Talk:Jan Stopyra

Protected edit request on 22 March 2026

Hi there,

Seeing as this page appears to still be fully-protected, can someone please restore the full protection tag by adding {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} to the top of the article? Qwerty123M (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 March 2026 (2)

Can someone please add the maintenance template {{Recategorize}} with the date parameter to the top of the article? I should have done this while the article was not protected but I didn't know the name of the relevant template at the time. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We're talking about three hours of protection. There is no need for this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree I think part of the issue is that the adding of that template was one of the debated about issues that led to the protection... As a neutral 3rd party (and the protecting admin) can you speak to whether the template can be readded either now or in a few hours when the protection expires? I (and I would guess Qwerty123M) don't want to get into an edit war by readding it so your input would be helpful. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just like disputed categories, a disputed maintenance template shouldn't be restored without discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted categories

@ToBeFree: @Qwerty123M: @Zackmann08: This is why I belive those deleted categories should be restored.

• Category:Diplomats from Ivano-Frankivsk he was a diplomat (consul) of Poland, and was born and grew up in Ivano-Frankvisk
• Category:20th-century Polish educators he was a lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Szczecin
• Category:21st-century Polish educators he was a lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Szczecin
• Category:Economics educators he was a lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Szczecin
• Category:Polish academics he was a lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Szczecin
• Category:People from Lwów Voivodeship he was born and grew up in Lwow Voviodeship, ergo, per description of this category, should be included

Also, I can see why this can be removed by I think it should still be considered

• Category:Socialist economists He studied, thought, and practiced economics in socialist state, so, that would make him socialist economist

Previously, the article contained categories about him being a writer, because of numerous columns published by him in local newspapers (see #Publications). But I can see why this was removed, thought I think he published enough articles, to count as columnist. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think practising economics in a socialist state would necessarily make you a socialist economist, there seems to be no direct reference to Stopyra explicitly practising socialism in economic theories in this article. The educators and academics templates seem to be a good candidate for inclusion considering that this article has relevant references. I'm not so sure about including the diplomat category because the current consul category seems to overlap with that description. I removed the People from Lwów Voivodeship category because I could not see that referenced in the article when I used the find function in my browser.

Most of these categories I removed because I couldn't find the general words (such as "educator", "economist" or "academic") associated with the professions included in the article. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

With all do respect, you should read the article instead looking for key words. This is why I'm annoyed with this discussion, becouse instead of actually reading the article, people seem to be just arbitrary cutting cagories, to get read of the Big Number. Regardless. I can see why he isn't necessarily a socialist economist, though I seriously doubt he practiced capitalist economics behind the iron curtain at the height of the cold war. I added "Diplomats from I-F", couse it's a subcategory if "People from Ivano-Frankivsk". And again, he is from Ivano-Frankvisk, which wad in Lwow Voivodeship. I don't think it needs to be directly stated in the article, to be obvious. Its like arguing he is not from Poland, becouse article would only talk about him being from Szczecin and not mention the country. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not reading the article throughly enough to know why some of these categories should have stayed. I think a reader would find it difficult to know about this information the categories are relating to if that is not mentioned in the lead.

I acknowledge that deleting the "people from Ivano-Frankvisk" category was wrong as it is currently clearly stated in the article that Stopyra was from there. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know who Jan Stopyra is. I don't particularly care who Jan Stopyra is. What I care about is that having fifty one categories on a biography page that is barely 2 printed pages long, is a very clear case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

Just 1 example: there is zero reason to put the page in both Category:20th-century Polish economists AND Category:21st-century Polish economists. Just put the page in Category:Polish economists (the parent category to the previous 2). This is just one of the many examples of way, way overdoing it on the number of categories on the page.

I've got other projects I'm working on and am really not interested in debating this further. If the CONSENSUS is that 51 categories and numerous essentially redundant categories is the way to go, then so be it. All I have seen thus far is a single editor who has not read overcategorization and continues to act like they OWN the article that they wrote. (Emphasis on act as I won't pretend to know what Artemis thinks, but I can certainly comment on their actions.) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Those categories exist to difuse parent categories. How can you talk about removing overcategorization, but then completely ignore rules about moving categories from parent to subcategories. He is an economist and politian from 20th and 21st centuries. Leaving him in just "Polish economist" etc removes him from categories about people by century and also clogs up categories about Polish people by occupation. I will not budge on it, as I think you are just plainly wrong. Those categories should be restored.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your attitude that you will not budge on it just further shows what an unhelpful editor you are. Qwerty123M you are on your own on this one. I have more important projects to work on then squabbling with someone who wants to WP:OWN this page. I'm out. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Some paragraphs do not have line breaks"

Qwerty123M, are you sure that "some paragraphs do not have line breaks" makes sense? Do you mean "some paragraphs are too long" and should be separated by ... paragraph breaks? You seem to be asking for the addition of "br" HTML tags within paragraphs. If that's what you want, perhaps go ahead and place them where you think they'd improve the article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for <br> tags but I understand that it was a confusing message. I could have just added that line spacing myself but I added that template to ensure that enough references were in place to support all the content. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Qwerty123M, there is a hard, objective technical difference between paragraphs and line breaks, so the message wasn't confusing but incorrect. Thanks for the clarification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

