Talk:Battle of Zawichost

Reverting

This article looks much better now, with new info that is sourced. but I see that there's a dispute between Ghir and Hali and perhaps Irpen. What's the dispute about? --Candide, or Optimism 13:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea. The guys did a great job adding info to the article. However, at the same time they simply deleted all the info that was already there - for no apparent reason. If the reasons are personal, which is quite probable IMO, then this could be better solved at my talk page rather than by deleting my work just because. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thanks to an edit comment by Irpen I discovered that the problem were Russo and Ukrainophobic terms. I guess what he referred to is the usage of the term Ruthenia, which has been Ukrainophobic at least since early middle ages. Even late Romans hated ancient Ukrainians apparently... Not to mention a Ukrainophobic chemical element... :D If that really was the problem, I'm happy to see Irpen fix it properly this time. //Halibutt 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply rewrote the article from scratch and some parts were ommitted. I did not delete Halibutt's reinserting them later. OTOH, I do find it amusing (not even annoying) that Halibutt keeps reinserting polonocentric names into articles. What' Wlodimirec is doing for the town name of the Rurikid time? That is an old problem of this editor and I am tired of cleaning up Russo- Ukrainian related article after Halibutt's intrusion from the modern Polish names. Others see the same problem with his edits to Lithuanian articles. I just don't get this stubbornes but in no way I want to delete anything just based on that. I simply corrected the names in my recent edits. Finally thanks for the compliments. I spent quite some time digging through sources on this misterious "battle", which I would have called an "Ambush of Zawichost". Since the article is now totally rewritten and unstubbed, it might qualify for DYK. --Irpen 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you assumed my good will you'd probably noticed that I'm merely using the names I know, since using the names I don't know could be quite hard. And even if, your (and Ghirlandajo's) decision to delete all my edits for no reason at all instead of fixing the names was not a step in the good direction. Such behaviour is not seen by some as harmful, but by all, as it perfectly fits the definition of vandalism. I'm glad you changed your ways now.

As to DYK - sure, feel free to add it. I'll try to dig up some more on the battle as soon as I get home. //Halibutt 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I've seen you around here long enough to know what to asume, that is good faith superimposed on an extremely Polonocentric world picture intermingled with a self-denied but obvious hatred toward Russia. As to this edit, I did not delete it a single time. I corrected the names, that's all. And if you don't know non-Polish names of the places, as you claim, Wikipedia articles on those towns is a good place to find them. I was tempted to join your debate with Dan on Wilno, but what new I can tell you, especially after Wasylkowce, etc still at the PSW template? I can only clean up a fixed amount of this stuff. I don't have molobos to run revert wars on my behalf. --Irpen 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I must show this edit of yours to either my Russian teacher or my friends from Kiev who visit me next week. I'm sure they'd be delighted to know that "I hate them even if I don't know it". Sorry, Irpen. Don't expect me to feed you any more. //Halibutt 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Zawichost. 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/20060720092245/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/dov/istukr/IIIh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Zawichost/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Polish Piast (talk · contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As far as I see this is your first GAN. I try to help you to pass the article. Please treat my comments as recommendations and feel free not to accept any of them, but in this case share your argumentation with me. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Could you add one or two reliable sources published in English? The lead introduces the battle as "a key clash", so I suppose, works about the medieval history of Poland and Ukraine cover this battle.
• Dlugosz (1480): I doubt that a book published in 1480 has an isbn.
• Why are not Yanin and Samp listed among the sources in section "Bibliography". Done
• Prefecky (1973): isbn is missing.
• Samp (2024): isbn is missing; could you translate the title to English? Done Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pieczęć Leszka I Białego.jpg: US PD tag is needed at Commons.
• File:KOnrad.jpg: US PD tag is needed.
• File:Печать Романа II Великого.png: copyright status is unclear at Commons.
• File:Поход Рюрика Ростиславича, Ярослава Переяславского, Романа Галицко-Волынского и других на половцев.jpg: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Pieczęć Leszka Białego.jpg: US PD tag is needed.
• File:Pieczęć Konrada I Mazowieckiego.jpg: US PD tag is needed.
• I would delete two pictures and add a map. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I have removed the photos simply by adding them myself later

I can see that the main problems are these pictures as in this article [1]. Give me some time and in 2 or 3 days I will fix everything and make a change based on your comments Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

When you are active, tell me what you mean by this tag. I am not in wikipedia common some good Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

First open the picture, then push the "More detail" bottom in the right corner, and you will see the picture's details at Commons. (For instance, you can see here ([1]) why the US PD tag is needed.)Borsoka (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)