User talk:Novickas/Archive 6

Donner party
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Donner Party". Thank you. --Jswap (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Krizius 4.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Krizius 4.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

References needed (Vilnius Castle Complex)
This article needs some refs added for it to maintain its GA status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vytenis Andriukaitis


The article Vytenis Andriukaitis has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Reads like an unreferenced resume

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nouniquenames (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Vytenis Andriukaitis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vytenis Andriukaitis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vytenis Andriukaitis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nouniquenames (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

More on Pilsudski dictatorship in Poland
Thank you for your old comment in Talk:Józef_Piłsudski ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski/Archive_2#Virtual_dictator_question ).

There is an on-going discussion and edits of this article, related to Pilsudski dictatorship. Your contributions to this discussions and edits will be most appreciated. See the talk page of the Pilsudski article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine

Thanks for all your Lithuanian-related work
Thanks for all your Lithuanian-related work Victor Grigas (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

CCI update
At long last, arguably the most tiresome copyright case I've worked on is done! A much better feeling when those big ones get taken down, I must say. -- Wizardman 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rupintojas.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rupintojas.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Bond fandom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page From Russia with Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574244111 your edit] to James Bond fandom may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * met with a protest from fans who organized the website craignotbond.com and urged a boycott. cite web|url=http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/shaken-not-stirred-007-fans-revolt-over-

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574396782 your edit] to James Bond fandom may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Secrets'', which was published in the US by Little, Brown and Company and then withdrawn. cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/09/james-bond-plagiarised-novel-qr-markham|

Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko
You may be interested in this new article I've created. The intention is to reduce the coverage of this topic in TK article, while expanding it in this dedicated article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Juozas Vaina
I recently visited Puńsk, and learned about the interesting notable person, lt:Juozas Vaina. I created a short bio on him on pl wiki, but I run into a problem of finding very few sources in Polish. Is there more in Lithuanian? Perhaps we could DYK it here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Piotr - yes, there are LT sources for Vaina. Here's a short EN one. But I don't really feel like writing the article. It's good that you created a stand alone for K.'s will, but as I said at the FAC just now, the fact that it wasn't his last will bothers me some. Novickas (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cite book page numbers
Hi Novickas, Re:your removal of page numbers in the Bibliography of the Kosciuszko article: the 'pages=' used in 'Cite book' when used in body of text are used to refer to the actual page number within the publication. But when 'cite book' is used as a stand alone entry in the bibliography 'pages=' is used to indicate the total number of pages of a given publication. These were the numbers you removed from the bibliography earlier. I realize that the docs for 'cite book' indicate actual page numbers, but it's a common enough practice to use this field to indicate total number of pages for a given publication when the template is used in a bibliography. The convention we have used in the Kosciuszko and Pulaski articles is to not insert the entire template into the text, but simply refer to it by placing e.g. 'ref=Smith' in the template and listing total number of pages in the bibliography. This was the method used when both of these articles passed GA not long ago. -- Gwillhickers 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Gwillhickers - About bibliography entries. The thing is, I just now inserted a Nash, Hodges ref using page 10. So I don't see how a bibliographic reference that specifically mentions page 328 is applicable - probably, the first time I tried to take out the specific page number in the biblio, I was planning to insert some more N & H refs. Might still put some in since I have the book here now. Interlibrary loan for Storozynsnki will probably take a while.
 * I'm not sure you understood. When 'pages=' is used 'cite book' in a bibliography listing it pertains to the total number of pages in the publication. When the 'cite book' template is used in the body of text (i.e.  the 'pages=' in this case refers to the actual page number(s) for the citation. i.e.When you removed |page=352 from The Peasant Prince in the Bibliography you were removing the reference to the total number of pages for that book. -- Gwillhickers 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dual Baptism : While I appreciate your support of George A. Krol as a biographical source at the FAC, I do feel compelled to point out that he specifically mentioned dual baptism in both Catholic and Orthodox churches. This is not at all surpising given his Ruthenian background, although it gets complicated again if one considers that the baptism may have been in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Messy, right? Pending clarification/sourcing on that, I'd prefer to use Krol's wording - Orthodox. But the current version of the Kosckiusko only mentions Catholicism. Regards, Novickas (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Piotrus had an issue with mentioning dual baptism, so I simply referred to the Catholic Church in general. However, if you and/or Piotrus now want to mention this it is no issue with me. I'll refer Piotrus to this discussion and let the two of you decide what's best. -- Gwillhickers 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem is that I couldn't verify this is any source I checked - I don't think it was mentioned in Strozynski (through I cannot check it till December), it's not in PSB, and it's not coming up in any Google Book searches I do. As such, I am afraid it may be someone's fringe theory. If anyone would like to add this to the article, I'd ask for clear quotation, plus a brief overview of source's reliability. I'd also suggest that we copy this section of the discussion from here to article's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578261357 your edit] to Siberian Husky may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * After you Alphonse. It's the developers of User:BracketBot who deserve the thanks.Novickas (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Freedom from Want (painting)
Thanks for your advice on Freedom from Want (painting). I hope I have properly addressed your interest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech
Since you were able to find so many substantive reviews for the Freedom from Want painting, I was wondering if you might be able to help me find some sources for Freedom of Speech (painting). Can you comment at Talk:Freedom of Speech (painting)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
Hello Piotrus. By antagonism I was referring to the various old Arbcom cases where we presented evidence against each other. I don't see how you could say you never thought of me that way when you said I showed "bad, bad faith" towards you and needed mentoring. Which I would call something more than just a disagreement. We would probably come into conflict more often if I edited more; at AFDs, for instance.

