Jump to content

User talk:Novickas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invitation

[edit]
 Please accept this invite to join the Unreferenced Article Cleanup WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of December, 2008 there were over 154,000 unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply click here and sign your username to accept!

--Captain-tucker (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shale oil

[edit]

Merry Christmas, Novickas! I expanded a little bit the article in your sandbox and I think that maybe it is ready for going forward with creation of the Shale oil article.Beagel (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated hi...

[edit]

Hello, I was meaning to say hello and welcome you back, but I wasn't around much myself... I see you are on a run with new museum articles. Nice! As always, much appreciated. I hope all is well (and not too cold!) Renata (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request granted ;) Let me know if I can do anything else for you. Renata (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cure your cold? Sure thing! Drink hot tea with honey, intake massive dose of vitamin C, and sleep whole day in a warm bed. It's a bit tough with the weather... but I think I could afford a plane ticket to bring you away from that polar bear mass :) Anyhoo, I think you were on a great track with the signatory articles. Renata (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are still interested in stubs about Vilnius... I think this museum is very interesting. I can also dig up some free pics from Flickr. Renata (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look this into detail later on. Thank you! Regarding Flickr, see this page. You can take any pic from "Attribution License" and "Attribution-ShareAlike License" groups. I saw some museum pics in there before. If you go to any photo, on the right side at the bottom there will be something like this:
Additional Information
  Some rights reserved       --> if you click the link it will tell which license they are using
  Anyone can see this photo  --> this has no relevance to copyright status
P.S. re translations of party names -- I totally feel the pain. That's where I spend most of my time when writing articles. It's especially frustrating when you have some foreigner with lithuanized name (like Džordžas Bušas from Georg Bush)... try figure out his/her native name! Placenames is another headache... Renata (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which photo do you like best? Renata (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am at work right now :( so I will look at it when I get home. Renata (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gives info about the hills. According to this report, the area is 24.5 ha (recalculated in 2004). Some news from today regarding planned improvements. The Word document that you asked to open had the same info as this website. Renata (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, the elderate is the Old Town. Renata (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! What do you think the title should be? Now it is in Lithuanian, but all the other parks were translated into English. Kalnai Park after Vingis Park? Renata (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a DYK suggestion. Please fell to improve it as you see fit. Also, please monitor its status as I am likely to work, work, and work again the whole week :( Renata (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shale oil again

[edit]

It seems good and accurate. I propose also to nominate this article for the main page DYK. Any idea which fact could be used? Beagel (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this hook is good. Alternative could be information about the first patent.Beagel (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine for me.Beagel (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated.Beagel (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, doing mainly housekeeping things like minor cleanup, fixing references etc. Actually I don't like to edit hot topics, but as this article in my watchlist after major cleanup last year, of course I am following what's going on. I am still preparing some oil shale technology articles. After that I hope it would be possible to simplify little bit technology side of the Oil shale extraction and it would be ready for the FAC renomination. But after last failure I afraid this little bit. Beagel (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shale oil

[edit]
Updated DYK query On January 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shale oil, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Good work. Beagel (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

[edit]
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse breeds

[edit]

Hi. Would you like to help improve navigation among the many horse breed articles? See Template talk:Equine. --Una Smith (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kalnai Park

[edit]
Updated DYK query On February 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kalnai Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

[edit]

