Talk:Dainius Kreivys

False information on the page
Hi all,

The article was improperly written and sources used are on most cases unreliable. Further to this the translation is wrong and often charged with accusatory language. The statements there are made as definite and yet they seem to be speculations and allegations at best. As well as one can see purely negative has been written which shows that there is a reason (most likely because the person is a politician). I would advise to remove the below sections from the article.

In 2011 Kreivys resigned as minister of the economy following public comment from President Grybauskaitė[2]  that he had lost confidence due to conflict of interest following inquiries by European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

(there was no investigation by OLAF as stated and its not cited in the source)

and Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania for approving European Union (EU) funding for a nation-wide school renovation program benefiting business interests of his immediate family.[3]

(This is a dubious claim as there were no cost analysis done to prove that someone benefited from this renovation program, thus purely based on speculation)

While minister Kreivys granted 6 million litas (~1.74 million euros) of EU funding to a company formally owned by his mother but was controlled by Kreivys directly immediately before and after his ministerial asignment.[4]

(this information is false as well as the Ministry of economy granted money to Municipal governments, with which Dainius Kreivys had nothing to do)

Official Ethics Commission stated in its findings, among other points, that Kreivys failed to conform to the law requiring public servants to declare their private interests in a timely manner and supplied incorrect data pertaining to a possible conflict of interest.

(this is not referenced, so can be considered as speculation)

Kreivys attempted to sue the Chief Official Ethics Commission and lost.[5] Kreivys was subsequently also found guilty of a conflict of interest in 2013 by the OLAF for formally transferring his business interests to his mother, granting her EU funding thanks to his position as minister of the economy and, after leaving the ministerial post, formally re-acquiring the business interests from her. OLAF demanded Lithuanian government return the funding granted[6]

(the source used does not mention that OLAF demanded anything back and it states that there is a possibility of returning the funding as well it as pointed out in the article that it’s the municipality government that made mistakes in the process and no one was found guilty)

(the funding was never returned by the Kreivys family companies); commented that the public procurement tender by Municipality of Vilnius won by Kreivienė's company was also unlawful; and commented that the person who chose the tender winner later became Kreivys' ministerial advisor.[7]

(The article does not state that the person what the one who chose the tender winner)

Kreivys was also implicated in alleged influence peddling while minister of the economy on behalf of BOD Group, a solar energy business, which resulted in 14 million euros in EU funding for the company in 2009.[8][9]

(Source 9 is a page that does not exist and source 8 just mentions Kreivys once but does not make any conclusive allegations)

The matter was still being decided by the prosecutor general as late as 2020.

(There is no credible source to back this claim)

In 2011, after Kreivys left his ministerial assignment, his mother's businesses were granted 1 million litas (289,620 euros) of EU funding for training purposes by two other conservative government ministers, in an alleged conflict of interest.

(Not referenced and looks like its fake information)

In 2017, Kreivys was noted to have been spending his parliamentary vehicle allowance renting a car from a company owned by himself.[10]

(The article states that he used his own private money and not parliamentary allowance, this is a serious allegation to make)

In 2018, Kreivys companies were noted to have used creative accounting to maximize their benefit from Lithuania’s solar power subsidies, taking advantage of a loophole capping subsidies per company but not per ultimate beneficiary.[11]

(the news source is a Lithuanian tabloid, that does not mention “creative accounting to maximize their benefit”, it was said that a large number companies lawfully applied for funding and one of them was related to Kreivys)

In 2020, a Kreivys company was convicted of construction based on an unlawful permit in Vilnius and would have had to demolish the building; however it signed a peace agreement with the Municipality of Vilnius and was spared. The company built apartments instead of a public building with social apartments for low-income citizens on its upper floors.[12]

(the article does not say anything about conviction and it was the municipality itself that converted that are for residential building as stated in the article)

Before becoming minister again in 2020, Kreivys' potential conflicts of interest were the main topic of discussion with President Nausėda.[13]

(the reference news sources not reliable and is unknow in Lithuania, as well it does not say that it was the main topic of discussion but talks about it as a topic)

Kreivys and his wife (director of external economic policy at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania) were ranked as 4th and 5th wealthiest politicians & public servants in 2020.[14]

(this source states that the value of their apartment ranks them 4th not overall wealth which is placed 117 place according to the article)

Kreivys' mother Florentina Kreivienė was ranked as the 5th wealthiest woman in Lithuania in 2011 with a net worth of more than 49 million euros.[15]

(There is nothing in the article to substantiated that claims made there)

In 2009 Kreivys was revealed as member of Opus Dei together with Rokas Masiulis and other Lithuanian elites.[16]

(This news source is a tabloid with very little credibility in terms of their news accuracy and they alleged but not revealed as written in this Wikipedia article)

[BNS, the biggest news agency in Lithuania, specifically reported in November 2016 that "Rokas Masiulis does not belong to Opus Dei" https://www.bns.lt/topic/1912/news/51309651/]88.119.144.204 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of Kreivys professional collaborators are also members of the Christian society.[17]

(Not sure what was being said here as only one person is referred in the article, where is the “many”?) Jovaišai (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021
Informational attack against a person aimed to discredit. Wikiarticle statements do not correspond with the information stated in sources. Restriction to edit article does not allow to add missing important information or correct false one. Energetikos ministerija (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Addressing shortcomings alleged by related parties
1. The semi-protected edit request (just above) is coming from Kreivys' Ministry of Energy. Due to identical article editing behaviour I suspect is a related party. I have found a LinkedIn profile of Andrius Jovaiša, former public relations coordinator at Lietuvos Respublikos Energetikos ministerija (Ministry of Energy of the Lithuanian Republic) (May 2016–Oct 2019) at https://lt.linkedin.com/in/andrius-jovaiša-27074340/, currently project manager at Lithuanian Railways - my guess would be that this is the individual behind. I address concerns right below:

2. You allege that "Not referenced and looks like its fake information". The missing reference for the 2011 event is easy to find and will be added once the article is unlocked: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/du-konservatoriu-ministrai-dkreivio-mamos-verslui-skyre-1-mln-lt-parama.d?id=48446357 Google Translate of the headline: "Two Conservative ministers have allocated $ 1 million to Kreivis' mother's business"

