Talk:Bernardine Cemetery

Undue Information
It would be helpful if the anonymous editor using the IPs of 203.56.87.254, 131.170.90.2 and 124.190.116.230 would desist from attempting to add unimportant and undue information into this article on English Wikipedia. It would also be helpful if the "anon" would not include personal attacks in their edit summaries. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling you out on your Anti-Polonism is hardly a personal attack. Methinks you are just trolling (or baiting, looking for an excuse to block this user), as looking through the edit history, this has happened before with another Lithuanian nationalist user. Almost 20% of the population of Wilno is Polish, this is hardly "undue". 203.56.87.254 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your edit history concerning Lithuanian related articles speaks for itself. So do your edit summaries . Removing undue information is not "Anti-Polonism". The city is in Lithuania. The cemetery is in Lithuania. Minorities aside, the information is unnecessary on English Wikipedia. This is only another instance of people with an agenda placing Polish language entries into articles concerning Lithuania. Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, "neighborhoods" of cities, rivers, lakes and of course any Lithuanian personage that they can get away with. Conversely many of the same people take issue with any attempt to use a non-Polish name (as they interpret the matter) when faced with such a situation. Btw, regarding "Almost 20% of the population of Wilno is Polish"... What's Wilno? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Usual trio Dr.Dan, MK, Lykoz removing Polish names form every article related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage edit warring (see history) sadly...nothing changed in this department... more examples to follow....--Jacurek (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dyslexic people are amusing. Not only they do not know how to spell names, also they forget to check their EEML fellows contributions and also accuse people, who did just simply ceased editing, on their own misdeeds. Fotr the record - I do consider the continuing misspelling of my name as mocking and demand an apology.--Lokyz (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no, dyslexic people are not amusing. They are just dyslexic. And hey, they can (and in fact on average are) be smarter than non-dyslexic people. What this has to do with anything related to this article I have no idea.radek (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's about spelling. And about someone who does sing the old song again - the three vile Lithuanians, blah blah blah, and does not even take into consideration the absurdity of such accusations, especially after reaching some common ground how to include foreign names of the cities and towns in a way, that allows avoid unnecessary flaming, and especially after I've ceased editing Wikipedia at all for a month, until someone provoked calling me Lykoz again (actually User:Jacurek never did spell it correctly, maybe someone should give him guidance how to write it? Just to create more productive and friendly atmosphere here.--Lokyz (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on specific article controversy
The sad thing is that the entrance to this cemetery has a sign which is written ... in both Lithuanian AND Polish. And the funding for this bilingual sign was provided by ... the Lithuanian government. Apparently the Lithuanian government did not feel that including the Polish name of this cemetery, where a lot of famous Poles are buried, was "UNDUE". They were cool with it and even gave money so that such a sign could be erected. More power to them. But on Wikipedia it's a different story. Wikipedia Lithuanian editors feel that the actions of the Lithuanian government are "undue"... because?