Hey, you are doing a great job on Mindaugas article. Keep it up! M.K. (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very nice :) Sorry I interrupted your edits. I hope I reinserted all of them. Let me know if you need any help. I have some time today. Renata (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Selonian-deed, I am not sure. Probably the reviewer is right and it cannot be claimed as PD-old. You should ask someone on Commons -- they are more familiar with the copyright stuff. But I am sure regarding this image. It cannot be used on Wikipedia. "Everyone can see this photo" has nothing to do with copyrights. You should care about a line above it that says "all rights reserved". That means it's copyrighted and not licensed under Creative Commons (CC). If a pic was under CC the text would say "some rights reserved" and would link to the description of particular CC license. So that image needs to be deleted. Is it ok if I do it? Renata (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mindaugas' names. I think I saw the whole long section about it in Lietuviu enciklopedija (the one published in Boston). But I don't have it at home. I would need to go to NY Public Library, but I am not in NY for the entire week. So if you can wait a week... :) Renata (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In case if needs a new photo of the treaty I could make a scan from Senosios Lietuvos istorija. Btw, perhaps new bridge to commemorate Mindaugas, should also be mentioned in article? M.K. (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the treaty photo at Commons; they confirmed that the photo date is an issue. So yes, if you could scan it, that would be better. About the bridge, I agree, but would like to work it into a longer paragraph, so if you have any ideas? It was dedicated in 2003, so maybe 2003 commemorations could be the theme? Novickas (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et, my scanner "having a holiday", so I would not be able to make a scan. Sorry, M.K. (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a PDF file waiting in your inbox ;) Renata (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is educational :) Let me know if you cannot untangle what's where. I don't have too much time these days, but I will try to help. Renata (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, Saturday school.. Oh, I already feel your pain :) I would not force my kids to go thru that. Regular school is torture enough. Yeah, sounds like a plan. I am not sure what you wanted to write about his name, so I'll leave it to you to write the initial draft. I can proofread it. Renata (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note, it's on my mind (along other mountains of garbage), but I could not find a spare moment to dwell on it. I think it would deserve to be something more sophisticated then a list of all the different names. I promise to get to it either today evening or Sat night. Renata (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I inserted the paragraph about the name. Will hunt now for the cite request. Feel free to modify or move the name as you like. Renata (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Galician-Livonian Chronicle

[edit]

I'd presume it was this (I don't have the texts here and would need to check). The author might be confusing it with the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia or the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle. IF you need an answer more quickly Renata actually might be better to ask. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link. It's not Livonian chronicle, it's Slavic (which is to say notoriously biased against Lithuania). Renata (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pac and szlachta

[edit]

Thanks for adding page number and url to Pac. You may be interested in my cleanup of List of szlachta - see talk; I hope I am not doing unjustice to the Lithuanian families. Btw, can you access page 464 of HD? I want to verify their information on Poniatowski family, but that page doesn't display for me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Szlachta are not one of my areas of interest. No, I cannot access that page either. It may contain an image, or have been randomly chosen as non-viewable per Gbook policies. (see [1]). Novickas (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balts in Pomerania

[edit]

Hey,

Every once and a while I encounter IPs (latest:[2]) at the Pomerania article and the History of Pomerania series introducing a Baltic period into the prehistory section. Unfortunately, these IPs have in common that never there is an account or a longstanding IP to talk with, and I have in the past reversed the IPs' unsourced entries.

However, the IPs' claims - though always unsourced and presented in an odd way - do not seem completely made-up, but seem to rely on "real" theories from the 1960s, at least there is a stub ("Pomeranian Balts") using such sources and linking a map showing a Baltic extension as far west as Lübeck and Berlin. Yet, those Balts are said in the article to have lived in Pomerania 1500 BC to 1 AD, a period in which all reliable sources I used for the History of Pomerania and especially Early History of Pomerania articles ascribe the Jastorf culture, Lusatian culture, Pomeranian culture and Oxhöft culture to Pomerania, all of which are well-established archeological cultures usually not associated with Balts. Also, the Balts article (which is in a bad shape regarding sources) states that the Balts emerged only after 1 AD, and "Pomeranian Balts" are only mentioned once, in a table with an unreferenced-tag.

For these reasons, the occasional "Balts" insertions by the IPs have a strong smell of trolls spreading fringe theories. But just because I never heard of it and regard it unlikely, it is of course not sure that Pomerania never was inhabited by some sort of proto-culture somehow associated with proto-Balts, or even that there is a substantiated and verifiable thesis put forward by reliable historians that there once was a Baltic population in (parts of) the area.

