User talk:Lokyz/last archive

GA reassessment of Vilnius Castle Complex

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų!Novickas (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Lokyz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Laurynas Stankevičius - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are there already. Case closed.--Lokyz (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Kazys Grinius

Hello Lokyz,

I saw your entry while doing some research regarding my great uncle, Kazys Grinius. I am delighted to find out that you are also related to him. I would love to find more about our family history. Both my grandparents are from Marijampole and my grandmother had a photo of Kazys that she said was her uncle. She was born in 1892 and her maiden name was Zeichus. I would love to know more. Please contact me at cgehrig@gmail.com. Thank you. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Cgehrig10 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ever claim any relations to Kazys Grinius. Sorry to dissapoint you.Lokyz (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government of the Republic of Lithuania

Thanks for your job! [1] --Jarash 21:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarash (talk• contribs)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' editson certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusians

Please see here [2]. Belarusian nationalists have inserted the map in which Vilnius (“Вiльня”) is “ethnic territory of Belarusians”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by91.78.226.217 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett M82

Hi. Please do not add content without citing verifiable andreliable sources, as you did to Barrett M82. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please!

Lokyz, is there any possible way to reconcile this edit [3] or this edit [4] or even this edit [5] with these edits: [6], [7],[8]. The juxtaposition ofthis with this in particular really looks bad.radek (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that deserves a song back [9], though unfortunately it doesn't specifically reference Poles and Lithuanians - but the general point applies. Anyway, this whole naming mess is going to have to be resolved one way or another at some point.radek (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Unfortunately I couldn't think of an appropriate Lithuanian language song mostly because I'm unfamiliar with Lithuanian music -if you got any recommendations, I'd love to hear them.radek (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is - putting Varšuva into the lead of Warsaw. Our ancestors ought to live in a federal state, ain't they?Lokyz (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My ancestors, at least some of them, probably lived right next door to yours :)radek (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lokyz

Sveiki! Ką apie tavo vardas? Ar jūs hakeris, ar ką? Lokys (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of leet, although with a tongue in the cheek. Lokyz (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above account name is too similar to yours you should request a rename of it. M.K. (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what policy?Lokyz (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

опечатка?