3. You allege that "The article was improperly written and sources used are on most cases unreliable". There is 1 institutional reference and then:
 * Delfi.lt x 6 The most popular news portal in Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_(web_portal)
 * Lrt.lt x 2 National broadcaster governed by an independent board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRT_televizija
 * TV3.lt x 1 Top-2 TV channel by popularity (formerly owned by a Swedish media group, currently by American private equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV3_(Lithuania)
 * Diena.lt x 2 Major newspaper (not sure if they are still publishing a print edition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauno_diena, https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diena_Media
 * Alfa.lt x 2 Top-5 news portal https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa.lt
 * Lrytas.lt x 2 Largest print newspaper, also a top online news portal and TV channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lrytas.lt
 * 15min.lt x 1 Top-2 most popular news portal, formerly also a print newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15min

4. You allege that "there was no investigation by OLAF as stated and its not cited in the source". OLAF investigation: https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/d-kreivio-skandalas-lietuvai-gali-kainuoti-es-milijonus.d?id=61480314 (Reference 7)

5. You allege that "This is a dubious claim as there were no cost analysis done to prove that someone benefited from this renovation program, thus purely based on speculation". Judgement of Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania is online, with reference provided in the article. It is not Wikipedia's policy to question judgements of official bodies. It is not a "claim" but an official judgement and thus it is not "dubious". Furthermore, you falsely allege the judgement is not referenced in the article - it is, and the judgement is referred to at length in some of the other media references as well (happy to help you locate them). The article also notes that Kreivys sued the Commission and lost.

6. You allege that "The article does not state that the person what the one who chose the tender winner". It does, all in one clear sentence:

"Viešųjų pirkimų komisijai tuo metu vadovavo Darius Indriūnas, vėliau tapęs D. Kreivio patarėju Ūkio ministerijoje."

Google Translate:

"At that time, the Public Procurement Commission was headed by Darius Indriūnas, who later became an advisor to D. Kreivis at the Ministry of Economy."

7. You allege that "the reference news sources not reliable and is unknow in Lithuania, as well it does not say that it was the main topic of discussion but talks about it as a topic". Not only is that untrue, but the source has two articles on Wikipedia (first for the source itself, second for its publishing company; see Point 3 above)

8. You allege that "the article does not say anything about conviction and it was the municipality itself that converted that are for residential building as stated in the article". Reference 12 is from the national broadcaster and it states: "Leidimas jam statyti buvo išduotas neteisėtai", i.e. "permit to build it was issued unlawfully" or, as Google Translate would have it, "A building permit for it was issued illegally". The lawfulness of the permit was contested by Valstybinė teritorijų planavimo ir statybų inspekcija, which is National territory planning and construction inspection, or as Google Translate would have it "State Territorial Planning and Construction Inspectorate". "Nelegalios statybos baigėsi taikos sutartimi" - "illegal construction ended in peace agreement", or, as per Google Translate, "Illegal construction ended in a peace treaty". Yes, the municipality did, to benefit a Kreivys company and at a cost to the taxpayer - that is the point of the reference. The article also states that Arvydas Darulis, of Municipality of Vilnius, used to be Kreivys assistant immediately before. I will add this fact to the article once it is unlocked.

9. You allege that "the news source is a Lithuanian tabloid, that does not mention “creative accounting to maximize their benefit”, it was said that a large number companies lawfully applied for funding and one of them was related to Kreivys". Firstly, Lrytas is not a tabloid (see Point 3 above). Creative accounting is pointed at in the following excerpt:

"Savo ruožtu D.Kreivio ir jo verslo partnerių saulės elektrinės sumontuotos ant kai kurių jų pačių iš dalies valdomų statybos prekių tinklo „Mokiveži“ parduotuvių. Taip yra Vilniuje, Panevėžyje, Šiauliuose, Utenoje, Klaipėdoje. Visų saulės energijos gamybos įrenginių, esančių ant kiekvienos iš šių parduotuvių, galia kone dvigubai viršija VIAP paramai numatytą ribą. Tačiau pinigai vis tiek byra. Mat bendrovės „Statybų gausa“ ir „SKV-Valda“, kurių net būstinės yra po vienu stogu, valdo po pusę šių įrenginių, o tuomet 30 kilovatų nė viena neviršija. Galbūt tik sutapimas, tačiau vos keturis darbuotojus turinti „SKV-Valda“ yra įsteigta 2013-ųjų sausį, kai tuometė valdžia jau springo nuo suplanuotų ir statomų saulės elektrinių."

Google Translate:

"In turn, the solar power plants of D.Kreivis and his business partners are installed on some of the stores of the own building goods chain Mokiveži. This is the case in Vilnius, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Utena, Klaipėda. All solar energy production facilities located on each of these stores, the power is almost twice the limit for PSO support, but the money is still flowing, because the companies Statybų Dusa and SKV-Valda, which even have their headquarters under one roof, own half of these facilities and then 30 kilowatts. None may exceed. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but SKV-Valda, which has only four employees, was established in January 2013, when the government was already bursting with planned and under construction solar power plants. "

10. You allege that "The article states that he used his own private money and not parliamentary allowance, this is a serious allegation to make". Nowhere does Reference 10 state what you say it does; in fact the article would never have been published if Kreivys used his personal money to rent the vehicle. The article specifically analyzes using parliamentary allowances for vehicle rental in the conflict of interest context, and other parliamentarians are also name-checked.

11. You allege that "There is no credible source to back this claim". I will Google for it when I have more time, although one of the existing references likely already contain this information.

12. You allege that "Source 9 is a page that does not exist and source 8 just mentions Kreivys once but does not make any conclusive allegations". It is true that Source 9 has been removed (or moved). As for Source 8, a more "conclusive allegation" would likely be called "conviction".