As an editor who knows everything about Baltic history :), do you know anything about this matter? Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I was just telling Renata about how I used to sleep in Saturday school. Anyway. If Marija Gimbutas has not been discredited in this regard, they had some presence in the area until the 11th- 12th centuries AD. I'm a little wary of this online reprint mentioning that - not sure if it's legit (didn't see say copyright M.G xxxx, reprinted with permission) [3] A more recent ref [4] (University of Pisa) refers to "the so-called Pomerania-Balts at the far west of the prehistorical Baltic area." Also, from Lituanus 1979, "In the central Pomerania arose the culture of Rzucewo and that of Narva-Nemunas, the latter embracing also the territory of the old Jatvingia, Lithuania, Latvia and part of Estonia." [5] (Nemunas culture is, I think, well-established). So the general concept doesn't seem completely fringe. A Google book search of "pomerania balts prehistoric" yields 79 results, but all just snippets. Some probably hinges on the definition of prehistoric. Hope this helps - sorry the articles are under-sourced, there's only so much time :( Regards, Novickas (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic names of water bodies don't extend too far west past the Vistula with regard to modern Pomerania straddling Germany and Poland, unfortunately I don't have any good sources for the maximum westward expansion of the Balts/Pomeranians. PetersV       TALK 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time investigating this. But it seems that past Vistula "Baltic character is doubtful" (mid-1st millennium BC). So it seems to be a theory but not yet widely accepted or rejected. Renata (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, I traced down the Balt theories to the Rzucewo culture (and the subsequent ones). It seems however that the "Baltic connection" of this culture is rather a former theory that is not dogmatically upheld.

I introduced the following sentence to Early history of Pomerania: "While most of Pomerania was part of or influenced by the Single Grave culture subgroup, eastern Pomerelia belonged to the Rzucewo (also Bay Coast or Haffküsten) culture subgroup stretching from Pomerelia to Lithuania,[22][23] formerly associated with early Balts.[24]" and stubbed Rzucewo culture.

I copied this thread to Talk:Early history of Pomerania.

Thank you all very much for your help, any additional comments/suggestions are welcome, probably better on the article's talk page. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re

[edit]

Thank you for appreciating my work, warm and encouraging words are very rare in this wiki :)

Concerning the Balts: The Kasperavicuite.2004.pdf paper gives the Vistula as the western border on the first page, and the Narva culture was even further east. But maybe I'm up to something, if Pamariai and Bay coast culture are the same, this probably explains some of the confusion, as Pomerania means the same (at the sea) and is something like Pamare (?) in Baltic languages. The Bay coast culture however centered on what used to be East Prussia (east of Pomerania). I have put my thoughts on Talk:Early history of Pomerania, maybe you can comment there?

And to make myself clear again, I am not ideologically opposed to a Baltic presence in Pomerania or parts thereof, not at all - if there is established work on such a presence, sure it needs to be included. I just don't want to have yet another nationalist propaganda or fringe theory chiming in, there are already IPs thriving to include "Magna Germania" and alike in the Pomerania articles, and there are others who claim Pomerania to be some sort of Polish heartland, and if there is an IP now claiming some sort of "Magna Baltica", it looks a little suspicious. But again, if you or another reasonable editor have material on Baltic presence, please make the article better. I do my best to elaborate on it myself, too, and what I found until now I have included already. All I know for sure is that in prehistory one has to be very careful to assign an ethnic character to a given archeological culture, and that in the past this care was missing especially in disputed areas, where wishful thinking and national pride made up for missing evidence sometimes. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mindaugas FA?

[edit]

My ewwwil intentions are not to let you on a wikibreak, so I am proposing to make Mindaugas a featured article to be on main page on July 6 -- the day Lithuania will celebrate 1000th aniversary of its name. Sounds good, no? Renata (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Yes, me is ewwwil. What do you think it is missing for FA? Renata (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article on how Poles viewed Mindaugas. Renata (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused. Listed where? Main page accepts only FA. The biggest issue with press ban is that I don't really have any good sources. But if you want to work on it, sure, I'll join you. Renata (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For that sidebar articles don't have to be FA, or GA, or even close. Just the event has to be prominent and preferably some sort of anniversary. I see you are sick and tird of Mindaugas. But I am just curious, what do you think is missing for a FA? Maybe a bit more in the legacy section, but in my book the article is complete. Renata (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note, if you missed it, there is certain comments regarding press ban. M.K. (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that - looks like pretty minor issues before it can be GA. Some more details would be good - more text eliminates the crowded images problem. Could probably dig those up soon... Best, Novickas (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush on this one. I have some reservations on removal certain images, but it is your call on them. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teisė

[edit]

Jūs gal raįote apie teisę? :-) Būtų įdomu plėsti apie LT. --Bot-iww (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butu idoma, taip. Gaila, rasydant teise, reikalinga greciau negu vidutinio LT kalbos lyga (: Sekmes, Novickas (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pagal Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice (use English): Writing about LT law would be interesting, but it would, unfortunately, require more than an intermediate grasp of the language. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Justice Foundation