Вы знаете, что Gnat (Гнус) на английском языке произносится как "NАТ", может быть, это просто опечатка. Может быть, это то, что он имел в виду. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure "nat" was short for "nationalist". Why the Russian? This is the English Wikipedia.radek (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it bother you (the Russian)? This didn't seem to bother you [10], it was English Wikipedia there too. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make accusations. It did bother me in fact. And like I said, this is the English Wikipedia.radek (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably it is "not my business", but really, radek, what is your business to stalk my talk page and ask questions about languages people use? It is utterly absurd, you know.Lokyz (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what all the Cyrillic was about.radek (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find it out yet? When you will, please let me know. Have a nice day untill then. And just in case - this is a talk page, not a social networking site nor a forum or chat page. Please do settle your problems elsewhere.Lokyz (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I was also wondering if you were going to self-revert either this or [11], particularly in light of this. I mean, how do you justify these kind of contradictory edits?radek (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that there is any contradiction. We're talking about historic ethnic Lithuanian lands, aren't we? Or are you trying to imply, that only Polska ponad wszystko is the right POV?Lokyz (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am not implying anything of the sort and I take offense at you inferring such things. Though your claim about "historic ethnic Lithuanian lands"... well, let's just leave that one alone.radek (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to insult anyone. Although I do have my doubts, that one should be at any point interested into Polish name of Lithuanian ethnographic region or Polish, or rather Polonised name of a village in the midst of Lithuania (I do not doubt, that you'd recognize it as Lithuania, or ?). During the years of my editing in Wikipedia I've heard a lot of POV's, on the verge to the stating that Lithuanians emerged from nowhere in 20th century (maybe Russians or Germans have imported them here?). I'm not sure that I'd like to hear another fairy-tale about ethnic Poles, that lived for centuries in Lithuania - readKrajowcy for instance. My Grandfather was Polish-speaker, although he did not refer to himself as "ethnic" Polonian. Terms you are using are so politicised, it's so 19th century based, that it is not even insulting, it's annoying (Ziemie Odzyskane vs Wilensczyzna - for an instance). Scientific discipline called History has made quite a progress in recent years, and Parity priciple is a key to find a common ground. Lokyz (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt, that you'd recognize it as Lithuania, or ? - what, Suwałki [12]? No, actually I wouldn't. I have no idea what you're talking about in your second sentence- at any rate I don't think it applies to me but apparently to some imaginary Polish editors that don't really exist or have existed. And hmmm, Poles did live in Lithuania for centuries, the fact that you call this a "fairy tale" ... well, let's just leave that one alone (aw, come on, every country has had ethnic minorities). And hey, my Grandfather spoke Lithuanian, though his parents were hella confused when they got back to Wilno in 1917 from Siberia, by all the crazy nationalistic stuff going on (for sake of peace, let's say "on both sides" here) - so I actually have this vague notion of what the Krajowcy were about. And can you point out specifically where I use "politicised terms", like an actual diff or something? Once again I'm getting the feeling that you're not talking about me, but some imaginary Polish editors that don't exist or have ever existed. Yes, I am aware of the existence of the discipline of History; actually studied it myself. But how does the "Parity priciple" squarethis with this? That seems to be anything but Parity.radek (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not imagine things, that happen before my eyes. Looking at your examples how does Merecz(?) and Suwalszyzna relate to Lithuanian ethnographic regions? And why a city established in the Sudovians lands should omit Lithuanian name? And what do you mean by Poles, that lived in Lithuania? Polish-speaking people, people loyal to the Commonwealth or else? If you've studied History you might know, that ethnicity per se is 19th century term (mother tongue, for an instance). Political meaning (nationality) is quite older. Yet, then what we're talking about? About City names (that might be interesting to some imaginable reader) or about subtle although clearly seen push for a cultural imperialism, like we've been there and we'll keep on coming. And yes, the nats - strange enough, I've been called nats only and exceptionally by Polish editors. Over and over.Lokyz (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'm not going to put Lokyz through this nonsense on his talk page. If you want to, take it somewhere else. Thanks for your unrequested opinion about "NATS", I was communicating with Lokyz on his talk page, not with you. As for the hollow sounding "Don't make accusations. It did bother me in fact." Could you link me to where you "were bothered" by the remark. Or any comment made by you concerning [13] and the statement "This is the English Wikipedia (sic), " regarding it? Otherwise I think maybe it bothered you in your thoughts.Here it bothered you enough to express yourself. Really, don't wonder and worry about it too much. O.K.? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nat" was short for "nationalist", if anyone's still wondering. I don't remember who precisely I had in mind when I wrote it, and I apologise to anyone who thought I may have had them in mind but whom the description does not in fact fit.--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite rather sneaky formula apology accepted. I hope, that by writing this on my talk page you've included me into the list to whom the description does not fit. Lokyz (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickiewicz

Hi, glad to see your adopting a more reasonable tone about the place names. But disappointed to see you joining in with the IP edit warring on the Adam Mickiewicz article. Surely we've been through this enough on that discussion page - of course the sources "are there", saying all sorts of different things, but the vast majority of them just say he was Polish - the idea that he was Lithuanian is a relatively fringe point of view (not that I have much of a view on it myself), that's lucky to be in the lead at all. To say it twice, in a way that doesn't really make good sense in English, is harming both the article and the attempt to diffuse the tension there.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Polish as Laurynas Gucevičius, Mykolas Riomeris, Gabriel Narutowicz, Oscar Milosz and Simonas Daukantas andAntanas Baranauskas?Lokyz (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what have any of those got to do with Mickiewicz?--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty:) Check the articles (including Adam Mickiewicz).Lokyz (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, what have they got to do with introducing an ungrammatical sentence into the lead of Mickiewicz's article that doesn't properly reflect what the totality of sources say about him?--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when adding Lithuanian is ungrammatical?Lokyz (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nemenčinė

What do you mean by "more accepted form"? Dr. Loosmark 14:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by nationalistic?Lokyz (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

WP:UNDUE:Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".