13. You allege that "The article does not state that the person what the one who chose the tender winner". Reference 7 clearly states the opposite:

"OLAF pažymi, jog mokyklų renovacijos konkursus eksministro motinos iš dalies valdyta įmonė laimėjo pateikusi jungtinį pasiūlymą su restruktūrizuojama įmone – esą šį konkursą kuravusi Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracijos viešųjų pirkimų komisija šį pasiūlymą turėjo atmesti, o ne pripažinti nugalėtoju. Viešųjų pirkimų komisijai tuo metu vadovavo Darius Indriūnas, vėliau tapęs D. Kreivio patarėju Ūkio ministerijoje."

Google Translate:

"OLAF notes that the school renovation tenders were won by a company partly owned by the ex-minister's mother by submitting a joint tender with the company being restructured, which was to be rejected by the Vilnius City Municipality Public Procurement Commission and not recognized as the winner. At that time, the Public Procurement Commission was headed by Darius Indriūnas, who later became an advisor to D. Kreivis at the Ministry of Economy."

14. You (repeatedly) allege that "This news source is a tabloid with very little credibility in terms of their news accuracy and they alleged but not revealed as written in this Wikipedia article". For "tabloid", see Point 3; also, reference 17 is Delfi republishing Lrytas reporting and negating your point. Lrytas did not allege but report, including photographs from the prayer meeting.

15. You allege that "Not sure what was being said here as only one person is referred in the article, where is the “many”?" References 16 and 17 refer to Masiulis and Jovaiša. 2 is not one but many, although not a great many - and in addition there is an unspecified number of unnamed persons referred to in the article.

16. You allege that "this source states that the value of their apartment ranks them 4th not overall wealth which is placed 117 place according to the article". Your point is half-true. Yes, Kreivys and his wife rank 4th-5th based on value of their real estate portfolios. However, note Kreivys' factual and referenced beneficial ownership moves in the past decade or so (where wealth was ascribed to him, then his mother, then him again). Considering 6 cases referenced in this article it would be reasonable to pay attention to the high range of wealth ascribed to various members of the Kreivys family (from next to nothing now to EUR49m+ 10 years ago). The article refers only to declared wealth, but as the Official Ethics Commission has ruled in the past, Kreivys has a history of not declaring interests in timely manner and declaring them in a misleading way.

17. You allege that "There is nothing in the article to substantiated that claims made there". It is as substantiated as any rich list anywhere, say Forbes. TV3 published it and apparently stands by it.

18. You allege that "the reference news sources not reliable and is unknow in Lithuania, as well it does not say that it was the main topic of discussion but talks about it as a topic". Not true; Google Translate of the headline reads: "D. Curves have had to explain the President for its interests".

19. You allege that "the source used does not mention that OLAF demanded anything back and it states that there is a possibility of returning the funding as well it as pointed out in the article that it’s the municipality government that made mistakes in the process and no one was found guilty". Not true - Kreivys was found guilty by both OLAF and the Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania. For context, OLAF tends to use specialized lexicon for "mistakes" - for example, conflict of interest or corruption; conclusions to OLAF investigations always establish intentionality. As for OLAF demanding back the EU funding granted, it is not the granting body, but its findings provide basis for the granting body to claw back the funding granted.

20. You allege that "this information is false as well as the Ministry of economy granted money to Municipal governments, with which Dainius Kreivys had nothing to do". Two individuals (Darulis and Indriūnas) related to Kreivys by past or future employment moved back and forth between working for him and the Municipality of Vilnius, one case of which is explicitly referred to by OLAF. Kreivys himself was on the Council of Municipality of Vilnius (Vilnius Municipal Council) in late 2008 according to the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The real-estate peace agreement with the Municipality point to history of relationships between Kreivys and the Municipality spanning at least 12 years (2008-2020).

I'm done with the explanation - which I did not have to do, as the sourcing is stellar, and only some of it is mine. I'm moving your additional points to your own section. Your other points are either repeats or so incoherent (at this time at least) that I am not able to discern what you are referring to.

Is it possible to use an Internet Archive or similar bot to archive the media references for this article? The reference that's gone missing (I did not look for it properly yet) makes me think it would be commendable to do something before some more disappear into thin air (does not happen in Lithuania - or the US - often but I've seen it once or twice before).

--62.97.78.226 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All edits are recorded in the page edit history; I'm not knowledgeable in bots. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:62.97.78.226 I would appreciate your response to my comments to your points, it would be great if we could clear up the disagreement over the information written in this article.Jovaišai (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not read your most recent contributions and unfortunately may not have the time to address them at length (unless edit-warring or message-control attempts resume once the article gets unlocked). We exchanged stances at length and at this point I doubt a second round would yield many new insights. --62.97.78.226 (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Responses to comments made by anonymous user
Hi all,

Please see my responses below.

In pursuit of objective portrayal of a person’s life I strongly urge to remove or redact what was written.

1. I am not the person that the anonymous user claims that I am. Jovaišai is a village that can be found in 2 places in Lithuania. https://lt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovaišai_(Kėdainiai) After reviewing the profile of the person mentioned by the anonymous user, you can see that he worked under the previous administration (2016-2019) and public relation consultants are political appointees and as the current governmental party is at odds with the one that was in power previously (2016-2020) it makes it very hard to believe that someone would be correcting their rivals web pages especially that now he works elsewhere.

