User talk:Lokyz/Archive 2008 August

Greetings
Laimingų naujųjų metų! Novickas (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Naujininkai
Could you please see my question at Talk:Naujininkai? - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On discussion with user "Tvarkytojas"
You might wish to consider Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded at my talk page. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the referenced entry, and created a new one on the incidents noticeboard. Tb (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

March 1968 events
We have an article on that subject; there is also a plethora of English sources available. I don't think that the article from GW you cited contains much useful information (it is a short interview with one of the survivors; GW itself published a much longer pieces on those events), although of course you are welcome to add it to external links or such in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your question
"And Piotrus - would you please name the archive you think all the documents "are held in the Lithuanian archives"? Please? didn't you hear about Soviet occupation and stealing of documents?" Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust. Page 350: Three lists have been preserved by Lietuvos TSR Centrinis Valstybnis Archyvas which the names ranks names family status and addresses of sixty nine Sonderkommando members who lived in their own homes in Wilno

Hope that helps.--Molobo (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h
Per the notification at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement of which you are aware, I have blocked you for twenty-four hours for incivility and personal attacks in violation of this ArbCom-imposed restriction.  krimpet ✽  01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion at AE, I have lifted your block, Lokyz. I hope it will at least serve as a reminder that under arbitration restriction diplomacy is very necessary, even in the often heated editing world of eastern European articles. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Lokyz, for newest events it is clear, that your variuos comments are being collected and used "in proper times", namely then content dispute on different articles is high. Knowing the trend it is not the last such event, IMO. So be careful.M.K. (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. the bot which should archive your talk page is dead, find new one.

Recipients of the Lithuanian National Prize
This is now tagged as a special request - I'm presuming you meant more bio articles, any in particular? Best, Novickas (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Did you read Operation Tempest It was a campaign made of several operations. Besides, AK already cooperated with SU regarding sabotage of railway links and on local level till 1943. --Molobo (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Besides it seems strange you disregard this large-scale campaign as evidence of cooperation with Soviets, while deleting sourced info about non-cooperation with Nazi Germany by adding source that speaks only about taking over supplies and vogue report about local unit. Why is a country wide operation not cooperation, but taking over of supplies by local unit is seen as appropriate for the lead ?--Molobo (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Map review
Hey, can you tell me what you think about this map that I made tonight? Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