[edit]

Proposed deletion of United States Justice Foundation

[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article United States Justice Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable fringe group

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing translation from Lithuanian Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi just to let you know there are some new stubs on painters that need translation from Lithuanian. Your help is needed! Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I feel the same its tied between wanting to get a huge amount of missing content on english wikipedia and wanting the quality of the initial stubs to be a little better, there needs to be a balance really, I won't create any more without at least a sentence or two in them, I've recently started a few Latvian articles and have started them with some content, I had hoped that the Lithuanian project may have expanded them. I'm sure they will be expanded eventually I can expand a few using google translate but I wanted fluent speakers to do it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

[edit]

I noticed your recent addition to Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Since your addition was Poland-related, I felt free to also introduce it here. If there is anything else in your sources that might improve Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II, you are welcome to add it. I have been working on that article, but of course it is not yet perfect. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S. Nah, just found it by surfing the general issue of WWII revenge. All very ugly. Just one thing, I seem to remember that Winston discussed population transfers and justified them in his WWII series (sorry no ref) - since he was a primary architect, I would think a quote or two would be good in the general article. Novickas (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Winston "Clean Sweep" Churchhill is already cited here. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have a books regarding German expulsions, so let me know if you both need any info from them. M.K. (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really me needing more information, though I am always curious, but rather the article (series). If you find something in your books not yet included, you are welcome to expand. But be aware that these articles are sometimes under heavy flak, the very topic repeatedly causes troubles in RL German-Polish relations (though it has relaxed somewhat since Kaczinski is out of office). It's a sensitive matter, nearly everbody lost, and basically the argument is about who lost more - "the Poles" during Nazi occupation, or "the Germans" thereafter, and who won more, "the Poles" who now got the former German property or "the Germans" who in part got away with their Nazi crimes. Now such dispute can only arise when nationalists are involved, and this sometimes seems to be the case in wiki, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will have in mind this. M.K. (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Novickas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a thank you note

[edit]

I just finished my evidence section (newbie warning - and yes, imperfection was deliberate) and came here to leave a thank you note. Not for you, of course, but for your cat :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(AAARGH! Pasting from my response to Shadowmorph) - I go downtown, find a library with LOC's volumes (the famous huge red tomes), make librarians go out of their way for A3 photocopies (strangely, only A4 is permitted), come back, scan the pages, log in and while pausing for a last googling, I see this: "On May 1st the id.loc.gov service was announced to the public. The service's first offering is the Library of Congress Subject Headings...". Copy to OO.org's Calc, save as html, paste the table, the end. Someone above is playing games with me :) - Hello, LOCMAC! SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welles

[edit]

Your input needed here. M.K. (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can poke around as long as you want. Btw, could you see ref as it not correspond with provided link and book tittle. M.K. (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to work on it, however I don't think that over expansion with the background is needed. M.K. (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several historical pictures, which would be very good to find and include to article. First one a picture of a million signatures collected by Lithuanians and delivered to US president Harding asking for the de jure recognition (1921 May 31), have it but cant make a scan now:(. And second one members from tarba Lietuvai gelbėti with F.D. Roosevelt (1940 10 15). If you will notice them give me a note. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I got one already. M.K. (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC),[reply]

I think I lost some edits of yours on Welles, could you review did I reintroduce all of them. M.K. (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done with a hook, however I am still don't like Welles issues with EOs, now there are quite "jumpy" time lime - from June to April etc. Any suggestions would be useful. M.K. (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Novickas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

new one

[edit]

Could you ce this? Thanks, M.K. (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the ce. Regarding that source, I am not sure that it meats WP:RS req. also I think that Facebook took info from WP itself. M.K. (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welles again

[edit]

I moved that part of EO on talk, as previous placement was rather complicated. Suggestions are welcome M.K. (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. M.K. (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! What exact Routledge's book do you have in mind? M.K. (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have The Baltic Question during the Cold War already ;) M.K. (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale extraction

[edit]