2. You allege that "Not referenced and looks like its fake information". The missing reference for the 2011 event is easy to find and will be added once the article is unlocked: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/du-konservatoriu-ministrai-dkreivio-mamos-verslui-skyre-1-mln-lt-parama.d?id=48446357 Google Translate of the headline: "Two Conservative ministers have allocated $ 1 million to Kreivis' mother's business"

Response

2. You wrote the following:

In 2011, after Kreivys left his ministerial assignment, his mother's businesses were granted 1 million litas (289,620 euros) of EU funding for training purposes by two other conservative government ministers, in an alleged conflict of interest. This is an oversimplification of the article. The inaccuracy by you stating that “by two government ministers” the article clearly states that “SKV teko didžiausia dalis iš maždaug 1,5 mln. litų, kuriuos Lietuvos statybinių medžiagų prekybos įmonių asociacijai (LSMPĮA) 2009 m. pavasarį skyrė tuometis socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministras” This means that the minister granted funds to LSMPĮA that distributed the funds to a number of companies. The headline may be catchy but if you read the article – it’s inaccurate. Ministry of Social and Labour affairs confirmed that the companies are using the funding granted by LSMPIA lawfully as per this extract “Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerija (SADM) DELFI informavo, kad buvusiam ministrui nėra ko nuogąstauti, mat „Makveža“ parama naudojasi teisėtai.” There is no allegation of a conflict of interest as everything was done lawfully. Also note, that LSMPIA is a non-political organisation. The article as well mentioned that “Tad 2010 m. rugsėjo 13 d. socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministro įsakymu pakeista projekto partnerių sudėtis – bankrutuojantis projekto partneris „Broksita“ buvo pakeistas LSMPĮA pasiūlytu nauju partneriu „Makveža“” This clearly states that LSMPIA included the companies in question themselves. The paragraph you wrote very obviously implicates a person for something that is not true, a translation of a headline does not convey the reality of what is written in it.

3. You allege that "The article was improperly written and sources used are on most cases unreliable". There is 1 institutional reference and then: •	Delfi.lt x 6 The most popular news portal in Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_(web_portal) •	Lrt.lt x 2 National broadcaster governed by independent board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRT_televizija •	TV3.lt x 1. One of two most popular TV channels (formerly owned by a Swedish media group, currently by American private equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV3_(Lithuania) •	Diena.lt x 2 Major newspaper (not sure if they are still publishing a print edition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauno_diena, https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diena_Media •	Alfa.lt x 2 Top-5 news portal https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa.lt •	Lrytas.lt x 2 Largest print newspaper, also an online news portal and TV channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lrytas.lt •	15min.lt x 1 Top-2 most popular news portal, formerly also a print newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15min

Response

3. I appreciate you citing the websites and their Wikipedia pages but this does not give them more credibility. Unless there are hard facts that back up the claims, it can be counted as speculations. Where you cite official government body decisions, then we can have a discussion.

4. You allege that "there was no investigation by OLAF as stated and its not cited in the source". OLAF investigation: https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/d-kreivio-skandalas-lietuvai-gali-kainuoti-es-milijonus.d?id=61480314 (referenced in the article)

Response

4. To clear up this section – you stated that:

In 2011 Kreivys resigned as minister of the economy following public comment from President Grybauskaitė[2] that he had lost confidence due to conflict of interest following inquiries by European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). In 2011 Kreivys resigned because according to the Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania he created a “visibility of a conflict of interest” (written in the official conclusion) and the article you referenced is dated 2013. You alleg that he has lost confidence of the president because of an investigation by OLAF, yet the resignation happened in 2011 and OLAF was not present in any shape or form. As stated in that “OLAF išvada yra pagrinde grįsta VTEK sprendimu” which means OLAF based their conclusion on what the Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania had reported. Thus on there was no investigation by OLAF as there was a repeat of what the Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania had reported. If you think differently please reference the official OLAF investigation and conclusion from a governmental body.

5. You allege that "This is a dubious claim as there were no cost analysis done to prove that someone benefited from this renovation program, thus purely based on speculation". Judgement of Chief Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania is online, with reference provided in the article. It is not Wikipedia's policy to question judgements of official bodies. It is not a "claim" but an official judgement and thus it is not "dubious". Furthermore, you falsely allege the judgement is not referenced in the article - it is, and the judgement is referred to at length in some of the other media references as well (happy to help you locate them).

Response

5. Please reference where exactly in the official conclusion of these governmental bodies investigations it was referenced that – “benefiting business interests of his immediate family.[3]”. Please kindly point out to the exact sentence in governmental body’s conclusions stating that. I cannot locate that conclusion and you only referenced an archive in which I cannot find that investigation. This means that its speculation and not reflecting of the truth. Happy to discuss more once you provide proof for these allegations.

6. You allege that "The article does not state that the person what the one who chose the tender winner". It does, all in one clear sentence: "Viešųjų pirkimų komisijai tuo metu vadovavo Darius Indriūnas, vėliau tapęs D. Kreivio patarėju Ūkio ministerijoje." Google Translate: "At that time, the Public Procurement Commission was headed by Darius Indriūnas, who later became an advisor to D. Kreivis at the Ministry of Economy."

Response

6. Please reference where it says that Darius Indriūnas chose the tender winner. All that is said is that he was the head of the commission. It does not state that he chose the tender winner. Please reference where in the laws of Lithuania it says that solely the head of a commission chooses the tender winner. Because now you are alleging that “commented that the person who chose the tender winner later became Kreivys' ministerial advisor.” As mentioned please prove that he chose the tender winner as the article says “Vilniaus savivaldybės viešųjų pirkimų komisijai tuo metu vadovavo konservatorius Darius Indriūnas.” Which means he headed the commission and but fails to mention that he chose tender winner. It may logically make sense if someone is the head of a commission he may have the power to unilaterally chose the winner but this is not the case in most democratic countries and you should reference the laws that actually govern public procurement projects and how commission work.

7. You allege that "the reference news sources not reliable and is unknow in Lithuania, as well it does not say that it was the main topic of discussion but talks about it as a topic". Not only is that untrue, but the source has two articles on Wikipedia (first for the source itself, second for its publishing company; see Point 3 above)

Response

7. Please reference where your speculation is mentioned (calling it speculation because I cannot find it in the article), as a reminder you said – “Before becoming minister again in 2020, Kreivys' potential conflicts of interest were the main topic of discussion with President Nausėda” Kauno diena is not a major new paper unless you have any proof that it is? Furthermore Diena Media News is owned by an ex business partners of Vladimir Romanov who is currently in hiding from Lithuanian authorities. https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/diena-media-news-kontrolini-paketa-isigijo-vladimiro-romanovo-bendrazygis-56-452694 8. You allege that "the article does not say anything about conviction and it was the municipality itself that converted that are for residential building as stated in the article". Reference 12 is from the national broadcaster and it states: "Leidimas jam statyti buvo išduotas neteisėtai", i.e. "permit to build it was issued unlawfully" or, as Google Translate would have it, "A building permit for it was issued illegally". The lawfulness of the permit was contested by Valstybinė teritorijų planavimo ir statybų inspekcija, which is National territory planning and construction inspection, or as Google Translate would have it "State Territorial Planning and Construction Inspectorate". "Nelegalios statybos baigėsi taikos sutartimi" - "illegal construction ended in peace agreement", or, as per Google Translate, "Illegal construction ended in a peace treaty". The article also states that Arvydas Darulis, of Municipality of Vilnius, used to be Kreivys assistant immediately before. I will add this fact to the article once it is unlocked.