Thus while there certainly can be found some sources that describe him as Lithuanian, they are not the majority of view, and thus he can't be named as such in the lead. We can add information about Lithuanian claims of some authorts in the subsection within the article. I welcome you to discuss this on the talk page of the article in question. Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about policy or about some person? Please be more precise.Lokyz (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Lokyz, I think this [14] is a satisfactory way of resolving some of these disputes. Thank you for being constructive.radek (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i do think it is a temporary solution, untill we'll come to more common solution, because WP:POV bashers andWP:DRAMA mongers will not accept, as they already did not accept it in the past. Though, this being partial solution, I hope, that we'll eventually come to much simpler solution, like the one it that's applied in Budapest and many other cities -List of names in different languages. I do find it much more informative and more useful from a linguistics standpoint. Of course, it does not cover townships and villages. And BTW, why one does not useWP:REDIRECT, or is it not the alternative name important, but the name of the language of the supposedly alternativename?--Lokyz (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Let's leave POV bashers and DRAMA mongers out of this or we'll never get a solution. Lists of names in different languages has two limitations, one of which you already allude to; it's unsuitable for smaller townships and villages. The other, related one, is that it doesn't make sense for places that only have one or two "alternative names", since that doesn't make for much of a list. So these kinds of lists can work for Wroclaw or Vilnius but not for many other places.

Problem with redirects is that they don't provide information unless someone already knows what they're looking for. That is, if you already know what the alternative name is then you can type it in and get the modern name, but this isn't true if you don't know the relevant info and are looking for it.radek (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything one perceives as modern, is modern - that is just a matter of one's standpoint. In most cases Lithuanian names are much older than derivatives in other languages.--Lokyz (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. All I meant is that these names are also used today.radek (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Vilnius University

Could you please have a look at the talk page of this article? Thanks, Novickas (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notification

Please don't use my former username. I've changed it for a reason and I expect you to respect that. I'm not singling you out for this notification - I've made it to about half a dozen editors. I would appreciate it if you removed the "Hi former..." from the Mickiewicz talk page yourself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Lokyz (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

You are currently under a restriction that enjoins you from making any personal attacks or incivil remarks; this is especially true for the topic area which caused the initial investigation. remark could have resulted in a block. Please focus on your content concerns rather than making it about the people involved in editing. Shell ^babelfish 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how about we try this a different way

All this stuff is not productive. Discussing it anymore is not gonna help. So how about you think of a topic or an article which should be amenable for both me and you to work on? There's a lotta historical material to pick from in terms of positive Lithuanian-Polish relationships so how about we find one that is of that nature rather than wasting time on this crap. Suggest a topic. Or a person. I will do my best to help out in anyway that I can and as long as you can provide serious academic sources (be they Lithuanian or other language) I will defer to your judgement. I've seen you do work on Lithuanian history for the period between WWII and later and it was fine. But somehow when it gets to the interwar period hats change. For the whole PLC period -sorry to get all psychologist on you - it's pretty obvious that you are struggling with yourself. But that's fine. That's the nature of the topic and of the difficult history of our countries. Other folks are lucky, we aren't, but maybe we're better for it. Again, suggest a topic that we both can work on in peace - is that possible?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I report WP:PA about "it's pretty obvious that you are struggling with yourself" or would you please appologise? There was no more obvious Personal Attack like this, that I've ever seen.--Lokyz (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe if you think that "it's pretty obvious that you are struggling with yourself" is a personal attack... well, I can't do anything about that - it was an honest observation and an attempt to reach out. Anything can be interpreted as a "personal attack" with enough bad faith. But if you were offended by it, then I apologize - I wasn't clear. What I meant was that I've seen you do good work before but I think that sometimes the battleground atmosphere clouds your judgment. I know, I know, that could also be a "personal attack", but I'm willing to admit that that happens to me also sometimes. It's more of an observation about human nature than about anyone in particular. What matters is how we react once we recognize our potential biases. That's why I'm asking you to suggest a topic/article we could work on together. It'd be good for both of us.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone you're holding on to is not encouraging for collaboration. Sorry. Wikipedia is to discuss facts and articles, not editors.--Lokyz (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladas Niunka (Chairman of the Supreme Soviet)

Hello, I see that you have removed the question mark. My two sources does not give any information about when Niunka took office, only that he left in 1963. Please let me know if you have sources confirming that Niunkas tenure began in 1955. Thank you very muchMbakkel2 13:39 March 5 2011 (CET)

Currently I cannot access my collection of books. As soon I'll be to do that I'll check it and let you know.--Lokyz (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ notification/remainder

[15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, if you'd abstain writing on my talk page for a while, per third party suggestion. Thank you.----Lokyz (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Your name is mentioned, and your editing is being discussed, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

See [16]. Novickas (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]