User talk:LinasLit

See reply on my talk page. --Kpalion 19:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I need Lithuanian input in Dubingiai and my recent edits in History of Lithuania. I'm affraid i am not NPOV and i hope that look from Lithuanian will contribute to enhancing the value of the articles. Szopen

History of Lithuania

 * Great, at last some Lithuanians here! I was starting to be afraid that out of the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there are only Poles on wikipedia.. Glad you're here!


 * As to your input to the History of Lithuania article - are you absolutely sure that the language of the "Rus'" (Russia, Ruthenia, Rus', Ruś - whatever you want to call it) was closer to Belorussian than it is to Ukrainian or Russian? From what I've been told, it definitely was eastern slavic, but being rather a source for all the later eastern slavic languages than equal to the Belarussian... Halibutt 22:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Just as I thought. Then perhaps we need to correct the Ruthenian language to include both the Rusin language and the language of P-LC. Halibutt 12:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Grenivuota pasekeja
There is an article Grenivuota pasekeja which is being discussed on Votes for deletion right now. The article claims it is a Lithuanian saying but we cannot figure out whether it is real (and also, in case if it is real, whether it is worth including in Wikipedia). Could you tell us your opinion, as a Lithuanian? Andris 22:02, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

baltic language/ethnic situation in East-Prussia
I didn't manage to find any information in East-Prussian or Prussian sites about old ethnic and language situation. It talks about sovietisation of region and not about germanization. Maybe some one with filologist attitude could find out about that. Midom 08:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These two seems doubtfull for me
* Lithuanian-speaking people make great jump of literacy, from minimal in the end of 18th century to approx. 80% in the end of 19th century. * Lithuanians, Poles and Belaruses declare themselves as different ethnic groups.


 * Please give your sources for that rate of literacy, seems unbelievable.

Now one could think that, say, lithuanian nation(nation in the modern sense of that word) was "extinct" for a while and now reappeared.
 * That would be right, but all that happened in a time when a definition of a nation changed to include all those ,havent changed nationality, secured language all that time, peasants. Thanks to those who reconverted the converted upper strata of the society and incited national thinking.

Could be the upper strata of the ??? declared themselves the ... But i'm not sure.

ee --Vytautas 08:31, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC) unsigned again, still new here, forget things

[The question is moved from my user talk page]

Thank You. You are right. These percents were incorrect, put inadvertently however. To be precise, their interpretation was wrong. The 20th century had been meant. I've already revised. - The statement about self-declaration also needed some precision. I have done it too.

I put more detail explanation in your talk page. Linas 09:07, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

EI, ŽMONĖS. LIETUVIŠKAI mokantys, nors sakinį parašykite lietuviškai. Kam vargti verčiant ir tikslinant kalbą, jeigu jums teks verstis viską atgal? Linas 09:07, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Thank You. You are right. These percents were incorrect, put inadvertently however. To be precise, their interpretation was wrong. The 20th century had been meant. I've already revised. - The statement about self-declaration also needed some precision. I have done it too.

I put more detail explanation in your talk page. Linas 09:08, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

EI, ŽMONĖS. LIETUVIŠKAI mokantys, nors sakinį parašykite lietuviškai. Kam vargti verčiant ir tikslinant kalbą, jeigu jums teks verstis viską atgal? Linas 09:08, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

1917
I found this text on the list of events on December 11 page:

1917- Lithuania declares its independence (Kingdom of Lithuania)

