User talk:M.K/Archive2

New article
Dear MK: I'm writing a new article National symbols of Lithuania. Could you look it over and tell me if you have any ideas, images, or whatever? (Please disregard the formatting etc, I suppose I should have a laikinas page, but haven't gotten around to it yet) Renata took a look at it and made some suggestions. Hope to have it done by this weekend. Sincerely, Novickas 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Labas and thanks for 6-sided cross suggestion. Re images, am planning to organize them into galleries - have found a lot of stamps that could be used for that purpose. Novickas 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nom
Re: your GA nomination of Vilnius Castle Complex, there should be no space between punctuation and a footnote, multiple footnotes should not have a space between them, and single years (ex 1327) do not get wikilinked. Let me know when you've fixed this. For now your nom is on hold. Further review items will appear on the article talk page. Rlevse 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I hope more are coming :) Renata 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely, will be more, but probably not this year :) M.K. 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Baltic states
I left you answer on my talk page. As for part you restored I'm going to incorporate it in Baltic region and remove it from Baltic staes article if you don't mind -- Xil/talk 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I somehow didn't notice that there are two articles Baltic states and Baltic States, that made everything confusing for me, I'm sorry if I confused you too. -- Xil/talk 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mail. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogusław Radziwiłł
Why did you revert my edits? I explained them carefully in the edit summaries. You did not justify your edit neither in the edit summary nor in the Talk page. What's going on? Please explain. Thanks! Space Cadet 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Then why did you revert everything instead of just the part about the governor of Prussia? Thanks for quick response. You will probably not hear from me for the next few hours, because I'm going to Greenpoint to hang out with my homies. BTW, is there a Lithuanian neighborhood anywhere in New York? Space Cadet 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite web
I am not sure what you are asking, but there is no way to repeat the same cite web template without typing it twice. Do you have a specific situationin mind? Renata 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for such a late reply... I just completely forgot about your question. And I am afraid there is no ref name="" alternative for cite web. The only way to use same url is to use it inside ref tags. If you want to use samewebsite in many different articles, I would suggest creating a template like I did for my favorite books at user:renata3/cite. Hope that answers. Renata 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning
While I did it once, your 3 reverts during the discussion (without a real answer in the talk page) was a "professional" way? (should I issue 3 warrnigs then?) Of course not. The discussion continues and  we can wait for the outcome (I do not mind participating). --Beaumont (@)  07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just re-read my message and try to understand. It refers not to your discussion but just to the number of your reverts. --Beaumont  (@)  23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate names
The wikipedia standard is that commonly used alternate names appear in the intro. john k 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

PAIN
Complaining about Halibutt's user page, when the material in question had been removed before your complaint, is rather unreasonable. As I said somewhere else, "So much for the Season of Goodwill." Please don't do this sort of thing in future, it isn't helpful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alfredas.Bumblauskas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alfredas.Bumblauskas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa
Please don't instert unreferenced or uneeded information into AK article. If you have an ax to grind, do it at Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Piotrus deletes information from the article. Maybe you should read carefully the suggestions in the article's talk pagehere and in the article's peer-review. Try not to engage in any revert war, before you understand better Piotrus' initiatives. I think he is really interested in making the article better, and his initiatives are towards this direction. Regards!--Yannismarou 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the quoted edits of yours were uncited, I'm sorry but their removal by Piotrus was not illegitimate. Now, his interference while you had the Inuse template was not polite, but I have also been treated like that (and by a friend here!); so, don't regard it as a big deal. To the point now: I am not going to evaluate the accuracy of your material, but per WP:SS, and per two of the best editors of Wikipedia (Kirill and Cla68) the particular section of the article is too long! I am not going to decide what info should leave and what should stay. But most of this infos should go to the RwL article. The relevant section of the article should consist of just two short summary paragraphs; and that is all! So, you should really remove a lot of stuff and adopt summary style. That is what should happen if you and Piotrus want to improve this article. Otherwise, continue the endless edit wars. This is my opinion.--Yannismarou 09:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I think you should first discuss how you want the relevant section to be (do you agree on SS?), and then decide on what infos should be included and how the exact wording should be, so as to avoid revert wars based on POV claims. I'll be watching the talk page of the article, in case I can offer any assistance.--Yannismarou 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Armia Krajowa killings 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Armia Krajowa killings 2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of Lithuania
You're welcome, but Renata did a lot to it first (last night at some horrific hour!) Novickas 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[image:smile.png]] Renata 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're up to your 3rd revert
You have continued reverting the changes I made to Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎, such as here and here.