It's a pretty good illustration of the "will the real Wikipedia nationalists please stand up" phenomenon.radek (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia's editors have two only two questions to ask themselves: First one is it English Wikipedia or WikiDictionary? Second one is - how would casual reader benefit from knowing the name of particular cemetery in several languages (let's not forget, that besides Lithuanian and Polish, German and Latin could be easily added to the list).
 * It is Wikipedia thing really, not nationalistic or municipality's.--Lokyz (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, anyone wanting to know what the Polish name for this cemetery is can link up to the Polish Wikipedia article. Although the cemetery is in Lithuania you won't find the Lithuanian name for it at the Polish article. And actually it's not necessary to put it there either, because a reader there can easily find the information at other proper venues. Sorry, but this is just another part of an unfortunate agenda being implemented by the same people of placing Polish toponyms into Lithuanian related articles. This example was particularly humorous . I think that's a better illustration of "will the real Wikipedia nationalists please stand up" phenomenon. Certainly you can find something else better to do. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see this pathetic war still being waged - I thought we had found a solution (put the information in the article, but not in the lead). No particular reason for it not to be in the lead except that Lithuanian editors seem to be excessively sensitive about non-Lithuanian names for their places (maybe one day they'll realize it doesn't do the image of their country any harm at all to acknowledge that its places have alternative names, just like those in other countries of this and any other region), but as long as the information is reasonably accessible within the article, we can accommodate those sensitivities. --Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kotnitski, sad indeed. I too thought that this "solution" was the solution. But rather than focus on the "so-called" Lithuanian editors with the "excessive sensitivity", perhaps you can address this edit. How would you categorize it? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, that edit is more than a year old. A bit younger than the five-year-old edit you presented me with last time you were trying to convince me that Wikipedia was under attack by rabid Poles trying to force Polish names in everywhere, but still hardly relevant to this discussion. (And even if your theory is true, which it no doubt is to some extent, that doesn't justify siding with the equally agenda-driven editors who want to take Polish names out everywhere - we ought to be cooperating to reach a sensible middle ground.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, the agenda I'm referring to is more than a year old as well. I could provide you with many more examples, but I'm sure you are aware of root of the problem. And it's not about rabies or rabid Poles. At least you seem to agree with me somewhat, "And even if your theory is true, which it no doubt is to some extent...". I believe there are definitely places where information concerning Polish-Lithuanian history should be brought forth at English Wikipedia. This example  was not one of them. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is your problem now? That edit was one of mine, perfectly reasonable, treating alternative names in the perfectly normal way they are treated on Wikipedia everywhere except for Lithuania. Since then we've agreed on a different solution for Lithuania to protect the sensitivities we all know about - can you stop bringing up old edits for no apparent reason except to promote disharmony? (There are of course dozens of your own edits that could be brought up if anyone doubts your own past involvement in this sad affair.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Kotnitski, my problem now, is you pop-up at this discussion trying to "find sensible middle ground", throwing in "that I tried to convince you that rabid Poles (that was promoting harmony?), are trying to force Polish names everywhere". Your perfectly reasonable edit was nothing of the sort. Seredžius, a small town of less than a thousand people, not near the Polish border, totally devoid of any meaningful relationship with Poland, was not appropriate, nor reasonable. Just another example of "the agenda", and another editor pushing it. The same agenda being employed here. The Polish name for this cemetery in this article's lead is not necessary on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of Lithuania has very meaningful historic relationships with Poland, hence the fact that such tiny villages have Polish names. But I know you, you'll deny obvious facts and bring up irrelevancies as you've done in these discussions time and time again (and it doesn't matter to you whether the place in question has relationships with Poland - as I pointed out on your talk page, you do the same robot-like removal of information even when the place has very clear relationships with Poland). Very very sad - I thought at least you were a fairly reasonable person, but it now appears that you're still waging this war - possibly even as its most enthusiastic pursuer - long after the matter was satisfactorily settled. --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Poland has very meaningful relationships with many places in the world (like Curitiba), and many of these places have Polish names (not used in these places). I'm not into denying obvious facts, just keeping the encyclopedia relevant, and agenda free. I'm beginning to see through this argument of yours, which has many guises, but has little to do with the political reality of the 21st century. Obviously it comforts you to see these Polish toponyms inserted into Lithuanian related articles in English Wikipedia. It's unnecessary. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may interject an outside view here: editors on both sides of this debate seem to be caught in the common error of regarding the mentioning or non-mentioning of foreign equivalents as a symbolic "badge of recognition" of a nation's historical claims to a place. This is wrong and quite irrational, and as long as editors think in these terms, these recurring debates will never be solved. Foreign name variants should be provided if they are useful to the English reader. That is the only relevant criterion. In this instance, the phrases in question are not even names, linguistically speaking. They are descriptive phrases, and all three are simply literal translations of each other, and as such, utterly predictable, utterly transparent, and utterly trivial. If you are a speaker of Polish, you already know that the Polish equivalent of "Bernardine cemetery" is "Cmentarz Bernardyński". If you are not a speaker of Polish, there is no reason you would want to know. It's just a fact about the Polish language, not a fact about this cemetery. So, what reader gets a benefit from mentioning it? – For the same reason, by the way, one might question the mentioning of the Lithuanian translation too, but here at least there's the factor that an English reader might come across the Lithuanian term in a local map or tourist guide or street sign or something, so there might be some factor of usefulness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, suppose I agree with this statement. But then the implication is that while "Cmentarz Bernardynski" is unnecessary in this particular article the Polish names of various cities and towns in Lithuania which have a link to Poland DO need to be placed in these other articles. And yet they are consistently being removed.
 * Additionally, how can we know a priori what will and what will not be of interest to English readers? Well, we can't know for 100% sure, but Wikipedia Policy on naming conventions does in fact address this issue and suggests some criteria (which as it happens, this article fulfills) which proxy for "of possible interest to English readers". The problem is that this policy is being consistently ignored.radek (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nice summary of what's going on. Completely agree with everything you said. I would only add that local name is useful because it might be translated several ways and it is good to verify that all are talking about the same place. Renata (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's completely wrong assumption. The names are not given because of some absurd territorial claims,but due to long tradition of giving names associated with cultural heritage of the object or territory. Would you claim that giving German names to even smallest polish villages like here, is symbolic "badge of recognition" of a nation's historical claims to a place and should be removed because it's a "it's just a fact about the German language, not a fact about this village"?(of course the article has absurd claim along nationalistic claims that Germany existed all the time before 1945, while of course it was only in existance since 1871 but that's another thing).Throughout Wikipedia it is common procedure for articles to have names associated with previous cultural heritage-as I pointed out numerous even smallest locations in Poland have been given German version of their names. The Cemetary has a strong connection to Polish Minority in Lithuania, many respected Polish historic personas are buried here, and was restored mostly by Polish efforts(I will add sources on that in the article). I see no reason why, just like numerous former German locations in Poland have German name added, this object can't have a Polish name. We shouldn't use double standards based solely on ethnic background. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read more closely what I wrote: there is a difference between places that have actual names, and these names differ in non-trivial ways between different languages, and things that don't so much have names but descriptions consisting of common words and phrases (e.g. "cemetery"), and the descriptions in different languages are trivially predictable translations of each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go Wrocław Main Market Square has a German translation of the term and even such translations that ""Green Pipe Side" means "German: Grüne-Rohr-Seite)", numerous other examples can be provided after a search. Is that a symbolic "badge of recognition" of a nation's historical claims to a place and should be removed because it's a "it's just a fact about the German language"?. Personally I would remove it, but it seems that there is a strong Wiki tradition on adding such translation if there was previous cultural presence. Anyway this discussion is a bit strange, because actually the Lithuanian official in charge of the restoring historical sites in Vilnius emphasises importance of the cemetary for Poles and thanks them for their efforts in keeping it in good shape-as I wrote before, I will add that later with sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither "Rynek" nor "Ring" are trivially predictable from "Market Square". "Market Square" in fact is a description, but "Rynek/Ring" are proper names and, as names, of considerable interest in terms of cultural geography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rynek/Ring are proper names? It's a description not a proper name. What do you define as "proper name" ? Is descrpition Green Pipe Side" means "German: Grüne-Rohr-Seite a proper name? If you are not happy: here we go again: Wrocław University has translation in the lead: Universität Breslau. Neither University in Lviv or Vilnius have their Polish names in the lead. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the translation in the case of Wroclaw University is unneeded (not the German phrase that gives its pre-1945 official name in the next sentence, because that is evidently part of its institutional history. Dunno about the Latin; is anybody using that?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely do not agree with your opinion FPS. MyMoloboaccount gave few examples of how ALL articles about the place, people etc. that share common history are written in Wikipedia. I will have lots more in my write up about it. U Welcome to join the discussion there.--Jacurek (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In general there need to be clear rules. We can't have situation where adding names to one city or location is based solely on ethnic background of the name. Rules should have no ethnic bias and treat every location in neutral and the same way.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names in the lead