I thought Lithuania's independence day was February 16, 1918 but I am not a Lithuanian. Is this true or joke? Andris 22:57, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems like a splinter of Declaration of Rights of Peoples of Russia... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, both of those articles have the December 11, 1917 date, but it has been put in there by different people. In the December 11 article, it has been there since December 11, 2002 and the Declaration article is much more recent. So, I would really like to hear a Lithuanian opinion on this, rather than "correct" anything myself. Andris 17:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * History of the proclaiming of independence in Lithuania wasn't such straight and point-blanc. And one can find many windings in it. The document of December 11 existed. It was an act, declaring existence of the state rather than independence itself. Before this date, on September 21, the supreme executive institution, the Council of Lithuania, or Lietuvos Taryba, was elected. Later it was recognized by German authorities as legitimate representative of Lithuanian nation. It's worth to notice, that all territory of Lithuania was occupied by Germany then. Both the election of Lietuvos taryba and issuing of the declaration of December 11 (the document itself  was adopted on December 10, 1917, but for some reasons always figures as the act of  December 11) by Taryba were made with prior consent of German leading politicians. This way the issue of the document of December 11  wasn't directly related with events or declarations in Russia; an indirect influence could exist, but this thing exceeds our discussion. The declaration of  December 11 itself contained proclaiming of creating Lithuania as a state and subject of the law of nations. It also had allusions, that Lithuania agrees to settle as close relations with Germany as it possible. Looking especially at this point, it's clear, that it wasn't an act of independence. Full independence was proclaimed on  February 16, 1918, as You know it. It's interesting fact, that Germany didn't recognize the Act of  February 16 before events of November 1918, and its recognition of Lietuvos Taryba was based on the document of December 11. After the recognition of the state, negotiations took place with German authorities, which were mostly unsuccessful and temporizing. Lithuania was pressed to sign conventions, which would legitimize presence of German influence in Lithuania. Lithuanian side decided then to proclaim Lithuania separate kingdom and to elect the king from a catholic dynasty from Germany, before signing these conventions. The candidate to became  king was found and he gave his agreement, but German politicians understood this simple political game and negotiations became even slower. But Lithuanian leaders didn't issued any declaration, proclaiming Lithuania kingdom. And it wasn't possible without exceeding the declaration of the February 16, where the right to proclaim form of state governing was ceded to future constitutional assembly. We see here, that the act of the February 16 was treated as the main by then Lithuanian leaders, and this conception was accepted by historians later. Lithuania also has national holiday namely on the February 16, as You know. - The German Revolution in November, 1918, changed all course of events. I afraid, that recognition of independence of Lithuania (on the February 16 basis) was never made by German side in documented form, relating to the upheaval, and it went de-facto then. These things may lead German historians to a bit different treating of events, including treating the document of December 11 as the act of independence. This conception isn't totally false, but it may cause misunderstandings, as well as calling then Lithuania kingdom.
 * Linas 11:04, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the detailed explanation. I learned a lot of new information. Could you change the text in December 11 article to whatever you consider appropriate (or remove it, or keep it as it, if one of those is the most appropriate thing to do)? Andris 02:51, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting! You may want to improve the articles on United Baltic Duchy and Väinö I of Finland. /Tuomas 08:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know anything about the United Baltic Duchy. Lithuania had a bit different development in 1918 – 1920, for it had different political history from Latvia and Estonia before the beginning of 20 century. I suppose this question concerns problems of political status of the German minority in Latvia or Estonia. I know only, that it doesn't concerns Lithuania at all. However, declarations and self-proclamations were very frequent event in the space of former Imperial Russia in that time. And it may be a very unimportant, looking from our days, event reflexed in the article.
 * Perhaps Andris knows anything?
 * Linas 15:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gediminaiciai
I'm thinking about moving Jagiellon dynasty to Gediminaiciai, but I'm not sure about that. Do you think these should be two separate articles or one? -- Kpalion 16:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

article in Lithuanian
We have a Lithuanian-language article Balys Sruoga on Pages needing translation into English. Could you translate it into English? Andris 12:54, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Columns of Gediminas. Translational question.
Columns_of_Gediminas Gedimino stulpai - columns of gediminas, pillars of gediminas(po piesiniu) ar poles:) of gediminas Battle_of_Grunwald. Aisku vertimas slidus dalykas, geriausia butu pasirinkt viena ir duot nuoroda i lietuviu-anglu zodyna su issamiu vertimu.

Balsuoju uz pillars.


 * Sveiki. Dalykas toks. Kai verčiami į anglų kalbą tekstai apie DLK, paprastai naudojamasi lotyniškos kilmės žodžiais, tokiais kaip jie buvo vartojami valstybės kanceliarijoje. Taip yra su pačiu mūsų šalies pavadinimu (plg. Lenkija vadinama Poland o ne Polonia, Vokietija Germany o ne Germania). Gedimino stulpai lotyniškai buvo vadinami Gedimini columina. Taigi būtų sunku priekaištauti, jeigu Gedimino stulpai būtų atitinkamai vadinami ir angliškai.


 * (vertimas)
 * It's an interesting thing. But there already is a certain inofficial standard for words, concerning the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Words with Latin roots are used preferably, analogous with Latin ones, that have been used in the chancellery office of the G. D. L.. The same rule is used even for the name of Lithuania itself (compare English names of e. g. Poland or Germany). Columns of Gediminas were called Gedimini columina in Latin. So it prompts us to use the form Columns of Gediminas.
 * Linas 09:10, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

History of Vilnius
Labas. If you have some time, I'd like to invite you to take a look at User:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius page. This is a copy of the history section of the protected Vilnius article. I hope we could discuss its content there at User_talk:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius in order to have more NPOV article. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but just for completeness: first discuss, then edit. Lysy 18:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cześć. Thank You for your suggestion to contribute for User:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius. It's good idea. It's natural thing, that discussion should precede an edition. But... I remember I transgressed this norm once even in a personal page (in one about statistics of Vilnius region by Halibutt ). But it was rather case of starting wikipediholism than bad will. :-) Linas 17:41, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)