Response

8. The article clearly states that “Daugiafunkcį pastatą statyti dar prieš krizę užsimojo tuomečio mero Artūro Zuoko vadovaujama koalicija. Pastatas jau buvo suprojektuotas, jam statyti net gautas statybos leidimas, tačiau, savivaldybei įklimpus į skolas, sklypas parduotas” the county had planned to build a building there but after having debt issues sold it. This decision of selling it was taken by Mayor Zuokas before 2015. As well “Jau po mėnesio, 2015 m. birželio pradžioje, Vilniaus m. savivaldybė išdavė statybos leidimą” its Vilnius municipality who gave out the permission to build the apartment block which does not make it illegal. This was followed by a review of the Construction Inspection who said that the permit was given out unlawfully because Vilnius municipality made a mistake themselves, not the business in question, who had operated according to what the government bodies were allowing. Please refer to „Įvertinusi statinio projekto duomenis ir statinio projekto sprendinius, Statybos inspekcija patikrinimo akte konstatavo, kad statinio projekto sprendiniai neatitinka detaliojo plano sprendinių, todėl statybų leidimas išduotas neteisėtai“ As well please see the extract were a municipality official did the changes and they have nothing to do with the business: “Vilniaus m. savivaldybės administracijos direktoriaus pavaduotoja Danuta Narbut 2018 m. pradžioje pasirašė įsakymą, kuriuo leido sklype panaikinti visuomeninės paskirties naudojimo būdą, taip pat išplėsti statybos zonos ribas. Koreguotas detalusis planas D. Narbut parašu patvirtintas 2019 m. rugpjūčio 12 d.” I would highly advise avoid google translating headlines and creating narratives without reading the actual text.

9. You allege that "the news source is a Lithuanian tabloid, that does not mention “creative accounting to maximize their benefit”, it was said that a large number companies lawfully applied for funding and one of them was related to Kreivys". Firstly, Lrytas is not a tabloid (see Point 3 above). Creative accounting is pointed at in the following excerpt: "Savo ruožtu D.Kreivio ir jo verslo partnerių saulės elektrinės sumontuotos ant kai kurių jų pačių iš dalies valdomų statybos prekių tinklo „Mokiveži“ parduotuvių. Taip yra Vilniuje, Panevėžyje, Šiauliuose, Utenoje, Klaipėdoje. Visų saulės energijos gamybos įrenginių, esančių ant kiekvienos iš šių parduotuvių, galia kone dvigubai viršija VIAP paramai numatytą ribą. Tačiau pinigai vis tiek byra. Mat bendrovės „Statybų gausa“ ir „SKV-Valda“, kurių net būstinės yra po vienu stogu, valdo po pusę šių įrenginių, o tuomet 30 kilovatų nė viena neviršija. Galbūt tik sutapimas, tačiau vos keturis darbuotojus turinti „SKV-Valda“ yra įsteigta 2013-ųjų sausį, kai tuometė valdžia jau springo nuo suplanuotų ir statomų saulės elektrinių." Google Translate: "In turn, the solar power plants of D.Kreivis and his business partners are installed on some of the stores of the own building goods chain Mokiveži. This is the case in Vilnius, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Utena, Klaipėda. All solar energy production facilities located on each of these stores, the power is almost twice the limit for PSO support, but the money is still flowing, because the companies Statybų Dusa and SKV-Valda, which even have their headquarters under one roof, own half of these facilities and then 30 kilowatts. None may exceed. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but SKV-Valda, which has only four employees, was established in January 2013, when the government was already bursting with planned and under construction solar power plants. "

Response

9. Please advise again where do you see mention “creative accounting to maximize their benefit”? I apologise but this has nothing to do with accounting. What the articles says that multiple companies applied for these grants, they share an owner but nothing illegal was done, if you actually review the full article they even state that this is legal. Lastly the news source is a tabloid and uses charged language to create effect.

10. You allege that "The article states that he used his own private money and not parliamentary allowance, this is a serious allegation to make". Nowhere does Reference 10 state what you say it does; in fact the article would never have been published if Kreivys used his personal money to rent the vehicle. The article specifically analyzes using parliamentary allowances for vehicle rental in the conflict of interest context, and other parliamentarians are also name-checked.

Response

10. This is a false interpretation of the article and s very serious allegation, as the matter discussed in the original source https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2017/01/24/news/gretos-kildisienes-skandalo-isgasdinti-politikai-puole-skaidreti-677391/ is whether parliamentarians who rent cars declared that in private/public interest declaration. Both of the articles do not even mention allowance money. The article raises question why D. Kreivys decided purchase the car instead of renting, however, the matter of money used for that is not discussed.

11. You allege that "There is no credible source to back this claim". I will Google for it when I have more time, although one of the existing references likely already contain this information.

Response

Still no credible source

12. You allege that "Source 9 is a page that does not exist and source 8 just mentions Kreivys once but does not make any conclusive allegations". It is true that Source 9 has been removed (or moved). As for Source 8, a more "conclusive allegation" would likely be called "conviction".