Three inaccuracies you insist upon restoring:


 * 1. You have not at all verified his marriage details. It's up to you to cite it, not I. If it's not properly sourced, it gets removed. Are you aware of the basic processes of Wikipedia?


 * 2. He is a Golden State Warriors player, as he played his first game with them recently. Do you have information I do not possess to refute this? (If not, then why are you editing here?)


 * 3. He was born in 1976, when Lithuania as we know it was then part of the Soviet Union (whether you like it or not). You realise you're free to take your personal biases to a blog site or something...

I will now have your edits reviewed by an admin, and then they can decide what to do. And don't use the excuse that anon editors have less rights than registered users. We are all meant to behave the same.

Regards. --203.214.13.209 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you wish that I replay you here or on your talk? M.K. 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just letting to know you, your case was quite speedily dropped. It will be good lesson to you I hope. M.K. 11:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you warring on Sarunas Jasikevicius
Hi, I'm just trying to add Sarunas Jasikevicius as a Golden State Warriors player, and I can't because the article is locked. To try and find out why, I looked at the page history and your user-talk history and I see you started the whole thing by reverting when someone already tried to do so. Why are you rolling back to a previous version? Read the above complaints - they seem valid. And don't edit war please, you affect others' ability to edit. Explain your edits - I and all others cannot edit this page because of your actions. Thanks a lot. --Downwards 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Garšva
I have re-edited the most obvious POV out of Kazimieras Garšva--I cannot do much more, because I do not know Polish or Lithuanian. If it gets changed back again, let me know. DGG 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of Duchy of Courland
Thanks for the "catch" on my map of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. The error stems from Shepherd's original map, which shows what Wikipedia calls the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" as the "Kingdom of Poland". This is, as you may realize, not uncommon (e.g. "Partitions of Poland" and not "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth").

In any case, I have an idea on how to differentiate these various areas (e.g. Polish Livonia, etc) while still showing that they all were a part of the Commonwealth. I should get the change(s) up within the next day or so. It would be faster, but my day job keeps interfering (drat!!). Thanks again, MapMaster 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I use Inkscape to draw these maps. There's nothing magic in it, really, and has it's drawbacks (e.g. it crashes frequently), but it's freeware, so that helps. : )


 * I have updated the map, which now not only shows the Duchy of Courland & Semigallia, but the local extent of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Let me know if you see any other errors.  Thanks, MapMaster 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Name of Lithuania, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Novickas 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vilnius Castle
Real life is interfering again, but will probably be able to look at it today. Thanks for the photo insertion, hope you will keep it up with the other new signatory entries. Later - Novickas 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous January 26, 2007
The horse picture looks better now, thanks. However I didn't realize that "educational purposes" is not enough of a rationale to put in a picture...it's tagged for deletion...

