. Such moves in the future would simply be reverted regardless of their merit based simply on the fact that the trick was used.
No move, except of a typo correction or something similarly obvious, should be made without an appropriate discussion and nobody may impose his POV on wikipedia single-handily using the subtle feature of the wikisoftware or by the vote fraud. --Irpen 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am prepared to wait. -- Kuban kazak 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the words of Arbcom AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. I propose that this page be restored until further notice.--Kuban kazak 13:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved?

[edit]

I believe the problem can be solved by simply moving the article to Oleg Sviatoslavich. Kazak 04:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone else is OK with it but looks good to me, except he the correct spelling is Oleg Svyatoslavich, so you should have had some more feedback on this move before doing it. The redirect Oleg Svyatoslavich exists and has history created by a bot so it will probably requre a vote–Gnomz007(?) 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can always copypaste...--Kuban kazak 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was not aware of this discussion Standartization of Kievan Rus names–Gnomz007(?) 07:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has the vote above has been recieved as a fraud. See [2]. Also do not do things like that [3] the last person got banned for a month. -Kuban Cossack 17:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great problem

[edit]

Note:the name of this article is wrong.De facto there are two princes whose name is Oleg Sviatoslavich, and both of them are rulers of Chernihiv. And it is very wrong to redirect Oleg Sviatoslavich to this article, because there are four (or for someone's opinion, five) rulers who were of this name. All of them are listed in Chinese Wikipedia, see here(Oleg Sviatoslavich).--Douglasfrankfort 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could game the system by having an Oleg Sviatoslavich and an Oleg Svyatoslavich. If we need more of them we can use Olehs. But remember the create a redirect page which explains who each person is. Cossack 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disambigtion page is most important in this case. Once we of course restore the name that has been vandalised by you know who. --Kuban Cossack 01:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Em... I think the disambigtion page should comprise:

And maybe there are more. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me)

Yes, I will agree, although make sure it is Chernigov!--Kuban Cossack 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here - [4] --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 09:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case do the honours of creating the disambig page. As for "of Chernigov" then I think if you copypaste, noone will die. The article's history of revert wars could not be more messed up than it already is, and there is really nothing to salvage whatsoever. Or just ask an admin to do this like Ezh or Bakharev, I am sure they will agree. --Kuban Cossack 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on renaming "of Chernihiv" to "of Chernigov" has not been reached. --KPbIC 16:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has the vote above has been recieved as a fraud. See [5]. Also do not do things like that [6] the last person got banned for a month. -Kuban Cossack 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arb Comm did not consider this vote as a fraud. You and your friends' personal opinion is just a personal opinion, nothing more.--AndriyK 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about you ask their opinion? Moreoever the arbcom have fully prohibited you from moving articles. So I suggest you don't even talk about the articles' titles. --Kuban Cossack 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the ARbCom decission. ArbCom have prohibited me from moving articles only in special cases. Nobody prohibited ne from talking about it. Please do not lie.--AndriyK 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special cases? Well this one is one of them. Quoting from: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK

  • "AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest."
  • "Should AndriyK move any page or change the content of any article to conform with his preferred usage before an agreement is reached as to a naming convention concerning historical Russian names and places he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year."

This was clearly a violation of ArbCom's ruling. --Irpen 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinform the community. Read carefully the decission of ArbCom: "AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names". How the Roman numeral "I" is related to Ukrainian names? I added "I" to the title of the article: "Oleg of Chernihiv" -> "Oleg I of Chernihiv" in complete conformance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles. The reason is explained in the comment of the move. --AndriyK 08:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I wonder how would you classify article's name change by Kuban kazak? I enjoy reading the summary he provided. Which page move, by AndriyK, or by Kuban kazak was controversial? KPbIC 09:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oleg_I_of_Chernigov&oldid=1242478036"