(I mean, it even was technically correct as the paragraphs actually had no line breaks inside them ... you see what I mean ... blergh ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Seriously

Ok, firstly, why do you keep reverting my stuff. I'm so tired of being treated here like amateur and having all my edits reverted, no matter if they are good or not. I written over 1,000 articles, over 5 years. I know how to write articles. But regardless. Why I disagree with your reverts? Firstly, I don't see why you insisting on linking Ukrainian SSR as a redirect. It's pointless and complicates stuff more than to just leave the link as it was. Secondly, you clearly broke sections up sections at arbitrary points, for example, you cut section about his mayorship at clearly arbitrary point, so now new section just talks about "new roads being built" for no reason. Moreover, you didn't even bother to carry over the references, and instead, marked the article as "badly sourced". Respectfully, I appreciate your help, but seriously, if you not gonna read the article, and just make random choices like this, what's the point of contributing? How is that any better, than what I did before? And how do I get accused of edit warring, but everyone else get's smilingly free pass do revert all my edits? And also, as I said, I do not believe him being a teacher for a few years is enough to mention that in literary first sentence. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC) @Qwerty123M: @ToBeFree:

I don't mean to cause concern, but I appreciate you pointing out the drawbacks of my edits. Using redirects where possible is a good idea because it is compliant with MOS:NOPIPE. I added "lecturer" to the first paragraph because that is stated later in the article and you have a strong desire to use that category so it is best to make it obvious to readers and editors why that category should be there, if you don't want to use the category, removing "lecturer" from the lead would be appropriate. You're right that I haven't taken care of the paragraph breaks properly, I think previous revisions had too much content in one paragraph though, I really thought someone else (like you) would have come along and fixed those errors. I have marked that section with a sourcing tag because I don't know which citations are to be repeated because I cannot read Polish.

In a few of your recent responses, I don't think you have been assuming good faith, assuming good faith means that you must not use a negative tone when communicating with anyone. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I do assume good faith, but my personal patience is at its limits, when I see zero actual effort put in reading and editing. Especially, when I already pointed out twice why what you did caoused a lot of mistakes. And when I correct them, and you just keep deleting my edits, which, is really frustrating. Especially, when I was myself already accused of "edit warring", but somehow it's ok when other editors do it here. I'm just tired of this situation and constant back and forth. 02:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits, or I myself will also alert admins of this edit war. I try to talk to you, and you just keep removing everything I do here, for no reason.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I added spacing between the paragraphs because it is difficult to read without that formatting. Instead of completely reverting my edits to this article, I would like you to consider adding the details you think are missing from my revision per Help:Reverting#Before reverting. Remember that you cannot WP:OWN an article on Wikipedia, even if you have created it, once an article is released it is licensed freely and available for anyone to edit. Please don't say that I am testing your patience because I don't think that is assuming good faith either, please read WP:AGF and consider those points when communicating. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not own article, but you do not either, so stop policing it like you do. I told you numerous times, mistakes you made. Your spacing does not improve readability, and if anything it makes it more confusing as you space out revelaant information across smaller sections. Mayorship section for example does not need to broken into two parts for no reasn. So does the section about his work in economics, which you try to break to three extremely short sections. This isn't super long article, it doesn't need a houndred sections, each two sentences-long. Not to mention, you ruin the references, and clearly do not have any intention at fixing them, other than slapping "this article has issues" sticker on it. If you edit requires leaving "impove this" after you are done, then your edit is clearly the problem. I did assume good feith, but assume does not mean "blindly belive it" when I see contradicting evidance. I do assume you want to "help", but it's clear you do not intend to do any actual work other than surface level "I break a section here, remove this, cut this" to satisfy some quota. And at this point, I feel like I could have this conversation with a wall, as every time I try to talk about anything, you just revert everything and accusme me of being the bad actor, while your behaviour is no better, if not outright worse. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You may not think you own the article but when you are making a high volume of edits so quickly, it seems like you have a greater degree of authority over the article, WP:OWN states "by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them." The guideline also emphasises respecting the contributions of other editors. Adding line breaks between the paragraphs helps with readability, and it complies with guidelines such as MOS:PARA. Blindly believe it is an incredible statement when you could just be building on my content instead of reverting it, what makes you averse to doing that? Not every edit has to be major.

Should we go through another option in the dispute resolution process? Qwerty123M (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Artemis Andromeda, I'm sorry for not being accepting of your changes, I wasn't taking a proper look at what you were trying to do to the page and I forgot to realise that you are well-intentioned just like everybody else. I really did feel like I was too obsessed over making sure this page was how I thought it ought to be but that is because I want to make sure every page on Wikipedia is referenced well and reads well, thanks for calling me out when I do things wrong though, that helps me know how to improve in the future. I hope we can make an effort to stay out of trouble like this in the future.

Sincerely,

Qwerty123M (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)