House vs family Ostrogski
"A dynasty, a familial descendance, for example, a royal House." From here. It doesn`t stands that House can be only royal. "A dynasty, a familial descendance...etc" fits well to such clans like Ostrogski, or any other. I`ll gladly welcome referrence which clearly reserves term of "House" for royal familyies. Mikołajski (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Mikołajski (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * here is example, the same in Deutsch wiki (if you prefere) Haus CzartoryskiMikołajski (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Our talk with Piotrus had nothing to do with it, besides at the times of Jogaila society was completly different, but if it goes for nobelity look at this. Szlachta (from German Geschlecht) is nothing else but Polish name for upper class (nobility) and religion not necessary had something to do with it (depends when), i`v got no doubts that by this mean Ostrogski, Radvila (most were protestant btw) or any other Lithuanian/Ruthenian influent family can be considered as a szlachta/nobility, especially if there was equality amongst nobles (well, in theory). I`m not askeing you, but reffering to examples and meaning of a "House" in this context as a synonym of family, clan etc. I only wanted to be sure that i`m not mistaken. Sorry, but that this name isn`t used to Radvila (or plenty other familyies) doesn`t proove that it`s reserved for Royal Houses.
 * Please, no need to be nervous. Lets leave alone question of monarchs nobelity. I`m not sure what you`r reffering to by "who is who?" and if you really wish me to read some sources, give me at least any direction as i did it to support my claims.Mikołajski (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ufff :) Well, maybe it`s only my POV, but such things like nobility were solved by Kings/Grand Dukes, Seyms and eventually Emperors. If you thinks that`s the real disaster, i`ll say only that Seym trials about falsitication of nobility were casual element of "politica discussion", especially in XVIIIc. Nationality in present sense doesn`t fit into that conditions, 4 example Henrician Articles begins with words "We ....the nations as Polish as Lithuanian, not less from Ruthenia 1, Prussia, Samogitia, Masovia, Livonia. Either from all another provintions and lands which to this Respublica belongs...". Culturally it wasn`t Polish, nor Lithuanian, neither Ruthenian, but some mix with foreign influences (costumes, weaponary etc). In this melting pot there was going on polonization of language and religion (rather latinization, but still) and by our present meaning of national identity we can say that every Polish speaking catholic was Polish. But 4example Mikołaj "the Black" Radvila once wrote to Sigismund II August I with PS: "Don`t show thish letter to your advisors His Majesty, becouse they`r Polish and we`r Lithuanians...", note was in Polish of course. If it goes for my opinion, every lord holding CoA was noble, but i`m not convinced if we can put szlachta, magnatery and Royal/Princely familyies to one bag. If it goes for legal side, notice that only Knyaz/Prince title was patrimonial, ofc except of surnames which belonged only to nobles.
 * Sorry that i`m still bothering you with this question, but it`s another example, note that every Knyaz is included, whatever if Rurikid (like Ostrogski) or Gediminas (like Chodkiewicz} descendant, but still it doesn`t mean that the "house" term reffers only to Royal/Princely lines. Regards
 * Mikołajski (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice to hear that words, thanks. Well, i think that all of it made etchnic confusion amongst many people, if it goes for present historiographies, there are some biased/POVed sources, but it`s nothing compared to medieval "scholars", who in most of cases were "humble servants" of thier masters. Ok, but if you mean national borders tell me 4 example where`s Lt/Bel border, or Bel/Ukr? I wish it would be so easy. I agree, French revolution and romantism, supression of Russian Empire also made our both national identityies to develop, as well as literature. But look at persons like Mickiewicz, can you tell me which nationality/ethnicy he was?? Royal no doubt, but Princely/Knyaz familyies were "by blood" also royal, only Emperor could give the princely title (like in case of Radvila). Jagiellons were also "elected", so i`m not sure if we can consider it as a typical royal house, neither as some casual szlachta. I really don`t get why to give Polish nobility so exotic meaning in comparation to rest of feudal-elitar Europe, i mean that there were differences, but rule was everywhere similar. So it doesn`t matter if we consider Ostrogski or other clans as a szlachta, they were noble-elite familyies anyway and as i said religion not necessary was related to it. If it goes for Ostrogski, i`m not sure when they adopted catholicism, or if they ever did it before Zasławscy and Wiśniowieccy inherited thier possesions. Mikołajski (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yours
Sveikas. The story of Lithuanian and Latvian units doing the Nazi's dirty work in Poland is a story I've been personally been told by someone from Poland (not old enough to be a witness). In the reading I've done, there's no record of Latvians (and I would suppose Lithuanians) having ever been deployed so far from the Baltic territory. I'm a bit disturbed that the reference implicating Latvians and Lithuanians is from a magazine and no author is mentioned. The question now is to bring other sources to bear if we editorially believe otherwise. I'm planning to do more work on the Holocaust but I'm only going to have that kind of time later this year. —PētersV (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ezergailis is the only scholar I've seen who has gone back to original materials to piece together what happened not bases on popular myths...Balts eagerly slaughtering Jews before the Nazis arrived, these were false reports to Berlin for Hitler to manufacture the "Germanless" Holocaust for propaganda purposes--blame the locals for crimes against humanity, as soon as they invaded the Nazis were already "leaking" stories out through a "sympathetic" journalist in Sweden. What the scholars disregard is the reports, also by German officials, that around Kaunas they had to send a German unit out to slaughter Jews in the countryside because the Lithuanians wouldn't go (and how would this look for the Germans if the word got out?). —PētersV (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some short articles which can be found online although Prof. Ezergailis no longer has his web site at Ithaca College. All his major works are in English. The key ones are on the Holocaust in Latvia and on debunking Nazi and Soviet created/propagated myths regarding the Holocaust. He also has published a volume dedicated only to documents of the occupation. I'll put together a list. —PētersV (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