I still don’t see any reason why Lithuania related article should be written in a different way just to accommodate somebody's personal feelings. ALL Wikipedia articles are written THE SAME WAY. Alternative names are in the lead. --Jacurek (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m writing up about this issue and will soon post it on the proper board. All of you are invited to join that discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by proper board? Isn't this the article discussion page? Why did you just not provide your views and argumentation here? --Lokyz (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Lokyz but we have discussed this issue on various talk pages many many, many, many times already. The problem is that there are 3-4 the same editors who continuously and without any logical reason keep removing Polish names from EVERY article that is related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage. I have collected 100’s of examples such as this one form the birthplace of the Polish Marshal J. Pilsudski [] and will present them at the time of filing. In my opinion all discussions we have tried before lead to nothing. How can you explain that obsessive like behaviour of removing EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING what is even slightly connected to Poland and Polish language from EVERY article related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage? Why it is O.K. to have Lithuanian name in the lead of the article about Augustów in Poland for example [] but it is not O.K. to have Polish name in the lead of the article about Seredžius in Lithuania[]. ....and not only in the lead but also in the article itself [].. I don’t even expect any logical explanation on this talk page why this is happening. I will let you know once I finish my analyses and post it on the appropriate board. I hope that you, Dan and MK who are the main force behind the removal of Polish names from articles related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage will join the discussion. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually you can spell my name correctly. I'm pleasantly surprised. I hope this will stop the mockery, that does not lead anywhere, except unwanted hostilities.
 * Actually I do not get, how does count is due and undue. Lithuania related articles are written exactly the same way, as all the others. Lithuanian name in Polish cities articles, befeore deletion, might easily migrate to the name section. This section is created to unload lead from secondary information, that is unnecessary for casual reader, who does look for quick overview of the topic, not dictionary entries. And I do think that Seredžius article case is like Kielce - is it really important for someone to know that in Lithuanian language it is spelled as Kelcai? I do have a high suspicion, that if I did add Kelcai there it would disapear really soon. That's why there is no all articles thing, as you're trying to impose. And,one more thing - there is no anti-Polish conspiracy amongst Lithuanian editors, you have to trust me on this. Because the tensions come from not trusting the other side judgement - be it Pilsudski, Mickiewicz, Zalavas, Smetona or Kelcai. Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lokyz, let him take it anywhere he wants to. Actually, I'd like him to explain the agenda he's pushing at any forum. Maybe we'll finally get an answer about what he was trying to accomplish at a article about a neighborhood in the capital of Lithuanian with this edit . So far there hasn't been one forthcoming. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mind-blowing that YOU can accuse OTHERS of pushing an agenda. Not last year, but just yesterday you were removing a Polish name from an article where it was 100% obvious that it was relevant - and when it was mentioned at your talk page (where I thought you'd apologize for it as an oversight) you still seemed to consider it an appropriate thing to be doing. This really has to stop - I have no wish to push for Poland over Lithuania, and am equally opposed to people who remove German or Lithuanian names from articles about places in Poland - but we can't have people going around removing information from Wikipedia (which is intended as an information source) just because it pleases some nationalistic biases they may have. I don't mind the information being in a "names" section rather than the lead - it's a bit silly doing it differently for one country just because it happens to have a sensitive set of editors, but I can live with that if it helps preserve the information - but PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THE INFORMATION ALTOGETHER.--Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have a report ready to file within a few days. Hopefully it will resolve this years old serious issue.--Jacurek (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotinski - name section is a really saver, when there are more than two foreign names, and a question about etymology. As for the "differently for one country" - you should check Budapest. In my opinion that solution is even better, than name section. We've discussed it with radek on my talk page. I did present my opinion, Radeksz did present his. That was productive discussion, at least now we do know our standpoints. Generalisations like "differently for one country", on the other hand, are not really useful and they do reveal a a vague hidden bias.--Lokyz (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there need to be standard rules.Personaly I would indeed create a seperate section for different names. The current situation however is not acceptable-one can't accept situation where one country gets foreign name into each of its villages while in another a location of huge cultural importance to minority doesn't get one.There need to be clear rules applied to all locations treating all the locations in the same way.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is ruling present:
 * Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
 * In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
 * Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)"