Response

12. Please quote where there is an allegation and for what, Kreivys is only mentioned once in this article. Secondly Alfa LT is owned by MG Baltic, the biggest Lithuanian conglomerate, that was implicated for high level corruption charges and some ex high ranking officials from that group are currently on trial. Furthermore, it was found that the group used their influence to discredit Kreivys as per the official VSD report (State Security Department of Lithuania) Please refer to this source who published the full report. https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/vsd-pazyma-be-uztusavimu-ivardyti-visi-mg-baltic-uzgaidas-vykde-politikai-valstybes-instituciju-vadai-rektoriai-teisejai-prokurorai-56-980836 https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_grup%C4%97 Exact Extract: “2010 m. MG atstovai bandė paveikti tuometinį ūkio ministrą Dainių KREIVĮ, kuris ne visada priimdavo koncernui naudingus sprendimus. Kaip poveikio priemonę MG atstovai platino per koncerno kontroliuojamą žiniasklaidą D.KREIVĮ kompromituojančią ir šmeižiančią informaciją. Vėliau D.KREIVYS buvo priverstas pasitraukti iš ūkio ministro posto.”

Translation

“in 2010 Representatives of MG tried to influence the then Minister of Economy Dainius KREIVIS, who did not always make decisions that were beneficial to the conglomerate. As a means of influence, MG representatives disseminated information that compromised and slandered D.KREIVIS through the media controlled by their conglomerate. Later, D.KREIVYS was forced to resign from the position of the Minister of Economy. ” In fact, most of the articles you quote and make allegations, were part of the above mentioned campaign aimed to force Kreivys to resign.

13. You allege that "The article does not state that the person what the one who chose the tender winner". Reference 7 clearly states the opposite: "OLAF pažymi, jog mokyklų renovacijos konkursus eksministro motinos iš dalies valdyta įmonė laimėjo pateikusi jungtinį pasiūlymą su restruktūrizuojama įmone – esą šį konkursą kuravusi Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracijos viešųjų pirkimų komisija šį pasiūlymą turėjo atmesti, o ne pripažinti nugalėtoju. Viešųjų pirkimų komisijai tuo metu vadovavo Darius Indriūnas, vėliau tapęs D. Kreivio patarėju Ūkio ministerijoje."

Google Translate:

"OLAF notes that the school renovation tenders were won by a company partly owned by the ex-minister's mother by submitting a joint tender with the company being restructured, which was to be rejected by the Vilnius City Municipality Public Procurement Commission and not recognized as the winner. At that time, the Public Procurement Commission was headed by Darius Indriūnas, who later became an advisor to D. Kreivis at the Ministry of Economy."

Response

13. Are you aware how public procurement commissions work in Lithuania? Do you know that the head cannot chose unilaterally who will be the winner and there is a vote? I strongly urge you to review the laws of Lithuania that govern public procurement before you make such allegations against other people. The wording used only states that he was the head, there is absolutely no mention that he made the decision by himself.

14. You (repeatedly) allege that "This news source is a tabloid with very little credibility in terms of their news accuracy and they alleged but not revealed as written in this Wikipedia article". For "tabloid", see Point 3; also, reference 17 is Delfi republishing Lrytas reporting and negating your point. Lrytas did not allege but report, including photographs from the prayer meeting.

Response

14. The photographs are disputable as you can see only the back of a person as well from what I’ve read about Opus Dei, they are an open organisation and anyone can go there. (Please refer to their official websites) The rest of the article at best speculates what was discussed there (if anything was) as there is no proof. That is why it’s called a tabloid. Delfi republished what Lrytas wrote.

15. You allege that "Not sure what was being said here as only one person is referred in the article, where is the “many”?" References 16 and 17 refer to Masiulis and Jovaiša. 2 is not one but many, although not a great many.0

Response

15. You are speculating on number with not hard facts. What is “2 is not one but many, although not a great many” supposed to mean? Your subjective interpretation of what is many is not an objective representation of reality.

16. You allege that "this source states that the value of their apartment ranks them 4th not overall wealth which is placed 117 place according to the article". Your point is half-true. Yes, Kreivys and his wife rank 4th-5th based on value of their real estate portfolios. However, note Kreivys' factual and referenced beneficial ownership moves in the past decade or so (where wealth was ascribed to him, then his mother, then him again). Considering 6 cases referenced in this article it would be reasonable to pay attention to the high range of wealth ascribed to various members of the Kreivys family (from next to nothing now to EUR49m+ 10 years ago). The article refers only to declared wealth, but as the Official Ethics Commission has ruled in the past, Kreivys has a history of not declaring interests in timely manner and declaring them in a misleading way.

Response

16. It's Kreivys and not his wife, I believe she had nothing to do with the wealth. The movement of wealth from one person to another does not erode its value. You are basing your 49 million on a 2011 article yet there are articles that speculate anywhere from 800,000 to 12 million. Meaning that there is no consensus which you failed to mention. About the - Official Ethics Commission, unless you have proof that he has not declared his wealth properly in the past year or 2 and this was pointed out by the Official Ethics Commission than this your subjective interpretation and not what is actually true. Kreivys has his wealth declared and government officials who review them on an annual basis had not issues with it. (Unless you can prove to the contrary and as I mentioned this has to have happened in the past few years when you referenced article was written) Please review a more up to date article from TV3 the source you use for EUR 49 million stating that he owns EUR 4 million. https://www.tv3.lt/rubrika/naujienos/verslas/turtingiausiu-lietuviu-top500/turtingiausiu-TOP20

17. You allege that "There is nothing in the article to substantiated that claims made there". It is as substantiated as any rich list anywhere, say Forbes. TV3 published it and apparently stands by it.

Response

17. Please show me where TV 3 stands by it? I just found an up to date wealth speculation and it states that his wealth is apparently EUR 4 million and this is TV3 again. They are contradicting themselves on every accounts on the wealth aspect. https://www.tv3.lt/rubrika/naujienos/verslas/turtingiausiu-lietuviu-top500/turtingiausiu-TOP20

18. You allege that "the reference news sources not reliable and is unknow in Lithuania, as well it does not say that it was the main topic of discussion but talks about it as a topic". Not true; Google Translate of the headline reads: "D. Curves have had to explain the President for its interests".

Response

18. As I mentioned, where does it say – “it was the main topic of discussion”. It says it was a topic but it does not say it was the main one. I would highly advise against only reading headlines without reading the article, as a lot of misinformation is born out of it.