T-V distinction
Favor: can't remember, what are the verbs for using tu and jus? Interesting, the interview with Gediminas Gelgotas, they use tu. Could go in the above article. Novickas (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a verb for these usages though? As in 'we didn't tuvauti(?) each other for three years, because he was so much older than me and such a dignified person. Then one night after about 4 beers...But the next morning he jusauti? me again'. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I think I saw an article somewhere about how jus is getting less prevalent, especially among younger people. Novickas (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What? In the sauna they use tu? Well, off to work, but this looks like an enjoyable little research project. Jums ačiū. Novickas (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well of course you would use "tu" in a sauna, sitting there all naked it would be a bit silly to use the formal "jus". :-) Was just stopping in above. —PētersV (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for support on this case:)))--Lokyz (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, my relatives have never taken me to one in LT. Why not, I wonder. Maybe they perceive us as Appollonian rather than Dionysian. Novickas (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Found an interesting link here: It doesn't mention Tamsta though; that sounds downright medieval, I've never heard anyone use it that I can remember. So if you can find a source for that let me know. Best, Novickas (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Left a message at User_talk:M.K that you might be interested in. Novickas (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I was thinking we could use it to help settle naming disputes, presuming of course that the participants agree that it is a good source. Altho I don't really understand the part that begins with "Senasios lietuviu kultûros veikejo asmenvardzius tekste..." (The names of historic Lithuanian persons in the text), it seems to discuss how they made their naming decisions. The index, I think, overrides some of the individual scholars' decisions; compare the Daniel Klein entry on page 34 and the Daniel Klein entry in the index (page 66). Novickas (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Augustin Rotundus
Hello. I want to ask you if there`s no article about this, suposed to be, first Lithuanian historician, or maybe i`m spelling his name (rather nickname) incorrect? If there`s no such, i`ll start it, and if it`s possible i would want to ask you for some Lithuanian refferences (unfortunatelly i don`t know this language at all). Another question goes for Genute Kirkiene, whom i`v found researcheing Chodkiewicz family, is she reliable scholar? All i can find about her are few Belarussian, Lithuanian, and one Polish-Belarussian page. Thanks in advance. Mikołajski (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot for helpful response.89.77.100.60 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian National Prize
Glad you wrote this. You don't happen to have any info on where the awards ceremony is usually held? And has the president always participated? It looks as tho Adamkus always has, but can't be sure. (One could safely say that he has often and include refs.) Also the art collective seems a little unclear - if it's awarded to an individual; has it been awarded to a group at any point? Best, Novickas (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re DYK, it's a little short (its character count is currently about 1,100 - needs at least 1,500), and would need a hook. Could we do that within the 5-day limit? Novickas (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear...didn't find enough inspiration or sources to do this..in its stead, could I create another article or two that you would like? Novickas (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't break the links
I expect you will fix the Google Books links you broke with this edit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Romuva
from Simon Grunau. Renata (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this sounded a bit american:/ Grunau is known to be overdoing (kubilas for an instance), would you restore this with a proper referencing? Thanks.--Lokyz (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hist category
I think we need to discuss this first. It needs to use – (en dash) between the dates. I also do not agree with 1250 date. And at the same time we should decide regarding later period categories. Renata (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it has o be discussed. I've just being bold.--Lokyz (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:USSR tag from Virgilijus Noreika article
Hello, Lokyz. I noticed that you have removed the WP:USSR tag from the talk page of the Virgilijus Noreika article. However, the article itself is still categorized within Category:Soviet singers, which would put it within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union. If your removal of the tag is due to the fact that Virgilijus Noreika has nothing to do with the USSR and should not be categorized as a Soviet singer, than I will remove his article from the category. However, if Noreika is rightfully categorized as a Soviet singer, then the WP:USSR tag should be restored. I will leave it up to your judgment whether or not he is within the scope of WP:USSR, but it would be terribly confusing to categorize him as a Soviet singer but not allow the WikiProject to maintain his article. Thank you for your time, and don't worry about making the changes yourself, just let me know one way or the other (Soviet or not) and I'll take care of it. TFCforever (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered there--Lokyz (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag was placed there, very simply, because I have been conducting a systematic tagging of all articles within Category:Soviet Union, and Category:Soviet singers is within it, as its name implies. I checked the article before tagging it and noticed that it mentioned that Noreika was active in the late 1950s and 1960s in Lithuania, at which time was the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (which existed from 1940-1990).  Knowing that the Lithuanian SSR was a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, I made the assumption that Noreika, due to his fame in Lithuania during the Soviet period, was within the scope of WP:USSR.  I realize that anything to do with the USSR is a sensitive issue to Lithuania and its people due to the nature of its annexation by the Soviet Union during World War II, but by my judgment, I thought that it was an article that was reasonably related to the USSR and merited being included within the WikiProject.  I apologize for any difficulties I have caused as a consequence of poor judgment, and please do straighten me out if you believe I am wrong in what I say.  I don't want any ill will, and I want to make sure situations like this can be resolved in the future without lengthy dialog.  Thanks for your time and best wishes.  TFCforever (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fascinating point I did not realize before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  But, should I then completely disassociate everything pertaining to the Lithuanian SSR from WP:USSR?  To me, that would seem a little extreme.  What about Estonia and Latvia, whose histories are somewhat similar and feelings about the USSR equally distrusting?  Is it okay with you if I continue to add Lithuanian SSR-related articles to WP:USSR, as long as their subjects were notable in the entire Soviet Union?  What would you recommend I change about my tagging procedure, if anything?  I don't mean to be a pest, but I would just like to establish some guidelines to help resolve this issue.