 * And I do think, that it does largely relate to the unsolved Cracow naming issue.--Lokyz (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

<-- Hmmm, what does the word "Alternatively" at the beginning of that sentence refer to? To the fact that the usual practice is to place these alternative names in the lede. But in the interest of compromise, as Kotniski mentions above, it was thought ok to do the names section thing. So we're back to the "compromise" thing; is it ok then if the Polish name is placed within article body here? The natural place for that would be in a discussion of recent renovations funded jointly by Polish and Lithuanian governments.

Also, on your talk page I mentioned what my objection to the "link it to a separate "Names" article" was. The biggest problem is that it only helps if one knows what one is looking for already. So if we have an article under "Town X" and I want to know what alternative names of Town X are then that would work. But suppose I was reading a book and instead I found some place being mentioned, a so called "Town Y", and I want to find out what the PRESENT name of this place is - then the Names list won't help me.radek (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the present English Wikipedia guidelines?--Lokyz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this portion?
 * other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order.
 * Then yes, that was precisely what I am referring to when I point out that Wikipedia naming policy is being consistently ignored here.radek (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One name - Cracow explains it all--Lokyz (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. In fact I still don't understand why that is being brought up over and over and over again, and how it relates to these discussions unless you really think that "Vilnius" should be under "Vilna". What it has to do with inclusion of alternative names in articles I have no idea. This is part of the reason why the level of frustration is so high - it doesn't matter what one says, or which wikipedia policy one quotes, or how much consensus one gets, or how much one tries to compromise, at the end of the time it's still going to about mindless removal of any mention of Polish names from Lithuanian articles coupled with a red herring red herring red herring after red herring about how there is some article on some Polish place somewhere on Wikipedia which supposedly may or may not be 100% in accordance with the Wikipedia naming policy but is only 90% in accordance with it and how someone who has has ceased editing long time ago or may not have even ever existed once removed some name from some article etc. etc. etc. hence anything (positive) related to Poland and especially names must be removed. It is about time for a general RfC on this subject.radek (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this generalization sounds like a complete conspiracy theory. You might want to read Future Perfect commentary just above.--Lokyz (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The one where he agreed with giving other names to locations such as villages and cities? So you agree with Polish names in cities and villages in Lithuania such as the German ones given to Polish villages?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what Future Perfect appears to be saying is that while in this particular instance the Polish name could be omitted because it is just a direct translation, the Polish names for places like Seredžius and Zalavas most certainly belong in those respective articles, just like "Danzig" has a place in the article on Gdansk. So... is it possible to put the Polish name in those articles, since per Wikipedia policy they belong there? Or is it just going to be mindlessly reverted with some unexplained claim of "undue"?radek (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Equating the placement of "Danzig" in that article's lead with the necessity of placing the Polish variant in the lead of Seredžius speaks for itself. It's an agenda that is becoming more and more obvious to people with a neutral disposition towards the subject. There are a plethora of similar examples that would actually be humorous if it weren't an agenda based effort to disrupt Wikipedia under the ultra-nationalistic guise of providing "useful information". Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Equating the placement of "Danzig" in that article's lead with the necessity of placing the Polish variant in the lead of Seredžius speaks for itself - no it doesn't. How does it "speak for itself"? Care to explain? What the hell does that mean?