19. You allege that "the source used does not mention that OLAF demanded anything back and it states that there is a possibility of returning the funding as well it as pointed out in the article that it’s the municipality government that made mistakes in the process and no one was found guilty". Not true - Kreivys was found guilty by both OLAF and the Official Ethics Commission of Lithuania. For context, OLAF tends to use specialized lexicon for "mistakes" - for example, conflict of interest or corruption; conclusions to OLAF investigations always establish intentionality. As for OLAF demanding back the EU funding granted, it is not the granting body, but its findings provide basis for the granting body to claw back the funding granted.

Response

19. Please show where is the official request to return the funds as you speculated?

20. You allege that "this information is false as well as the Ministry of economy granted money to Municipal governments, with which Dainius Kreivys had nothing to do". Two individuals (Darulis and Indriūnas) related to Kreivys by past or future employment moved back and forth between working for him and the Municipality of Vilnius, one case of which is explicitly referred to by OLAF. Kreivys himself was on the Council of Municipality of Vilnius (Vilnius Municipal Council) in late 2008 according to the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The real-estate peace agreement with the Municipality point to history of relationships between Kreivys and the Municipality spanning at least 12 years (2008-2020).

Response

20. Two individuals (Darulis and Indriūnas) related to Kreivys by past or future employment moved back and forth between working for him and the Municipality of Vilnius, one case of which is explicitly referred to by OLAF. -	Please reference where OLAF has explicitly said that. -	I said the ministry granted at the time a number of funds to all Lithuanian municipalities in a project to renovate 1000 schools. The municipalities organised the procurement processes. The real-estate peace agreement with the Municipality point to history of relationships between Kreivys and the Municipality spanning at least 12 years (2008-2020). Kindly reference where it lasted for at least 12 years.

I would advise suspending the current material on the wiki page as it is misleading and has a number of accuracies and violate wikipedia rules.

Many thanks

Jovaišai (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing message control, vandalism
Instead of engaging in edit-warring will catalogue attempts at message control here so that other editors can take action.

30 July 2021

Removed sourced reference to Opus Dei membership without explanation, without admitting they removed it and falsely referencing the NPOV policy (no POV expressed in the sentence removed or in the reference provided). Other minor (and unadmitted) edits are also false and point to ideological bias:

1. Kreivys was born in LTSR, not Lithuania (there are people who want to have it both ways - according to them Lithuania was occupied by USSR but the occupation should be erased whenever it makes a better copy, as in this case).

2. Other minor edits by Mindaur would rather have it that politicians and not elites in general belong to Opus Dei in Lithuania, even though the very reference they removed points to high-ranking lawyers (elites, not politicians) who inexplicably rake in million-dollar legal contracts from fellow members while the latter are government ministers. Looks like relatively subtle attempt to prevent further elaboration on the topic once the page lock expires. --195.235.52.107 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Not the correct time, and does not include the IP's entire post

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.52.107 (talk • contribs) 22:57, July 30, 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:PING. Your pings failed because you did not sign your post. Meters (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad - just signed, reading up on ping.--195.235.52.107 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As you've linked (see the above link on pinging others) the editor, to this comment I'll allow some time for them to respond to your concerns here. -- Longhair\talk 23:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. There is currently no consensus on birth place use, but it's not contradictory to MOS:BIRTHPLACE and WP:PLACE and many editors maintain the view that it's consistent with the WP:MODERNPLACENAME policy.
 * 2. I did not remove the sentence about Kreivys' membership in Opus Dei, but I did remove the sentence "Many of Kreivys professional collaborators are also members of the Christian society." because it is neither meaningful nor has any encyclopedic value. The word "elite" is not particularly encyclopedic either (what does it mean: rich? powerful? politicians? secret group? all of them? some of them? which ones? etc).
 * More to the point: the whole article is written in sensationalist tone, with some references to lrytas.lt which can be compared to Daily Mail in the UK. If some politician got into a corruption scandal and there is a good evidence of that (e.g. indictments, court judgements, etc), then it is certainly fair to cover it. However, it should be done with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policies in mind and without prejudice to any political wings. This is not a tabloid newspaper, this is encyclopedia. --Mindaur (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * On place of birth
 * If no consensus, what were your motivations to change it from the previous version? Was Kreivys born in Republic of Lithuania or Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania?


 * On “elite(s)”
 * The term “elite” might not be encyclopedic in your opinion but it has a very clear definition in science for at least a century (thus in “modern” science) and some of the key economists, sociologists, political scientists and statisticians dedicated large parts of their careers to studies of elites - Veblen and Pareto are the first ones to spring to mind. Some of the most popular economics books published today analyze elite-non-elite relationships and national wealth or income allocations, such as Piketty, or elite self-organizational behaviours, such as Ferguson.
 * Elite definitions in Lithuania are easier than in many other countries, since:


 * 1. There is no wealth accumulated before 1990


 * 2. Yet wealth inequality is high


 * 3. ~¼ of population left the country since 1990


 * 4. % of population having comparable income to developed-country definitions of middle-class brackets is low, and its subset, “elite”, is very tiny


 * 5. The political class is tiny (the country is small)


 * Your concerns about elite definition could have more truth to them if Lithuania were a country exhibiting very high income equality, but even in such countries elites are very easily identified (in economics, sociology, political science, statistics).


 * Summary: "elite(s)" is an established scientific term with clear, universally-accepted definitions.


 * On “sensationalist tone” (the tabloid accusation, previously by )
 * You have not provided any Google Translate examples of what you mean by “sensationalist tone”. In any case we are not quoting the publication here, just referencing it.
 * Speaking of the Daily Mail, it is notquite the sensationalist rag you describe - it is a Middle-market newspaper (as per its Wikipedia article), not a tabloid (except for its paper format). In the Lithuanian context Lrytas is the closest to newspaper of record that the country has.
 * Summary: false analogy, no examples of what you mean by “sensationalist tone”.