 * No offence taken, we're all in this together :) Halibutt


 * Linai, I really appreciate your comments on the Talk:Lithuania page. It is good to see that intelligent Lithuanians are here, too. Please do not be discouraged.  Thank you!  Ifdef 22:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atsakymas
Laba diena. Na ir aš nelabai mėgstu ginčų, bet kartais reikia pasiginčyti, kad tiesą nustatyti tam tikrais atvejais. Gerai, kad vikipedijoje, bent jau angliškoje, žmonės į kompromisus linkę ir nori, kad straipsniuose būtų tiesa parašyta. Neįžeidėte manęs. Savo pastebėjimus be abejonės galite parašyti. Šiaip vikipedijoje jau seniau esu, tiesa straipsniais apie Lietuvą neseniai užsiėmiau, bet šiaip esu sukūręs (pradėjęs ir nemažai parašęs, nors, be abejo, dabartinės versijos tai ne mano vieno darbas) straipsnių iš įvairių sričių, pvz. Suicide methods, Dike Kokaral, Selknam ir pan. Esu parašęs ir lietuviškoje vikipedijoje. Na, o kas dėl Lietuvių mokančių angliškai ir norinčių kažką nuveikti, dar gi Žvinbudas buvo :P (juokauju). DeirYassin 19:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Lithuanian rulers
I need more info on the pre-Mindaugas rulers at the Talk:List of Lithuanian rulers. Could you help? Halibutt 21:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian mythology
I should have left a note. The problem is that you changed correct and understandable English into incorrect and very obscure English. I've seen the new material that you've now added; it will be very useful, but it looks as though it's been translated (from Lithuanian?), and needs a lot of work. I've copied it to Lithuanian mythology/temp so that we can work on it and prepare it to replace the current short article. I hope that that's OK. I've placed a note on the talk page to explain to other editors that they should edit the new version rather than the old one. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't ignore me and simply replace the article. I'm trying to be polite about this, and I do genuinely think that the new article will be an improvement &mdash; but at the moment the English is so poor that parts of it aren't understandable.  The current article is very thin, but at least readers can tell what it's saying.  I've started on copyediting the new version, and if you'll help me by explaining the places where I can't understand what's being said, or where I've gone wrong, it could be ready to replace the existing version very soon. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'me very sorry &mdash; I've just realised that the mistake was mine, not yours. I had tried to save the main article, but it hit a problem, and I didn't notice that it hadn't saved &mdash; thus you didn't replace it at all, you simply edited what was there.  Again, I apologise for my stupid mistake. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's nothing. We already sleep in Lithuania at this time. :)) Linas Lithuanus 09:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I take your points, and I'm sure that the new article will be a great improvement over the old. I started copy-editing it, but I'm afraid that I was distracted by other issues (and this is a very busy term, with finalists desperate for extra revision, wanting practice exams to be marked, etc.). I'll try to make this one of my priorities, though, so that your new version can be up as soon as possible (before the end of the week). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's natural thing, that we can't do all in one minute. Thanks. Linas Lituanus 16:08, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast

 * Watch article on Kaliningrad Oblast, as one contributor deletes all "history" section. He commented that supposedly Lithuania Minor never existed, that's why he does it, but he deletes many other useful information about Prussians, Germans and even history after WW2 too. He seems to think Lithuania Minor is something Lithuanian government uses to claim Kaliningrad Oblast, therefore incorrectly moves whole history section to Lithuania Minor article and does not explains anything in talk page anymore. Therefore, as I don't have much time and seen your contributions in Talk:Lithuania Minor page, please look after Kaliningrad Oblast. The history section indeed might be a little POV but I hope it will be dePOVed by discussing in talk page and minor edits, instead of removing whole useful section 213.190.42.88 13:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes for administrative divisions and cities
Laba, I started working on administrative divisions of Lithuania and thought that you might want to take a look at User:renata3/elderates where I created a draft for infoboxes for counties, municipalities, elderates and cities. Do you have any comments? Renata3 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reikėtų pagalvoti. Gal ir būtų kokių pastabų. Linas Lituanus 07:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Illative žemyn?
Hi,

I suppose you wrote the comment about žemyn.

I only learned Lithuanian for two years in the Hebrew University as part of my Linguistics studies and i'm very far from being an expert, so of course, if Lithuanian is your mother tongue your comments and corrections to Illative case are probably right, but i still wanted to ask:


 * 1) How exactly would you translate žemyn and žemėn into English?
 * 2) If žemėn is the illative of žemė, what would be the precise etymology of žemyn?

Thanks!

P.S. By the way, if you are in the field of Lithuanian linguistics, you might have heard about my professor, Dr. Lea Sawicki; she published some works on Lithuanian syntax and worked with notable Lithuanian scholars, such as William Schmalstieg. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Linas, there's my RfA process ongoing and it would be nice if you could cast a vote or leave a comment there. Especially that some users have suggested that I have a strong, anti-Lithuanian bias. Halibutt 06:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You indeed came late, but here goes my standard thank-you tag. Hope you'll like the flower :)

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take part in the improval of this article
Hello. I would like to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. I noticed your previous contributions to that article when it was disputed, therefore I think your opinion is much needed now as well. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't want to clog the article's talk page with these questions now, but I have two questions that may be easy for you to answer. Firstly, why did Lithuania after WW1 completely forget about all the southern territories, today's Belarus etc. Secondly, I though there were some territorial disputes with Latvia at the sea coast, near Būtingė, Šventoji etc. Weren't there ? --Lysy (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we can use such a category as 'forget' here at all. When I discuss about this moment of  the history of Lithuania (i. e. territorial problems), I try to stress most practical sides, that could affect historical process. And it's necessary to skip some details, while using this style. So, it's no doubt, that Lithuanian historians and politicians were deeply interested in the problem of borders of Lithuania during the inter-war period. This increased interest had both positive and negative sides, that we could discuss a bit later. And it was disputed among Lithuanians, how much territories around Grodna or Suwalki had to be considered as Lithuania, looking from the contemporary point of view. Perhaps these discussions not always were public re political situation, but they presented. But what could it weigh, when