Found the text of the 1918 Act at http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=8e57bf2c-f20c-494d-8b04-9bfedd6a3fbd No luck finding an English translation but my sister said she would be willing. She's very good - contributes to Lituanus. So hopefully soon! Novickas 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hurray! Novickas 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly don't mind about the horse article...but the picture will go away...sob...Novickas 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
--Savidan 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for nominating! :) Renata 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems! M.K. 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Act
Hm, very interesting. It will take some time because the table to re-create the thing will be very complex. Just that I don't know how to do the arrows, and without arrows the whole thing will be very confusing... Renata 12:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do my best (probably next Sunday). BTW, things you might look into: there were two originals of the act. One survived the second is mysteriously gone. Also the popular Lietuvos Aidas image and its story (the confiscation of newspapers). Renata 12:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow it went much smoother... First draft is here. Need some background colors, equalize column widths, put proper descriptions in, etc. Renata 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I received your comments, I have some ideas, but just don't have time to implement them. Please wait for Sunday... Renata 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re new section/references - all the info is contained in the Wikipedia articles about these people, which are referenced (maybe not all of them, will check). Do we need inline refs? Novickas 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaunas Fortress
Hey, great article! There's one slightly rough spot where I have trouble visualizing the sectors. Novickas 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Labas rytas. I can' quite grok the sentence "The third - lasted from right till left bank of Nemunas, this sector included also two forts; the fourth and last sector stretched from the right bank of the Neris to the left bank of the Nemunas." Hard to visualize - the conventions regarding river bank references (left and right, which are not absolute terms) are counter-intuitive. Did I mention GREAT article?? Novickas 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, even the Lithuanian version uses the right and left bank naming conventions! Will study the maps in the references though. Novickas 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, IMO it is certainly ready for release from the "Laikimas". Novickas 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Lithuanian Heavy Draught was successful
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MK, for the nomination! My first DYK. Novickas 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. You're not listed, but you can add yourself if you want. Could be almost as much fun as arguing about Lower Franconian/Dutch with Sandertje. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Baltic tribes map
MK, I appreciate your feedback. But since there is a similarly formatted "Livonians" at the top of the map, and since the words "Poles" and "Livonians" are in a different color and spaced differently from the Baltic tribal names, I would not think that a reader would assume that the pale yellow area belonged to either group. Certainly anyone who knows anything about history or geography would not come to this conclusion. MapMaster 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Act of Independence
I must say, I don't agree with your assessment of your Act Article. It's substantive, well organized, and referenced. I think you should let me copyedit it. Novickas 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK
-- Yomangani talk 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Armia Krajowa killings 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Armia Krajowa killings 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK Hook
How about something like "the Bartians, a pagan tribe of Prussia, were the targets of a 13th century Crusade by the Teutonic Knights?" -Shaundakulbara 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! I found your notice, your suggestion is good too, but maybe those "targets" should be changed; and btw, why my original suggestion is not good? Cheers, M.K. 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying your suggestion wasn't good. I merely though that since people generally don't know anything about the Bartians, Vytenis or the Teutonic Knights its much more intersting to let people know via the hook that this was a Crusade in Europe against pagans that happened around the same era as the Crusades in the Middle East against Muslim opponents. My suggestion is irrelevant now; your suggested hook is already on the front page. Shaundakulbara 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) No big deal. Thank you for nominating it. Shaundakulbara 11:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A I see now; probably you was right on this issue :) Thanks for the comment, M.K. 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Bartians was successful