Hi, Novickas. I am planning to renominate the Oil shale extraction article for FAC. Of course, this article is not ready for renomination yet, but I am planning to concentrate on this in coming months. You have done an excellent work on improving oil-shale related articles and I hope you will have a time to assist also with this article. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Novickas. The article is almost there. It still needs some fresh views, reviewing and final copyediting, but otherwise it is probably ready for the FAC renomination. I also asked Moonriddengirl to check the copyright issues (the conversion is here). I think this is the stage where your assistance would be most valuable. Please share your views what you think about the current stage and perspectives of this article, and how to organize the further work with that. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your stellar efforts in locating problems in History of Jews in Poland and spearheading a thorough cleaning of that article. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the material has been adequately revised. It took many hours of careful review, and several contributors have assisted in revising material. I can't be sure, obviously, that we've gotten everything, but we've certainly gotten a lot. If you have any interest in how much of a pastiche this had become of copyrighted sources, you should check out archive #3. I appreciate your vigilance and your diligence. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[edit]

I was busy with school (final exams & CPA) and some family drama. I will be out for June (traveling), but then I should be back. I have this one free weekend (which I should really spend shopping for gifts), but it seems I will be editing... Renata (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Somehow category:Lithuanian women writers looked too empty... :) Renata (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

[edit]

Hi. User:Piotrus brought this up on my talk page (where you have an answer, btw) and asked me to take a look. I don't have time immediately—I've been longer on Wikipedia than I have time for already at the moment. But I wanted to ask you, if you think it rises to the level of copyvio, to blank & list it at CP. I know you have a good eye for these issues. You should consider joining us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. :) (Pardon the shameless plug. I'm constantly looking for people with an interest and an aptitude. Must run! I'm late!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should you happen to come back online with time to spare before I do, can you see if my rolling back the clock on this article has taken care of the issues? It's always possible that other contributors than the one I'm investigating added copyvio text to the article as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios OF Wikipedia

[edit]

I appreciate your work on copyvios, but please be careful to check whether the copyvio is not in fact OF Wikipedia - this is not the first time you have removed content that was plagiarised from Wikipedia, instead by it. Internet Archive is a good tool to use to check where the given text apperead first: on Wikipedia, or outside it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was the first time I'd removed material; in an earlier instance, I asked MRG to check, and she found that even tho it was published in an NYU professor's website, WP had written it first. :( Yes, assumed more good faith of the website in question at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth [6] than of WP. I will assume less good faith of scholars in the future. Novickas (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

[edit]

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

[edit]

Novickas, may I ask that if you do a copy edit on an article, like you did over at Jan Dzierzon, you take some care and thought in order to leave the article with less copy editing work needed then before? While some of the changes were meant to improve the article you left portions of it a mess. In particular, the second paragraph of your version [7] repeated things, bungled references and the rearranging was done without any attention paid to style and grammar. Basically, if you're going to "clean up", please also "clean up" after yourself after you've made your changes.radek (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to revert any of my edits that you see as unhelpful. We can then proceed to discussion. Novickas (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did. That's not the issue - I don't want to revert your edits, but neither do I want to have to go back and reconstruct the refs and text that got mixed up. I'm only asking that you be a little more careful when doing copy edits or rearrangements as a sloppy job just creates more work for others and in some cases is worse than no job at all. Same goes for copy vio removals that also delete a lot of legit text.radek (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dzierzon and 'reconciliation'

[edit]

I would like ask you, if you are Lithuanian, to do not make conclusion regarding Dzierzon and “reconciliation” between German and Poles. First above all the museum does not ask for “reconciliation”. They only say that “Dzierzons work belongs to achievements both culture”. There is nothing regarding multicultural identity, although Dzierzion’s work has international scientific value and is an international achievement. There is nothing to reconcile since Jan Dzierzon identified himself as Pole and disliked Germans. For understanding this you have understand the historical period and Poles situation there in Prussia and when Poland did not existed on the map. Beside you have to know literature and facts regarding Dzierzon himself in Polish biography. I do not think you know the bibliography. The fact that in English and other bibliography Dzierzon is named German is a result of historical reality. Dzierzon wrote his work for international public in German since Polish language was not popular. (Hi obviously wrote in Polish too - actually his first publication is in Polish). Secondly, and most important, he could not announce himself a Pole officially and internationally without consequences for his scientific opportunities. Prussian government would consider it as political provocation. Thus please do not attempt do interpretations which would not make Dzierzon happy. I believe you are not beekeeper also. Introduction of Italian bees was and still is consider important fact in history of beekeeping in Europe, America etc. It is possible that Dzierzon’s work influenced Mendel but it is not replacement for the sentence about Italian bees. At the end I ask you do not attempt mix into straggle between Poles and German. You can believe me you attempt will not be appreciated. German robbered us Poles from many think and invaded our land for centuries. The last World War was only the apogee of their barbarism. In such condition their revision of such facts as Dzierzon national identity is only next offence. I leave you the removing of you POV and attempts from the article. Best regards, Typvbnew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typvbnew (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better discussed at the article's talk page. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Request