These real political events overrun then dreams and considerations of Lithuanians, whatever the considerations were more nationalistic or more pro-Belarusian.
 * 1) Firstly Lithuanians tried to abstain from conflicts with Belaruses, avoiding categorical definitions of south-eastern border.
 * 2) After it, negotiations with Lenin's government conceded a certain territory to Lithuania, but there were many other moments in it than nationalistic ones. Firstly Western European countries have an interest to leave for bolsheviks as few territory as it was possible. Secondly, the bolshevik government itself didn't pay attention to national interests of Belaruses and didn't defend them. Many historians argue, that tactic interests prevail in the treaty of 1920 over the strategic (but it's a political comment not changing juridical side of the treaty).
 * 3) And, at least, Polish military forces took control over these territories with clear intention to annex these territories to Poland (when the seized part of the Vilnius region was yet unofficially debated and  considered Central Lithuania, both Suwalki and Grodna regions were excluded from the Central Lithuania).

So, you asked about Lithuanians and I tried to answer. But I think, that the main side of the article consists not in Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians. If Estonians presently and Lithuanians before WWII had defended their position, perhaps it would be an example of  Lithuanian or Estonian policy. But they were forced to accept the political reality, what actually means more or less the will of greater nations in these cases. Poles often thought, that we, Lithuanians should be grateful for acknowledging independence of Lithuania at all and don't show our greater ambitions. Perhaps there's a grain of truth in this interpretation. But then we should be grateful to Polish nation also for having served the idea of Lithuania. And I should stress, it was the idea of greater Lithuania, the idea, that Poles already not believed in the time we dispute about. And as a result – Poles confronted simply their own idea, that was only mirrored without essentially changes. That's why it was so controversial for Poles themselves. Ant this moral situation of Poles could be one of the greatest motives for Lithuanians to promote the problem of Vilnius, not recognizing the annexation by Poland. So I should add, that we shouldn't speak about any irrational nationalistic greediness of Lithuanians here. If the greediness ever presented it was property of common people and of common street policy, but not any way of our political or national elite before WWII. Lithuanians didn't dream  to rule Poles even in the form of national minority of Lithuanian Poles, what is impossible for Lithuanians at least. Lithuanian nation took the idea, that seemed already expired for Poles, as a good pattern, for it hadn't time to form some new national ideas. It was problematic, but very natural. If we looked yet before 1919, Lithuanian leaders wanted to create an independent state, and they had a ready definition: Lithuania is gubernyas of  Vilna, Kovna, Suvalki and, partially, Grodno. They could reject this idea, but they simply took Lithuania as it was, with all nations and ethnic groups and with all inner problems. But realizing of this idea depended not only on Lithuanians. And the destiny was that Polish policy determined, how Lithuania will exist, determined it as a single-nation state. Our both nations lost possibility to repeat the history, to repeat collaboration of two nations, and i think it's took place because of disproportions between modern Polish and Lithuanian nations. Although Poles had possibility to repeat it in the form of lesser state than the earlier Commonwealth, namely in the modern Lithuania, what would have been no less significant in the  globalizing world, but they refused, didn't using positive sides of Lithuanian then thinking. And we return to the same problem here the second time, to the problem, how greater nations look to lesser ones and what roles  greater nations project for  lesser ones. I think about the article in this sense, but not about a tribune for some nationalistic ambitions.

Now, about Latvia. Lithuania and Latvia took the border (looking from the point of the international law it's an administrative line only) between former gubernyas as starting point for negotiations. Latvia's position was to retain more original border, but Lithuania wanted to get a path to the Baltic Sea (Klaipėda hadn't been acknowledged for Lithuania then yet). It was the most complicated moment of the negotiations, but Latvians conceded at least, getting in exchange a bigger territory in other places. It was economic interest of Lithuania to have this not a big territory around Šventoji and Palanga.