It's an agenda that is becoming more and more obvious - there's no agenda here except for the agenda of actually implementing Wikipedia policy as she is written. Wikipedia policy says that relevant alternative names belong in the lede of the respective articles and that they should be bolded. Because including Polish names in articles about Lithuanian-Polish history apparently really hurts the feelings of some insecure nationalist Lithuanian editors we've agreed to the compromise that these alternative names would not be included in the lede but in the article text. But this compromise is not respected either (never-mind why the nationalistic mindset of a few editors should be allowed to trump Wikipedia naming policy in the first place), and we just get more of the mindless removal of Polish names from these articles. At this point, it's hard to see what the point of trying to compromise was in the first place.

It's an agenda that is becoming more and more obvious - the only agenda that is becoming more and more obvious here is that you and a few others will remove Polish names from articles in which they belong no matter what. No matter what kind of sources are presented that these names are actually extensively used in English language sources. No matter what kind of cultural or ethnic connection these places have to Poland. No matter if the government of Lithuania itself (not exactly known for its tolerance of Lithuania's Polish minority) gives funds to put up signs in the Polish language. It's just revert, revert, revert (usually in the order of Dr. Dan first, then MK second, then Lokyz, then back to Dr. Dan; tag, it's your turn to get back in the ring and revert)

to people with a neutral disposition towards the subject - who are these people with a neutral disposition towards the subject that agree with you? Be specific. Name names. Or are you just making stuff up? As far as I can see everyone's just getting sick of this mindless reverting and wishes you just got over it. There's German names in many Polish city's articles. For same reasons there should be Polish names in some Lithuanian city's articles (actually more, since history of Poland and Lithuania is mostly one of cordial relations, unlike that of Poland and Germany).

if it weren't an agenda based effort to disrupt Wikipedia under the ultra-nationalistic guise of providing "useful information" - will the real ultra-nationalists please stand up? For the most part Polish editors don't give a flip if someone puts in a German, Lithuanian, or Yiddish name into some article on a Polish city. Yet, Lithuanian editors go apeshit and start tag team reverting if somebody puts in a Polish connection into a Lithuanian article - no matter how much that connection is justified.radek (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you think equating the placement of "Danzig" in that article's lead with the necessity of placing the Polish variant in the lead of Seredžius needs an explanation, I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to you. Read up on some history concerning the city. What's the connection to Poland that would warrant the village of Seredžius having it's Polish variant in the lead? Let's hear it. You want specific names concerning neutral parties who are sick of your agenda, yet you claim "everyone's just getting sick of this mindless reverting and wishes you just got over it". Who's everyone? You speak of "tag teams". I won't bother to take that bait, because I think you've contributed to a few yourself, as you're doing here. Adding the Polish translation to the Bernadine cemetery article's lead is ridiculous. This is English Wikipedia. Fortunately there's an article on the subject in Polish Wikipedia that you can read up on. It's a click away. You keep asking " will the real ultra-nationalists please stand up?" What I'd like to know if the real ultra-nationalists will ever stand down. After reading "How to deal with Poles", it's not likely either. Just imagine if I wrote that essay. It was written long before I got here, and presumably by someone that feels more akin to your position than to mine. Thanks for not bringing up your usual need to talk about "Red Herrings" (very tiresome). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, if you think equating the placement of "Danzig" in that article's lead with the necessity of placing the Polish variant in the lead of Seredžius needs an explanation, I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to you. - no, please explain because it is not clear at all. This whole "it's obvious" "it needs no explanation" "it speaks for itself" is just a rhetorical trick aimed at evading the issue. One starts to suspect that you can't actually explain so you resort to this "argument by assertion".


 * You want specific names concerning neutral parties who are sick of your agenda - yes, I do. You said "It's an agenda that is becoming more and more obvious to people with a neutral disposition towards the subject" - who are these people? With the neutral disposition. Name some please. Or are you just making stuff up?