 * I would like to make one final point, and then I'll just listen to what you would like to tell me: I only add the WP:USSR tag to articles within Category:Soviet Union or any of its many subcategories. If you find an article with an unwanted tag on it (i.e., out of the scope of the USSR), it would be wonderful if you could remove the category link on the article page as well as the tag on the talk page.  Not only will this prevent confusion at WP:USSR, but it will also keep us from bothering you again.  Thanks so much for your time and best of luck with all your work concerning Lithuania.  Please feel free to contact me and I'm more than willing to help you however I can, even if that means just staying out of your way and not making your work any harder than it need be.  Best wishes!  TFCforever (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A resolution for Baltic/Soviet article conflicts
Lokyz, PētersV posted an excellent set of proposed guidelines for all articles that pertain to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia during the Soviet period. Take a look at them here (last entry) if you like. I am more than happy to use these as my tagging guidelines, but if you have anything to add please feel free to let me know. Also, you may like to read the conversation I had with Artlondon (here), which is the explanation behind the articles that were tagged and then quickly removed. I hope that this is a reasonable resolution to this discussion. Thanks so much for your time, patience, and understanding. Regards, TFCforever (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ministers of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania
Category:Ministers of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hill forts
The best solution is the use of inline references. Subarticles of course seem like a good idea to develop at some point.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mindaugas II
You reverted an edit of mine in this article. I won't revert back, as that can just get childish, but I do disagree with you, and would appreciate if you looked at my argument on the Talk page for the article and replied. Best regards, 86.162.143.103 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, and as I've told in my edit summary - talk page isn't reference.--Lokyz (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Since I doubt very much if there is a reference, if, so as not to clutter the text, I added a footnote saying substantially what I did on Talk, would that be acceptable? 86.162.143.103 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your words is not a reference. It's POV.--Lokyz (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. A statement is made that is undoubtedly true, and which I can demonstrate is true, and have. Yet you insist that this statement must be verified by a citation before it can stand unquestioned, knowing full well that no such citation exists. Even a full chain of ancestry verifiable by Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to provide and which I do not see is in any way POV, will not do for you. Is this a reasonable attitude? 86.162.143.103 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:CITE andWP:V - those are official Wikipedia policies.
 * I took some liberty and reformatted your messages to make my talk page less cluttered. Please inform me if it does not suit you.--Lokyz (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have. The information you demand a citation for is completely uncontentious. No informed person doubts that it is the truth. Without coming under this heading, you demand an unavailable citation. I have offered to demonstrate link by link that it is the truth, but no, someone has to have written it in a book. Why would anyone? You are of course the owner of your Talk page and can clean it up as you wish, though I believe editing another's contributions on it is also frowned upon.