Linas Lituanus 12:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All right. Many thanks for explaining this. Not that I understood everything, but much I did :-) --Lysy (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Paksas, litas, and kt.
Laba, maciau tavo zinute ant Pakso straipsnio. Tegaliu pasakyti tik viena: so fix it! :) Bet jei atrasiu laiko, prisidesiu kaip galesiu. Apskritai, visi straipsniai apie Lietuva yra gana apgailetino lygio... As labai noreciau nors viena padaryti featured. Kolkas, realus kandidatas - Lithuanian litas. Tereikia parasyti apie tarpukario litus. Bet va cia man reikia pagalbos, nes internete nepavyko aptikti jokiu geresniu saltiniu apie tarpukario litus. Gal galetum padeti? Ir nezinau ar matei, bet dar vienas tomas prie lietuviu-lenku kovu vyksta del Partitions_of_Poland pervadinimo. Zodziu, darbo iki ausu ir dar daugiau. Tikiuosi apsistosi cia ilgeliau, nes man cia vienai liudna :) Renata3 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Del litu nuotrauku - nesijaudink. As jas turiu/surasiu. Man labai reikia kokios "background" info apie 1920-1940 metus: litu isleidima (kada ir kaip), pinigu politika ir tt. Nes internete tik trupinukus pavyko aptikti. As panagrinesiu Paksa, nes pas mane cia dabar metro streikas (as is New York) tai daugiau ner ka veikti tik prie wiki sedeti ;) O tau sekmes su visais savanorystes projektais, ir linksmu Sv. Kaledu!. Renata3 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Super! (del lietuviu k. - nesijaudink, galiu ir issiversti) Renata3 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Super! :) Issiversiu ir panaudosiu, tik kiek veliau, nes dabar Kaledinis-naujametinis bardakas :) Tik viena - reiketi ivardinti saltinius, kas is kur. Tai jei kokia knyga/straipsni po ranka turi - imesk autoriu/pavadinima.
 * Ir dar vienas prasymukas: cia susigalvojau User:Halibutt pavyzdziu deti lietuviska tarima prie straipsniu. Tai mano pirmas blynas cia: commons:Image:Vytautas Didysis.ogg. Gal turi kokiu pasiulymu/pastabu? Labai lauksiu... :)
 * Ir beje, linksmu Sv. Kaledu ir linksmu Naujuju metu! Renata3 03:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. Firstly, thank you for contributing at the article Territorial claims of the Baltic States and its discussion. I would like to notify you that I will leave to Frankfurt soon where I will spend quite much time; thus I won't be on Wikipedia for long. Therefore, I would like to ask you and others to continue to contribute there and watch that a solution would be reached, factually accurate name would be chosen, and the article wouldn't just stay disputed forever as it used to be previously. Check the article from time to time and if you will see that no one discusses anything anymore nor edits the article for a long time (e.g. a week), try to act by implementing voting decition and such. Good luck! (you shouldn't reply to this by the way as most likely I won't be able to check Wikipedia anytime soon as I will leave quickly).Kaiser 747 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Atsakymas
Atsiprašau, nelabai dalyvauju tai ir neatsakiau greitai į tavo paliktą žinutę. Bet šiaip dabar čia yra skelbimų lenta apie Baltijos šalis (Baltic States notice board), kurią čia bendraminčiai įkūrė; ten pranešinėjama apie naujus straipsnius bei diskusijas, susijusias su Baltijos šalimis. taigi, jei norėsi informuoti kuo daugiau Lietuvių apie kokį nors naują straipsnį ar diskusiją, rašyk tenai; gerai būtų, kad prisidėtum ir uždėtum tą lentą ant watchlist'o, nes kol kas didžiuma lietuvių išsisklaidę vikipedijoje, už tai, kaip matai, sunku greitai informuoti visus, kad išgirsti visų nuomonę kokiu nors klausimu. DeirYassin 18:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy Edit
Hopefully my copy edit of your excellent points on the Republic of Central Lithuania, are acceptable, and remain true to the essence of your thoughts. Perhaps you need to correct how I understood some of your points. Dr. Dan 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, i'll see. Linas Lituanus 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've finished the copy edit, please review and make necessary adjustments. Dr. Dan 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Translated Literature in Lithuanian
Hi there,

It's not directly related to Wikipedia, but i hoped that you could help me a little with my research about the Lithuanian Language.

I need to write a paper for the university about grammatical similarities and differences between Lithuanian and the Slavonic languages which are spoken close to it - Polish, Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian. I'm looking for books which i can read in Lithuanian and at least two more of those languages, but i'm having a hard time finding it on the web. For example, if i could find a book by Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius which is also translated to Polish and Belarusian or a book by the Belarusian Vasil Bykaŭ tranlsated to Lithuanian and Russian, it would be great. I can find books in two languages (e.g., Lithuanian and Russian), but i can't find any book that i can read in three languages. Even a short story of a few pages would be great.

Also, do you know whether Quo Vadis was translated to Lithuanian (I have Russian, Polish, and Belarusian)? And were any of Balys Sruoga's books translated into Belarusian, Ukrainian or Polish (i found Russian)?

Big thanks in advance! --Amir E. Aharoni 19:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

All right. The only book I've seen myself is ''Quo vadis : istorinis romanas / Henrikas Senkevičius. - Vilnius, 1991 Looking at my sources, i've found this: (1) Dievų miškas'' by B. Sruoga was translated to many languages. Few examples:


 * Лес богов / Балис Сруога. - Вильнюс : Vaga, 1974. - 392 p.
 * Лес богов : мемуарная книга / Балис Сруога. - Вильнюс : Vaga, 1982. - 351, [1] с.
 * Лес богов / Балис Сруога. - Вильнюс : Гос. изд-во худ. лит., 1958. - 486, [2] с.
 * Las Bogow / Balis Sruoga. - Gdynia : Wydawnictwo morskie, 1965. - 270[2] p.
 * Forest of the Gods : memoirs / Balys Sruoga. - Vilnius : Vaga, 1996. - 339, [3] p.
 * Forest of the Gods : [memoirs] / Balys Sruoga. - 2 rev. ed. - Vilnius : Versus aureus, [2005]. - 462, [2] p.