 * You speak of "tag teams". - Yes I am, because that's what we have here. I won't bother to take that bait - yet you do. because I think you've contributed to a few yourself, as you're doing here. - I'm sorry, but I haven't even edited this article yet. Why are you making stuff up again?radek (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr.Dan-the conversation with FPS didn't involve Gdańsk. I mentioned a small village like Kałduny with 400 people which has a German name added. FPS responded that locations such as those can have different names in different languages. So if such a small Polish village can have a German name, than I don't see why other locations of similiar nature in Lithuania can't have a Polish one. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have my write up filed later today or tomorrow. Dr.Dan will have plenty of space there to defend his position and present his arguments of why all Polish names should be removed form places/people that share common Polish and Lithuanian heritage. I think we should cease further discussions here.--Jacurek (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do presume it was a feeble threat, since there was nothing to defend.--Lokyz (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

measured response
Re this and this
 * 1) You cannot claim to revert somebody "per talk" when the talk page in actuality does not support your edit.
 * 2) I have no idea what "hm? Translation is per talk?" is supposed to mean.
 * 3) "Or using CAPS is it?" - I used caps in an Edit summary to emphasize the fact that if you gonna claim that your revert is "per talk" then it really should be "per talk". What's your point?
 * 4) "(Redacted) EEML sanctions DO apply even to you." - first I am not under any EEML sanctions. Second, I have asked you explicitly and politely not to insist on using my former username as it is linked to my real life name, here . You have refused to do so. This is straight up harassment then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this comment, that seems to be relevant on several topics. This is a view of third party, not related to Lithuania or Poland. Caps, in a Netiquette usually are regarded as a shouting, and also raising a voice ergo'' Mauvais ton--Lokyz (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lokyz, you reverting anon's who are removing Lithuanian names from the articles about Polish places (and rightly so), and at the same time you KEEP removing Polish names from the Lithuanian places related to the Polish history. I have prepered a nice list of such behavior of yours and the other two. You don't think that you can do this kind of things forever and on top of that insult other editors, don't you? You are aware that this is being noticed, right? --Jacurek (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a Dictionary
Once again, Wikipedia is not an English dictionary. It is not a Polish-English or French-English dictionary either. The Polish Wikipedia article about this cemetery does not include the Lithuanian name for this cemetery, even though it is in Lithuania. Even though it is in the capital of Lithuania. And rightly so because they are not required to do so. If someone decided that it would be nice to include the Lithuanian language variant in the lead of the Polish language Wikipedia article about the Bernadine Cemetery, that's all it would be. Nice. But still unnecessary and undue. This is why I'm again removing the undue and unnecessary information from this article's lead on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resting place of Polish and Lithuanian nobles. Closely related to the Polish history. Name added as per Wikipedia standards -WP:NCGN per LEAD per Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)--Jacurek (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing specifically in that provided link, which would order inclusion of foreign names by default. Therefore seek consensus on controversial edits next time. M.K. (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -WP:NCGN per LEAD per Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) as per all other articles in Wikipedia. --Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, those even stress the need to reach consensus as well. M.K. (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you have missed these - consensus reached here WP:NCGN and here LEAD and Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) - best regards--Jacurek (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, would any one like to show me how WP:DICTIONARY is relevant here? The whole point of that policy is about what article TITLES and SUBJECTS are appropriate and it has nothing to do with alternative names. I get a feeling that this is another instance where a random and irrelevant Wikipedia policy gets forcibly conscripted into serving as a meager excuse for reverting others per IDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Translation is not an alternative name - be it kapinės or cmentarz or cemetery - it is a common word, just in different languages. I do not see any specific alternative here. Just ask yourself, how would it benefit English reader.--Lokyz (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't you just told to stay away from me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you were told to stay away from me and the topics I'm working on:) In plain English.--Lokyz (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resting place of Polish (see list) nobles closely related to the Polish history. Name added as per WP:NCGN per LEAD per Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: - consensus cannot be held hostage by a couple of editors who refuse to follow standard Wikipedia policy and practice (here and on dozens of other articles). It has also not yet been explained how WP:DICTIONARY is at all relevant to this issue.16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pozwól mi skorzystać z okazji, życzę wszystkim najlepszego w dniu "Kobiet". Dzień później. And I wholly agree with Volunteer Marek and his edit, "I get a feeling that this is another instance where a random and irrelevant Wikipedia policy gets forcibly conscripted into serving as a meager excuse for reverting others per IDONTLIKEIT". Very true. One particular editor keeps harping on it over and over. And even one of its co-authors agrees it needs some fine tuning to say the least..."This dates to the very early days we were designing NPGN and as far as I can tell the wording was introduced by no other than myself". Obviously, it should be scrutinized further so that its spirit and letter are not twisted in order to suit an agenda. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article on English Wikipedia about cats does not include (kot), in its lead, despite there being lots of cats in Poland. More pertinently, the English Wikipedia article about Brazil does not include (Brazylia) in its lead. Despite a significant Polish population in Curitiba (Curytiba), no one would invoke the so-called WP:NCGN policy to argue that point and place the Polish toponym in the lead of its article. Not if they were being realistic about the purpose of this project. Would that be "conveying" pertinent information to our readers on English Wikipeda, even though there is a very nice link to 'Curytiba' on Polish Wikiipedia? Enough already of this nationalist trolling, cloaked in "policy", by the same people over and over again, disrupting the Wikipedia project in a mean spirited subjectivity. It goes way beyond the article about this cemetery. Poland is a great country and the Poles are a great people. Please start writing something useful that goes beyond telling us what a Lithuanian village, or a French village's geographical toponym is in Polish, just because you can. Totally useless.  Dr. Dan (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, unfortunately following consensus has been reached here WP:NCGN and here LEAD and here Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) - best regards--Jacurek (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's proof per WP:NCGN about the name notability: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cmentarz Bernardyński Vilnius About 26 results
 * Bernardine Cemetery Vilnius About 50 results