 * For background on corruption in Lithuania (since you mention it, and in case other editors are not familiar with it):
 * 1. Not a single politician (or public figure) has been convicted of corruption since Lithuania regained independence from USSR in 1990, just like not a single industrial accident resulted in criminal liability for the business owners. This is typical of (quite a few) developing countries


 * 2. Yet Lithuania has one of the freest medias in the region (as per Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House)


 * 3. Relatedly, not a single politician successfully sued Lithuanian media for slander or reputational damage since 1990


 * In summary, in Lithuania mainstream media is more effective than the justice system in identifying CoI and corruption, and has reputation for freedom/independence backed by 2 western bodies tasked with the benchmarking.


 * (Note - 1 and 3 exclude politicians Audrius Butkevičius and Vytautas Landsbergis, respectively, who are special cases, related, highly questionable and a very long story; also there might be new developments in last couple of years, with some cases involving lobbyists and judges).


 * Which Wikipedia policies broken? How? Examples?
 * On the face of it, Wikipedia’s policies are highly unlikely to have been broken considering that the references contain virtually all mainstream media in existence and over a decade of publications (where at least 3 different parties formed the government - conservatives, socialists and populists). Also, note that much Lithuanian media is foreign-owned (by companies in NATO ally countries), thus making certain kinds of political interference less likely.


 * None of the media referenced is known to be prejudiced against Kreivys politics, quite the opposite - he is allied (or member of, I’m not sure) of the strongest party in Lithuania organizationally and in terms of financial resources. Kreivys has never been a political target for the media as he is a technocrat/operator, not a politician in the ideological sense of the term (beyond holding political offices), or even in terms of policy-making.


 * Summary of stance (as I see it)
 * 1. Kreivys has been found guilty of CoI by OLAF (cannot get more serious in European Union) and Lithuania


 * 2. There are 6 cases documented by mainstream media overall


 * 3. You would like the 7th case removed:
 * Because of “tone” (not backed up by translation)
 * Because you allege Lithuania’s newspaper of record is a sensationalist tabloid
 * Because you are not familiar with scientific definition of what “elite” in society is
 * Because you reference 3 Wikipedia policies but do not state how any of them applies to the information removed
 * Information removed is directly related to Kreivys conflict of interest cases and that openly implicates Opus Dei members in a specific case (that would be Kreivys 7th as per this article)


 * BUT: reference is from over a decade ago and Kreivys (or anyone else mentioned) never demanded correction or sued for libel


 * In good faith:
 * To my mind, the sentence and reference should be included in the article but moved to CoI paragraph and expanded (once the article lock expires), since currently the reference sits under “religion” and elaboration on CoI would be out of place there.

--62.97.78.226 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If you will take a Lithuanian passport and will check the place of birth, you will find "Lithuania" there. As for the rest of your text, it's WP:NOR or rather just your opinion (as it can hardly be called "research") which is not supported by any evidence or references; some of your statements are just factually wrong. You clearly need to get more familiar with how Wikipedia works (and yes, the "tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial" -- that's per WP:IMPARTIAL).
 * I tried to assume WP:GOODFAITH, but it seems to me that this article is a subject of dispute between the supporters of different political wings/camps in Lithuania, where one group tries to pour the dirt, while the other tries to whitewash. This should not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
 * Anyway, feel free to make proposals on changes and convince other editors. --Mindaur (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We have no way of knowing what Kreivys' current passport says, so your point could be considered by some as "unencyclopaedic" or even "sensationalist". Most importantly, you did not address any points of contention.
 * You do not say why it seems to you that this article is a subject of dispute between the supporters of different political wings/camps in Lithuania. Not a single media reference in the article has POV, unless you prove otherwise. Google Translate is still at your disposal. I would not describe Lithuanian political parties as having major policy differences (after all, the hard left is illegal), and beyond that I would not dare judge which news item, potentially, is part of some subterranean dispute (societies outsource this work to courts and libel laws, not to Wikipedia).
 * None of my backgrounders were meant for inclusion in the article but to address your points and potentially expand your field of reference (hence links to elsewhere on Wikipedia). NOR only applies to the article in question, not to Talk. I would like to be generous enough to educate individual Wikipedia users with complete evidence or references in Talk at all times but unfortunately I have other commitments. That said, evidence is easy to come by across Wikipedia, for Lithuania as for any other state (developing countries offer very little variety in possible interactions between elites, media and the judiciary, metrics are quantitative, and there are reputable NGOs publishing those). But this point is outside the scope of the article anyway.
 * Since you have not been willing to offer evidence to support your views I will be undoing your contribution when the article lock expires (unless other editors beat me to it).

--62.97.78.226 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is not much substance to address, but okay, let's have a look:
 * You might be surprised to learn that Lithuania is classified as a developed country by IMF, World Bank and OECD;
 * You claimed that not a single politician was convicted of corruption in Lithuania, but it takes seconds on Google to find an article on multiple convicted politicians or officials:
 * On Lrytas: you can read the conclusions of this academic paper: . On the Daily Mail: if you bothered to read the whole intro in the WP article, you would have found this sentence: "The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,[17][18][19][20] and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement.[21][22][23][24]".
 * We can have high confidence on what's in Kreivys passport (or other identification documents) because of the government policies which are spelled in the legal acts; by the way, it's not only a policy of Lithuania, but also EU, UK and USA
 * You keep rambling about "elites" (-- your definition of it) and media/judiciary "interaction" (I suppose you meant collusion?), as some kind of justification of your edits. Yeah, breaking news -- there is a lot of inequality in this world and the rich people form a small fraction of nearly all populations. What's your point?
 * You have made multiple claims, some of them don't quite match the reality, but that is okay. What is not okay is that you made several WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, selectively about the conservative politicians in Lithuania, not meeting the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP criteria (and, by the way, information should not only be referenced, but also notable as per WP:N) -- that questions whether you are being impartial; you have also been involved in WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. If you want to work on the subjects of political corruption -- you are welcome, get familiar with the Wikipedia pillars, principles and policies and do it in an encyclopedic way. Otherwise, your behaviour questions whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. --Mindaur (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)