This book has also Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, French, Latvian translations, but i found nothing about a Belarusian translation (perhaps it exist?). - Also few dramas are translated to Russian. : В тени исполина : драмы / Б. Сруога. - Вильнюс : Vaga, 1968. - 601, [2] p.

(2) Vincas Krėvė. The two after-war books in Russian I've found are these: I know nothing about translations to the languages You need. A Czech translation exist ( Dainavské pověsti / Vincas Krévé-Mickevičius. - Praha : Krásná Literatura, 1960. - 226, [4] p)
 * Предания Дайнавской старины / Винцас Креве. - Москва : Художественная литература, 1973. - 253 p.
 * Колдун : рассказы и повесть / Винцас Креве. - Москва : Изд-во худ. лит., 1963. - 374, [2] p.

(3) Vasil Bykov has a not very long bibliography in Lithuanian:
 * Sotnikovas ; Obeliskas : apysakos / Vasilis Bykovas. - Vilnius : Vaga, c1974. - 231 p.
 * Alpių baladė ; Vilkų gauja : apysakos / Vasilis Bykavas. - Vilnius : Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1995. - 314, [3] p.
 * Išeiti ir negrįžti ; Vilkų gauja : apysakos / Vasilis Bykovas. - Vilnius : Vaga, 1984. - 302 p.
 * Negandos ženklas; Migloje : Apysakos / V. Bykavas. - Vilnius : Vaga, 1989. - 359, [2] p.

(4) And Sienkiewicz's book has few translations to Lithuanian (the first issued in 1904-5). The last should be the one, i've mentioned above. If you're looking for data on any other books in Lithuanian or translations from Lithuanian authors, there's a good link : catalogs. It's the link of the joint catalogs of the main libraries in Lithuania. - Pleasant reading! --Linas Lituanus 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the reply.
 * I can try the local libraries (i live in Israel), but i'm not quite sure that i can find them here. Do you have any idea whether i can find any of it online? (It would even be legal - to the best of my knowledge Quo Vadis' copyright restrictions have expired).
 * Is there any repository of Lithuanian texts like the huge Russian www.lib.ru? At lib.ru there are translation of Sruoga and Sienkiewicz, but nothing in Lithuanian ... --Amir E. Aharoni 12:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's worse. The job, collecting Lithuanian literature on the Net have already been launched, but the first steps only, so they didn't proceed to translations yet. The only site, that contains translations to Lithuanian is  (skipping the index page ). Lithuanian literature can be found for example at: antology or  links at KTU library or at  – and that's all.  Perhaps you'd combine something from it. Linas Lituanus 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Lithuania
You might be interested visiting ad probably joining WikiProject Lithuania --Lokyz 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and welcome back! :) As you noticed, I merged the whole bunch of tiny sub-stubs on Lithuanian gods into one "master list." But that list is in quite misserable state and I am contemplating what to do. One thing I came up with was to organize it by sources. Start with Ipatijus and go down to present-day Romuva. What do you think? Oh, and would you have/know where to get the entire list of 80 gods mentioned by Licinski? Renata 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my reply on my talk page. And yeah, I badly mistyped Laciski... :) Renata 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA
Hi, do you know IPA? Could you add it to Vilnius? Thanks a bunch! Renata 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA is a problem. Lietuvių kalbininkai ja nelabai naudojasi, todėl labai nesunkiai gali išeiti asmeninis tyrimas, bandant ją pritaikyti lietuvių kalbai.

Kokių gali iškilti sunkumų, rodo toks pavyzdys. IPA turi keturių lygių balsius (uždarus-pusiau uždarus-pusiau atvirus - atvirus), tuo tarpu mūsų kalbininkai pripažįsta trijų lygių (uždarus, vidutinius, atvirus). Ir kaip tada?

Būtent dėl tos priežasties pabandžiau sudaryti Simplified phonetic transcription for Lithuanian. Ten yra surašytos tik tos tarties savybės, kurios mūsų kalbininkų pripažįstamos visuotinai. Kita vertus, visi kitataučiai, kurie domėjosi šituo mano kūriniu, nesunkiai galėjo jį irgi palaikyti asmeniniu tyrimu, todėl ten kilo dėl to abejonių. Bet aš dar pasigilinsiu, ką čia galima padaryti. Gal kaip nors pritaikysime ir IPA. Linas Lituanus 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A, gerai. As mat apie IPA nieko neismanau :) tik zinau, kad yra/buvo keli veikejai kurie del jos biski triuksmo kele. Ten and kunigaiksciu staripsniu templeitus dejo, kad IPA reikaliga... Renata 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Triukšmo kėlė dėl to mano straipsnio (Simplified phonetic transcription for Lithuanian). Ten gal pasirodė kaip asmeninis tyrimas jiems. - Dabar vėl žiūriu IPA ir vėl visokios abejonės kyla kaip ir anksčiau. Mūsų kalbininkai visai tos sitemos nepripažįsta, ir ką padarysi. Yra trys š/ž atmainos IPA lentelėje. Lietuviškam, sprendžiant pagal duomenis duotus Liet. Kalbos Enciklop. (1999), gali imti kurią tik patinka. Bet taip būti negali. - Dar knisiuosi. Linas Lituanus