 * Enough, I am done, it is not worth the fight it would take to get a senior editor to come in and remove your misleading request for a cite in an unimportant article. 86.162.143.103 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the citation in this case is necessary not just to confirm that the fact is true, but also to confirm that the fact is important. For if noone thinks it to be important enough to mention it in a book (journal article, etc.), why should we mention it in our article? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aesti
Why did you revert the changes I made to the article? Are you really considering the claims of Aestii being of finno-ugric descent serious? There are absolutely no evidence for that, it's plain absurd. Finnic tribes living near the river Vistula almost in Common Era? It must be a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.180.97.70 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my mistake. Thanks for noticing.--Lokyz (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalism
Your ongoing vandalism of the article on Jan Basanowicz might get you blocked. If you're unable to reference and write your own articles, at least refrain yourself from destroying the work of other editors.  // Halibutt 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I report this WP:PA and WP:POV pushing, or you're ready to appologize?--Lokyz (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I apologize Lokyz vandalized wikipedia. I promise he won't do it again and I promise Lokyz will not remove valid references in the future.  // Halibutt 11:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another WP:PA, stop this. And those references might be valid if someone would take time to validate them as requested. And no, I'll not get provoked into uncivil behavior, I'll stick to WP:DNFTT instead.--Lokyz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, when I call your actions a vandalism it's an offence, but when you call me a troll it's all ok? Lovely...  // Halibutt 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jurgis Bielinis
Hello Lokyz. Bielinis died walking by foot to attend Vilnius Conference. The date of his death does not fit with the dates of Vilnius Conference. Maybe he died, when walking home, or he was on his way to attend a meeting of the Council of Lithuania ? --Gf1961 (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It did seem a bit controversial to me. But it's sourced. As for my personal opinion on this - he might have heard about the Vilnius Conference several weeks too late, but he was eager to go there (he was an old man, you know). Feel free to correct the article accordingly.--Lokyz (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Since you've asked for it on Alex page, here it is: I officially warn you to stop harassing Halibutt and shopping for his block. Comments like those against a long term productive editor are unacceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not ask for any actions on Alex talk page, i did just ask for advice, what to do to stop Personal attcks. Please note, that I did not address User:Halibutt in any uncivil ways. And also please note, that I did not ask anyone to block anyone (for several years actually I was actively promoting non blocking policy). Now you're imagining things... It is truly bizarre to hear accusations on "block shoping" form you, who did unblock himself through IRC shopping, and who did shop on IRC to block me in a recent history, including not the very pleasant namecalling. Please stop this.--Lokyz (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
Thanks for adding the nice introductory paragraph on the GDL Ajh1492 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

City municipalities
Hi, I merged city municipalities with cities because it is much more natural and the distinction is rather thin and invented. If you want to add a section ==Municipality== or something along the lines to city articles - be my guest :) Renata (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead of bios
Hi Lokyz, per wp:mosbio, please do not re add ethnicity into bios. If the person is born outside the US or has dual nationality, that is a different story and can be addressed. If the person was born in the US and has sole nationality, then they should be "American" in the lead sentence unless there is some major reason to point out ethnicity in the lead. Ethnicity can go under family section or early life ect,. Thank you in advance! --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)