[edit]

Sigh - wish I could tell myself from 2004 a few things :) I am not sure which sentences are copyvio, feel free to remove them and at some point I'll see if I have time to look at those articles. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply. I don't have time to fix everything myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you clearly list what is a copyvio, I'll see what I can do. Your recent links are not very helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, with that I can work more easily. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia article naming

[edit]

I noticed your comments earlier on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles. With regard to your endorsement of the main article naming, I wondered if you were aware of the requirement in WP:NPOV#Article naming that things should be termed by "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources"? "Republic of Macedonia" is neither the common English language name nor is it (by a very long way) the predominant term in reliable sources, the vast majority of which use simply "Macedonia" (per [8]). It would be helpful if you could consider this point, and if you continue to favour the option you supported, if you could explain why you believe NPOV should be set aside in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who signed Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles#Users_who_endorse_Proposal_B received one of these. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made an error in your diff about Britannica, you probably meant to use this diff [9] (query for "Macedonia" in Britannica). Shadowmorph ^"^ 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

[edit]

You may wish to know your name has been raised here with regards to the above. I am entirely uninvolved and wish to remain so, but I have raised the subject here should others wish to deal with the matter. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

[edit]

From the Dzierzon article you certainly mean User:Typvbnew, who is definitely another sockpuppet of User:Serafin and I'm sure that a CheckUser at the SPI board can tie them together. You should present some basis for the check. This should do:

The community-banned Serafin was very eager to portray Dzierzon as Polish, not German, that "Dzierzon's brain was Polish brain."[10] For example it was because of his wild revert warring to insert that Dzierzon was a "Polish apiarist" that his account de:User:Aserafin (created on the same day as Serafin in the English Wikipedia) was indefinitely blocked on de.wiki (which was followed up by new accounts, like de:User:Cserafin, to continue). This new account suspected of being Serafin, User:Typvbnew, has the same eagerness.[11] They also both remove "vandalizm" ([12] [13], [14]), give you his best regards ([15] [16]), want to insert an ungrammatical comma after the word "Polish" ([17], [18]) and many of Serafin's old 131.104 IP's are still haunting the article.([19] [20]). Sciurinæ (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting from Witold J. Ławrynowicz

[edit]

Witold J. Ławrynowicz June 26, 2009



To Whom It May Concern:


I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.

The accusation of plagiarism from the Electronic Museum page is not only a very serious attack on my reputation as a writer and historian, it is also completely false and unfounded. What your investigators, namely “Yellow Monkey,” found was the person who plagiarized my original work. I can easily prove to be the author of the article entitled “Battle of Warsaw 1920,” originally published as “W siedemdziesiątą rocznicę bitwy warszawskiej 1920” in Polish on August 9, 1990 and August 16, 1990 (in two parts), in “Głos Polski/Gazeta Polska” in Toronto, Canada. I am in possession of original newspaper copies of this article from 1990.

The piece was later translated into English, by myself personally, and subsequently published in “Hetman: Biuletyn Koła Miłośników Militariów Polskich im. Andrzeja Zaremby” (Hetman: the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication), in 1996. I am also in possession of this copy of “Hetman.” Later in 1996, it was published on the Hetman website at www.hetman.org, which no longer exists, and is now found at www.hetmanusa.org. I can produce a witness to all of the above facts, as well as photos of the original publications.

Bożenna Kirckpatrick, whom I have never met, placed a shorter version of my work on http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish_War/spw_3.html. Kirckpatrick rewrote and posted my work as her own before the www.hetman.org website was closed. This is the reason for which it seems that my work followed hers.

To put it quite bluntly, your investigators did not do their research, and my name and reputation have suffered the consequences. The accusations made against me by “Yellow Monkey,” on behalf of Wikipedia, are borderline slanderous. Before waging such an attack against a writer, Wikipedia employees and/or agents should have fully investigated the background of the article. Their failure to do their duty demonstrates a serious lack of due diligence.