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image cropping
New version: Image:Christiansborg Castle2.jpg. Have a nice editing, M.K. 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's perfect. --Cherry blossom tree 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding POV-dependent wording
I can easily find a reference confirming that Vilnius was occupied by Lithuania. Do we need this ? Why are you pushing a single POV instead of avoiding it ? --Lysytalk 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I left note on you talk, I think you missed it. M.K. 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Neutral point of view and related policies, we should use a more neutral phrase. And if you want a ref for it, no problem, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check your talk page for them first. My answer is above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mečislovas Reinys
Could you help me expand this? An article in states that he is being considered for beatification for resisting the KGB. However, my grasp of Roman Catholic terminology and procedures is limited...Will put in the info from this article, but more input would be welcome. Sincerely, Novickas 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aktas
Hi, I made my changes... Before you kill me please consider two things: I am a girl (pink is my blood) and you asked for it! :P Renata 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the colors - I know they are very girlish and I bet don't suit your character. Anyway,
 * Paragraph headlines, they are not good at all, especially with those Act's versions
 * Will try to think of something (hoping tonight)
 * The paragraph placement is also questionable - maybe place Further developments as one of last paragraph and so on.
 * Moved further developments to the end. I think genesis needs a bit of explanations (i.e. how to read the chart)
 * Paragraph Structure of Act is important, but it looks terribly especially with the image! maybe some particular format would help?
 * Deleted completely.
 * Declaration text probably would look better if it was justified from left and fight, how to do it?
 * Re-did completely :)
 * Did not manage to find any decent source about lost Act version.
 * Hm, I will try to look for it. I remember there was a story on Lietuvos Rytas TV about it... Somebody thought that the second original might be hidden in somebody's grave... And that they indeed found something in there.
 * Impact paragraph maybe should be merged? or expanded with something additional?
 * Will take a look tonight.
 * Genesis/ table I did not managed to changed colours properly see the first two top boxes, bottom line is not visible. Need help here too :)
 * Changed, completely :) Still not too happy, if you have some ideas - share.
 * Someone really needs to write an article on Vilnius Conference. I started drafting something last night at sandbox, but just was too lazy to finish :( Renata 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain these 2 bits of text? "On January 26, there were approved two notification project versions of independence, but was noted that only the Constituent Assembly would adopt the final decision. Adaptation of projects raised tension among the Council members and four members..." and "Sovereignty and continuity principles of Lithuanian statehood were stressed by the Council of Lithuania, but this time state historical legacy was reestablished on ethnic Lithuanian lands." Thanks! Renata 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I moved the article (with it's entire history) to the permanenet place. Renata 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was. And long time ago. Wikipedia article are not perfect. They are under construction. Renata 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK
I'm getting tired of issuing all these congratulations! Novickas 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ha :) M.K. 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Personal Attacks
I have noticed more mind games being played against you recently (with links to trolling etc.). My advice is to ignore it as best you can, and certainly not to feed them. BTW, I have spent over two days trying to improve the Antoni Bohdziewicz article. One of the more difficult aspects of my efforts was to have to revert the historically false information that was repeatedly re-entered (by an administrator no less) a total of three times. That matter seems to be settled by the article's author who has now placed the "historically" accurate toponym back to my original edit. Although that too, necessitated some teeth-pulling. When someone is constantly placing false information in WP, because it suits their POV, is there some venue to curb it? I mean short of censorship, witch hunts, investigations and the like. Or is this a flaw of WP that simply has to be challenged through vigilance and perserverence? Dr. Dan 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries. New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design. Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:23 (UTC)