Given 50% of the hits from Piotrus above are Polish and given NGGN says Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages then I see to issue with the inclusion of the Polish name here. Tentontunic (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: Nationality or cultural belonging?

 * 1) Stanisław Fleury (1861–1915), Polish artist and photographer
 * 2) Stanisław Bonifacy Jundziłł (1761–1847), Polish botanist and florist, professor of Vilnius University and head of the Botanical Garden
 * 3) Franciszek Narwojsz – Polish matematician and engineer
 * 4) Zachariasz Niemczewski – Polish professor of mathematics
 * 5) Bolesław Rusiecki – Polish painter
 * 6) Kanuty Rusiecki – Polish painter

Are these persons really Polish? Fleury anyone? What is more, they there born (except one) in Lithuania (then Grand Duchy of Lithuania or already a part of Russian Empire). What means Polish here? Ethnicity, citizenship, state? I suggest remove nationality OR correct as these persons do belong to both Polish and Lithuanian culture (some to Belarusian as well), heritage and for most of them ethnicity question is difficult to answer and is rather secondary (not writers, politicians, but artists, scholars).

Eg. This kind of confusion:

lt.wikipedia Boleslovas Mykolas Ruseckas – Lietuvos dailininkas/Lithuanian painter (painter of Lithuania)

pl.wikipedia Bolesław Michał Rusiecki (ur. 23 listopada 1824 w Rzymie) – polski malarz/Polish painter (of Poland or Polish?; of already historical Poland or then yet contemporary?; of Polish Kingdom or of Commonwealth?).

English language speakers are not aware of these subtleties of the region and differences of the meanings of terms in other languages.

Thanks for Your thoughts. Žemėpatis (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)