WikiProject Lithuania
Hello, I noticed that you are editing once again and maybe you will be interested in WikiProject Lithuania too. Cheers, M.K. 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ačiū. Žvilgtelėsiu, ypač jei užsiimsiu didesniu mastu. Linas Lituanus 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Na užsiimti didesniu mastu būtų labai gerai. Kadangi aktyvių dalyvių labai mažėja. M.K. 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Todėl ir mažėja, kad žmonės iš pradžių labai įsitraukia, o paskui pamato, kad kitiems darbams trukdo :)) Linas Lituanus 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tas tai tiesa. Pastebėjau, kad rašai apie kalbas ar nekyla noras kokį straipsnį apie lietuvių kalbos istoriją parašyti? M.K. 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dabar gramatiką reikia sutvarkyti. Reikėtų išryškinti 3 dalykus. Pirmiausia, pačias pagrindines kalbos taisykles. Antra, kas lietuvių kalboje gali būti neįprasta anglakalbiui skaitytojui, ir išvis Vakarų Europos žmogui. Ir trečia, kas lietuvių kalboje yra išvis būdinga tik jai vienai (arba gal ir kartu su latvių kalba). Darbo čia nemažai: dabar padaryta tik pirma dalis, ir tai ne visa. Pavyzdžiui, nėra sintaksės visiškai. -- Mūsų kalbos istorija, kiek ji gerai pagrįsta, yra ta pati raštijos istorija. Kas iki tol - sutelpa į 10 sakinių. Ir tie sakiniai beveik yra Lithuanian language. Dar - tarmės, kurios dabar gerokai apnykusios. Bet tai dar vienas, atskiras straipsnis. Linas Lituanus 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Beje, klausimas už klausimą :) Kas ten vyksta su tuo user:Piotrus arbitration ?
 * Na žmogus pradėjo pažeidinėti nuostatas dėl to ir vyksta tas procesas, bet jei kalbėti šia tema manau reikėtų pereiti į anglų kl. kad nepradėtų žmonės galvoti, kad kokia konspiracija vyksta. Na tęsiant kalbą apie ankstesnę temą – tikrai Lt. kalbos istorija viršija 10 sakinių  kiek vien Zinkevičius apie tai yra prirašęs tomų! Čia beje galima būtų kartu pateikti ir rekonstruotos kalbos elementus, kad ir tų pačių Zinkevičiaus 13 a. poterių versijas. Be to galima būti į vieną str. jungti Bretkūno, Mažvydo ir kt. darbus kaip jie paveikė kalbos plėtotę ir pan. Žodžiu čia toks mano matymas. M.K. 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ne, visai nenorėjau pasakyti, kad kalbos istoriją sudaro dešimt sakinių. Mano mintis buvo, kad 10 sakinių iki raštijos pradžios ir tada raštijos istorija. Taip išskyriau, nes pamaniau, ar ne geriau būtų būtent lietuvių raštijos istorija. Labiau apimtų tą visumą. Tai įskaitant ir poterius, ir visa kita. Linas Lituanus 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taip, sutinku, kad raštijos istorija būtu tinkamesnis variantas. Na va, dar vienas straipsnis tamstai! M.K. 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)p.s. beje sudėk šaltinius i naują str. Lithuanian declension.
 * Suprantu, kad tai dar vienas straipsnis. Bet - viskas iš eilės. - Dabar dėl šaltinių. Kuria prasme sakai: ar dėl formos išlaikymo, ar kad abejoji dėl kurios nors vietos? Aš Lithuanian declension viską surašiau iš atminties. Galbūt atmintimi ir neverta visad pasitikėti, bet šiuo atveju galima. Beveik visada nesunkiai gali pasitikrinti, ar taip ar ne iš pačios kalbos. Be to linksniavimas tam tikra prasme yra tas pats kaip daugybos lentelė. Bet žinoma, galima kokį nors šaltinį surasti. Tiesiog reikia ieškoti. -- Jei dėl kurios nors vietos abejoji, tada klausk. Linas Lituanus 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kol kas dėl formos išlaikymo, kartu noriu str. į pirma puslapį patalpinti, kadangi visiškai naujas str. o ta padaryti galima tik 5 dienu senumo str. kuris turi nurodytus šaltinius. M.K. 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Linai, prisjunk, nes lietuvybė šaknis angliškojoje wp jau pradėjo leist, reik tik trupučio pastangų, kad jos taptų labiau matomos ir išaugtų ažuolai beigi kad į lietuvių nuomonę kitų tatuų redaktoriai pradėtų atsižvelgti labiau. Pats projektas sukurtas tam kad koordinuoti veiksmus ir stebėti kas vyksta ir ką galima padaryti geriau/ar tiesiog atitaisyti. Dabar jau nebereik itin daug pastangų, tereikia šiek tiek judesio, kad mūsų pietinia kaimynai su savo keistoku pasualio matymu  nenusavintų  mūsų istorijos ir mūsų kalbos neišmestų į šiukšlyną. Kviečiu, prisijunk, darom didelį darbą - o dideli darbai nebūtinai greitai daromi - lietuvybės vagą galima ir iš lėto (bet nuosekliai) verst;)--Lokyz 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Teisingi žodžiai! M.K. 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian paradigms
Hi there. Do you need help adding some of those paradigms listed on the talk page onto the main page? Pobbie Rarr 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think, they can be added to the main page, bot only if the English (style especially) would be bettered there. My English style is too influenced by Eastern European thinking, and I often see, that phrases and order of sentences there may mislead a reader. I think, you can help me in this. Do you? -- But I don't suggest to remove the other paradigms. They can both present inthe article.