"I've started, so I'll finish"
The FAC was closed before I could finish my responses to your points, so I've shifted my replies to the Jogaila talk page. I suppose I am tunnel-visioned....it is just about making a better article, not getting stars.

I found your list of comments daunting, but it would be churlish not to admit that addressing them has led to a series of improvements to the article. I've always known that the article suffered from a lack of Lithuanian (and indeed Russian) references, but, speaking for myself, this was a practical limitation rather than one of deliberate bias.

I've not got much left to do now. The main thing is to address the background at the beginning of his reign and his actions as a young ruler. Many thanks for your input: I've enjoyed immersing myself in all the conflicting info. qp10qp 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer
About WikiProject Lithuania. I'm not sure that I'm qualified enough, and I'm editing wikipedia quite rarely. Thank you anyway.

Your DYK nomination for Vilnius Conference was successful
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nomination, MK :) Novickas 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was pleasure to do so. M.K. 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was afraid the part about Goethe and the Brothers Grimm would be considered "original research", since I'd heard it from my parents in childhood. It was a pleasant surprise to find a citation. It would be nice to expand a little on the topic of Lithuania and the West, but so many of these scholarly publications are subscription-only. Also of interest, one site mentions that they discussed the flag during the Conference: http://www2.omnitel.net/ramunas/Lietuva/lt_emblem_flag.shtml. However, as currently organized, the article addresses only the main issues. But maybe this item could be put in the Flag article. About the Act, sorry that you aren't completely happy with it as it stands; I don't have any ideas, but whenever you think is a good time, I could do a little grammar/syntax work on it. Sincerely, Novickas 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello M.K,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-15.  howcheng  {chat} 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I will look closely in upcoming days. M.K. 10:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
KEEP UP THE SUPER WORK! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying :) M.K. 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Act of Independence of Lithuania
Very interesting article. Yet, you cannot ex officio give it an A-class rating before it has passed the at least WP:GAN. -- Cheers, Camptown 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I will have in mid this in the future. M.K. 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Zirmunai refs
Hi, could you do the cite web for those couple refs that are left? Thanks! Renata 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus AfD
It's OK, has already deleted it. riana_dzasta 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag
It happens that Feb. 16 is the day I met my wife — in Lithuania! She wasn't waving a flag, though. Sca 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did I! And not just that one, either. Švyturys is great beer — but I like Kalnapilis, too. Sca 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:On your removal of tags
Please stop spamming tags that nobody but you supported and without explaining the reasons for them on talk pages. You have been warned by many editors and mediators that this is disruption Wikipedia. Please stop disrupting the project, otherwise you may find your behaviour reported and yourself blocked.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop this outrages accusation! Your accusation as “nobody but you supported and without explaining the reasons for them on talk pages” is ends only looking on these different edits   . Different contributors suggested to stop your one sided actions  as well as  it is clear disruption of wikipedia  and as you say if you continue such behavior you may find your behavior reported and yourself blocked. Removal of valid information  and classify as POV pushing even then sources are provided is not tolerated. Your tactics nobody supports, only user: Darwinek reverted by hiding under mirror edit with summary “format” . While my statements were presented on talk with refs  you failed to produce any refs which could denounce presented claims; instead of finding them you started to deleting info which you do not like, even more you managed to “accidentally” misinterpreted your own source in your  language calming about Polish POW`s , while in reality were was no such , even more started see it as personal - "especially for Dr. Dan."  I regard you answer, left on my talk, as continues mocking and disruption; stop such behavior and start improving your image until is not too late.M.K. 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Old good Piotrus still paying a state Prosecutor's office and a judge in one person, and forgetting that he's having some unfinished Rf's, involving him and arbcom I think.
 * My advice, Piotrus stop intimidating people before cleaning your reputation.--Lokyz 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming my talk pages with this incoherent personal attacks. Almost nobody supported you during my RfC (until I commented on it :p), and no neutral commentators support you on the discussion pages (some people who are less familiar with your POV pushing are still giving you benefit of the doubht and waiting for you to provide sources and such). If you continue to post such messages, you may be reported for personal attacks. If this doesn't satisfy you, feel free to follow WP:DR procedure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On reporting Piotrus
I saw your report on Piotrus for 3RR. I am sorry, but I do not endorse invoking policies against content opponents, no matter how long term and how annoying they might be, except for true trolls and real abusers who do most nothing but cause annoyance. Piotrus is not among such users

To be fair, reporting his opponents is a favorite workaround in the content disputes by Piotrus himself who is not only a prolific editor but a prolific reporter to all sorts of boards and admin's talk pages. But no matter, please do not follow into his footsteps. When Piotrus or Halibutt violate policies on me, including 3RR, I never report them. It is important to make a distinction between P/H and, say, Molobo or "Truthseeker".

Maybe Piotrus will learn one day to stop looking for content victories through his opponents being sanctioned, but two wrongs does not make it right. --Irpen 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As usual, Irpen is right. And I say this for two reasons. One, whatever you do, don't follow in the footsteps brought to your attention. Two, don't be a proponent of censorship. Everyone, even Molobo (I object to the treatment he got), can be tolerated without the remnants of a totalitarian regime's mentality to silence what they don't like. These "regimes" also liked to "block" or "ban" their oponents, although usually by exiling them or killing them. Remember it takes an immense ego to tell everyone, "My contributions to Wikipedia are special" or "I can't work with this editor, so I want him or her removed, because I'm special" or "Look how many articles I've written (even though many are a joke and a half), and because I'm special, I want this contributor removed." Although these examples are only make believe, they do illustrate my point. You are too smart of a lad to want to follow such a path. Happy editing. Dr. Dan 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MK, could you send me an email? novickas_iota pas yahoo.com. Thanks, Novickas 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Act of Independence of Lithuania
Congratulations! It's not immediately obvious that this was mostly your work, but many of us do know and appreciate that. Novickas 13:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto! And to all the others who helped too. Dr. Dan 14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was a common participation and input! To all participants congrats! M.K. 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