But you know, co-workers don't need to be friends. They can just co-exist - I'm sure everyone with a reasonably long working history, especially supervisors, knows this - you keep a polite distance and limit your criticism to concrete issues, and only vent to trusted relatives and friends. This is how I see our WP relationship - as co-workers. I don't want to be your Wiki-friend, sorry. If you issue straightforward, heartfelt apologies to those you've wronged I'd probably change my mind; but I know that would be hard and the WP community doesn't ask for it. So how about just leaving things be - please don't send any more virtual gifts. Novickas (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend not to think so far back; I believe our recent editing, which has been rather conflict free, speaks more of the present us. Co-workers is fine, however such a relationship tends to break when one of them feels the need to say less then friendly things about others. If you believe that an apology is required for this to happen, fair enough. As I have in the past issued a number of apologies, please let me know who has not been apologized to, or not apologized to adequately, and for what, and I'll see what amends I can do. Just please, don't tell me something like "you should know best who you need to apologize for"; I'd appreciate clear, actionable suggestion that I could act upon. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To my mind you need to apologize to the entire Eastern European community - all the disputes, but especially EEML, have made us look like spittle-generating fools and probably discouraged a lot of Wikipedians from helping out. They were probably rolling their eyes, and still are, and thinking along the lines of the Jeeves thing - "Any news, Jeeves?" "No, Sir. Just some trouble in the Balkans." I know a blanket apology like that isn't a realistic possibility. But you could start by apologizing to User:M.K. for recently calling his arguments desperate, to User:Lokyz and to M.K for calling them POV-pushing trolls on IRC to get yourself unblocked, to User:Irpen for saying you would never organize off-wiki reverting efforts, to the IP who posted a lot of diffed evidence at your RFA 3 for calling him or her a troll...problem is, I could on for quite a while along this line. I know there's always a divide between the Let's Move On and Let's Remember approaches. Wikipedians tend to favor the move-on thing, but that's probably because it's a relatively new institution that sees growth as its number one goal. It does seem clear from your RFA that many of us retain memories and want to see that the past has been well and truly addressed. Novickas (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right, that comment was uncivil; I've noted it as such. As you can see, I am open to mending fences. Can you give me a diff - and a year - of the IRC comment? Regarding Irpen, we have reached an understanding years ago, privately, so you don't have to worry about him. We were on good terms when he retired, and I miss him, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yo, User:Piotrus. The incident I was thinking of is related here by an admin who had access to the IRC admin channel logs. On re-reading this I see that you had only described User M.K as a POV troll, along with an IP, and not Lokyz, my mistake. Novickas (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...You realize you are asking for an apology for something I said in 2008? Anyway, if patching our relationship at least to neutrality requires that I apologize for what I said six years ago, that's fine. (Although I believe I have likely apologized for using the term troll in said context years ago). If any of the said users don't recall it, they are welcome to ask me for an apology on my talk, and I'll gladly reply to them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. (WP Echo is fun for a while, it feels like a Harry-Potter style summoning tool, but gets tiresome in an extended conversation, Piotr.) I did know that diff was from 2008. Could be it's another male/female thing? Just came up in a conversation the other day. ("Did he apologize?" (pipes froze). "No, come on! You know guys don't do that unless they killed somebody or something!") Me, I apologize at the drop of a hat. Doesn't matter when it happened, it still works if you want to keep a long term relationship going, because we're all made of crooked timber. Anyway, I won't oppose your hypothetical next RFA if the things I mentioned at RFA3 go away. Novickas (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. - I appreciate your striking out the comment). Novickas (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)