Now I still doubt, whether to put the paradigms to the main page or to make a new article, that would encompass all paradigms, including the first to the fifth of nouns and the first to the third of adjectives, written mostly by you. Do you have any ideas on it? Linas Lituanus 09:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have :) I suggest a new article because Lithuanian grammar already has too much stiff on declension. Leave the specifics to a new article. Just my two cents. Renata 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The two cents of yours are often more valuable than twenty of others. Just a compliment, if you accept :) Linas Lituanus 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a native English speaker, I don't think there's anything noticeably wrong with your wording in the article. Of course if I think something could be written better, I will give it a go. :)


 * Regarding article layout - do you think we have enough on noun declension to warrant a new article entitled "Lithuanian Declension"? Pobbie Rarr 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, we have written almost all essential information except some possible short introduction. We can start the new article. Linas Lituanus 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian county flags
Hello,

Today I wrote an article about Lituanian county flags (Flags of the counties of Lithuania) and for the Dutch Wikipedia I made two articles about Lithuanian county flags (Vlag van Kaunas, Vlag van Klaipeda). I want to make some more articles about this subject, but most sources are in Lithuanian, a language I can't understand. I hope you can help me with the next question. I'd like to know what the central figures of the next county flags/coats of arms symbolize:
 * Šiauliai County flag, a Lithuanian article about the coat of arms is Šiaulių apskrities herbas;
 * Sidabriniame (baltame) lauke juodas lokys su raudonais ginklais: liežuviu, dantimis, nagais. Mėlyname apvade 10 auksinių dvigubų kryžių (šiuo metu Lietuvoje esančių apskričių skaičius). == a black bear with red tongue, teeth and claws in silver background. The blue edging contains 10 golden double crosses (symbolizes the current number of counties in Lithuania).


 * Alytus County flag, a Lithuanian article about the coat of arms is Alytaus apskrities herbas;
 * Alytaus apskrities herbo mėlyname skyde vaizduojamas sidabrinis šarvuotas karys, laikantis dešinėje rankoje auksinę alebardą ant sidabrinio koto, o kaire ranka atsirėmęs į sidabrinį baltišką skydą, su paauksuota galva ir papėde. Mėlyname bordiūre – 10 auksinių dvigubų kryžių, simbolizuojančių apskričių skaičių Lietuvoje. == an armoured warrior in blue background, keeping an battle axe with silver-coloured stem in his right hand, while his left hand is propped against a silver-coloured shield of  baltic type. The ten crosses mean the same as in the previous citation.


 * Utena County flag, a Lithuanian site about the flag is http://www.utena-on.lt/news.php?cod=1320.
 * Sorry, I didn't find the site with this link. A bad quality image of the coat (not a flag!) without a desription is in [] The coat contains a white (silver?) horse and the edging is typical for coats of counties, but other details can't be distinguished.   Linas Lituanus 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you in anticipation,

NL-Ninane 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! NL-Ninane 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania/Samogitia
Just wondering what you think:.  // Halibutt 11:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirtis
Hi,

Can you please help with the article Kirtis?

See its talk page.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian vowels
Hi Linas,

If you're still around, could you take a look at Lithuanian language, vowels? I attempted to add your comments on "diphthongs" (which don't seem to be true diphthongs), but I'm not clear on a few points.

By the way, when you want a vowel further front than the IPA symbol, you add a sub-plus, as in. For something further back, you add a minus,. Or you can use a diaeresis for a centralized vowel:,. kwami (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kwami,


 * are you yet watching this? I'd enjoy possibility to answer your questions, but what's the matter? For example, why do you say diphtongs "don't seem to be true diphthongs"?  Linas Lituanus (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P. S. Thank You for the hint on IPA graphics, i will use it where necessary.

Lithuanian and Icelandic in LaTeX
Hi!

Do you know how to incorporate both Icelandic and Lithuanian hyphenation in the same LaTeX-document? I can work around the extra letters in both languages and possibly the tonal diacritics (i.e. both the grave and the acute accent plus the tilde for Lithuanian), although that last one might be difficult, for instance ė with an accent to the left of the dot, but I have a problem with the encoding. As for me, I'm an Icelander trying to learn Lithuanian and Babel does not help. Suggestions would be welcome. All the best Io (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian emigration has been nominated for merging
Category:Lithuanian emigration has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)