New article
New article at User:Novickas/sandbox, if you would like to add to it. Novickas 15:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Novickas 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was pleasure. M.K. 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1st Class Order of Vytautas the Great.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1st Class Order of Vytautas the Great.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1st Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1st Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:2nd Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2nd Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:3rd Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:3rd Class Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Žirmūnai
Sorry for not contributing much to the FA (Am still hoping that some time will arise in the near future to expand the history summary per your request). It seems unlikely that anything concerning Vilnius' 20th century history will ever reach that point on WP. One idea is that the objections should be put into a concise list - that will make them easier to address. Novickas 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Palanga Amber Museum
Hello! You failed Palanga Amber Museum as GA and listed problems, I addressed them, particularly - introduced additional sources, reworded speculated sentences. Could you please take a look now - are you concerns solved by these adjustments. If so, do I need to renominated article again? Cheers, M.K. 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at the article with the changes that have been made, I agree that my concernes have been mostly addressed. I still think that there is room for improvement and more references, but I think that this probably meets the GA standards now. Renominating the article is your next step now. Good luck on future reviews! Dekkanar 13:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Dekkanar 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the additional references you added, I think you definately have put enough in to reach GA status. Good luck on you review. Dekkanar 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi there! I just finished doing some major copyediting of Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga, and you may wish to look it over to make sure I kept all the facts correct. If possible, you may want to try working with another editor when writing articles...  much of the language was very difficult to read, making it hard to correct. If you need language help, please feel free to contact me, or ask at Reference desk/Language. Keep up the good articles, Bushytails 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Franz Heinrich Schwechten
Hi M.K., I usually do it the other way round, grabbing text from en-wikipedia to translate it to German wikipedia. The article doesn't look too bad in my eyes and since ther is not much more to be had in German wikipedia, I'll only be able to add minor information. Do you think it useful to transladd :-> the list of buildings ? Best regards. --Gf1961 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palanga Amber Museum
The article Palanga Amber Museum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Palanga Amber Museum for things needed to be addressed. LordHarris 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok with the merge, I suggest removing it. However I would still like to see the captions improved. See the Talk:Palanga Amber Museum for more details.LordHarris 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article Palanga Amber Museum you nominated as a good article has passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|25px]], see Talk:Palanga Amber Museum for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. LordHarris 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Congratulations on getting the Palanga Amber Museum argicle to GA status. It definately deserves to be one.Dekkanar 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration statement length
Please note that an arbitrator has requested that you reduce the length of your statement on Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you finish your evidence section? I would like to start thinking about my reply, but I cannot compose one untill I know the full scope of what you are accusing me of. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you start something, you should finish it. Not knowing the scope of full evidence against me, I don't know how much of my reply - limited in size per ArbCom rules - I should devote to current evidence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Smetonas picture
Hello, regarding your message on my talk and template Template:POTD/2007-06-15 ; I find it consistent and not going to details text involve key points. Maybe only "dictator" could be a bit wrong as he usually referred as "authoritarian president" or "authoritarian head of state", but as article text also uses and "dictator" it would be no drama if current definition be used. Cheers, M.K. 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply here. This being a wiki, feel free to update the text yourself (as well as the article). Cheers.  howcheng  {chat} 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Hi M.K, what was the translation that you asked about in this edit ? I'm afraid I did not understand your request. --Lysytalk 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note
You might want to add your point of view to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision. Balcer 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And that I should comment there? M.K. 11:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lithuanian World Community
As an English speaker in everyday life and in my past academic work, and as a native speaker of Lithuanian, I would be happy to join in the project WP:LITH as described in your note.

As a substantial part of Lithuanian nationals now reside outside of Lithuania, should one not have a description of The Lithuanian World Community (Lithuanian Pasaulio Lietuvių Bendruomenė)? OldAl

Following a positive response from M.K., I have created a stub of the article in my "discussion" section. I would greatly appreciate any and all comments about it as well as editing, prior to posting it on the main pages of the wikipedia. TIA! OldAl

Here is the direct link to it: Old Al's discussion tab

Review
Nope, I'm too busy in real like to take a close look. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)