At the very least, I expect Wikipedia to withdraw the accusations made against me on the Battle of Warsaw (1920) page and issue a proper apology. I will be monitoring this issue closely.


Unfortunately, there are several other issues on this webpage that I am also forced to address.

Quote 1: “As for Witold Lawrynowicz - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [13]. Google Scholar - [14] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or, for W. Lawrynowicz[15] - no history-related articles.”

“Novickas” is simply unable or unwilling to find my numerous historical works published in the USA, Canada, Poland, Sweden and Great Britain. There is a grand total of 173 articles, four books, and several Internet publications on historical topics under my name. I have been publishing in the history field since 1973. It seems that “Novickas” is attacking me as if I was his personal enemy, yet I cannot recall anyone with such a pseudonim.

Quote 2: “Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by Witold Lawrynowicz. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.” I do not see any justification to the statement that hetmanusa.org is not an FA-quality source. The opinion of “Novickas” has no factual foundation. I suppose “Novickas” never encountered this organization, and for this reason regards it as untrustworthy; this alone is not a reason to state that it is not an FA-quality source. I doubt that “Novickas” has ever ready any of the publications produced by Polish Militaria Collectors Association. Quote 3: “If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to Lawrynowicz's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to Lawrynowicz, says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)” “Novickas” may not realize it, but the bibliography for “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” is simply too large to provide a comprehensive study for such a short article. Furthermore, Richard Pipes’ opinion is not supported by numerous other researchers, such as Norman Davies in “White Eagle, Red Star,” Orbis Books, London, 1983, page 210. The destruction of the Russian radiostation was a direct result of action by the Polish 203rd Uhlan Regiment, which I myself described in detail in „Zdobycz ciechanowska”, Przegląd Polski, Nowy Dziennik, 08.17.2007, New York, USA. It also was described in Zbigniew Wieteska’s “27 Pułk Ułanów im. Króla Stefana Batorego,” Warszawa 1992, page 8, B. Skaradziński’s “Polskie lata 1919-1920,” Volumen, Warszawa 1993, page 241 and T. Machalski „Zagon na Ciechanów” in „Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej”, London 1962, Nr. 28. pages 12 – 15. Writing or commenting on the history of Poland requires knowledge of the Polish language and study of Polish language sources. By his own admission, “Novickas” is not an expert on the topic, but I will refrain from attacking his ignorance personally. Most disturbing, however, is the following statement:

Quote 4: “I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)”

Publications in Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej, MARS, Wojskowy Przegląd Historyczny, Armoured Fighting Vehicles News, Hetman, AJ-Press, and others, as well as lectures for the Polish-American Historical Association and the Piłsudski Institute in New York prove “Novickas” wrong. I could defend myself further, but I think that my published pieces speak for themselves. I would encourage you to research my work further and convince yourselves of this fact.

I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.


Sincerely,

Witold J. Ławrynowicz witekjl@aol.com (66.67.97.10 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have posted a question regarding this issue at [21]. That is a noticeboard meant to draw attention from Wikipedia:Administrators. It has not received any responses as of this writing, and has since been archived without response. If you perceive actionable slander, I suggest you write to the Wikimedia Foundation (secure-info@wikimedia.org) or to one of the members of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee [22]. You could also ask another WP editor at a talk page for assistance - for instance, User:Piotrus, at whose talk page you posted earlier. Apparently, my entry at the FA review did not make it clear that WP editors had plagiarized your material - rather than that you had plagiarized from Ms. Kirkpatrick or WP. Piotrus, an administrator and experienced Wikipedia editor, would be in a good position to launch an independent review of the statements I made at the FA review of Battle of Warsaw. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:hollyhocks

[edit]
Enlargment will reveal the rust

Because I am a sorcerer took the pictures of the few parts not that rusty. My black ones have no leaves left at all in the lower third, the red won't grow high this year, only the and rose are doing pretty well...

DENUNCIATOR

[edit]

You are vindictive and deceitful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Serafin) such character is very unpleasant and dangerous for owner. I always liked Lithuanians and valued as brothers and allies with struggle against Russian and German domination. Now I see the talks about some NAZI servants and black adders like you are true. For you interpretation of museum interpretation you have no support and you did not attempt to argue or investigate issue. Your answer is DENUNCIATION. Be ashame. 131.104.139.211 (talk)Typvbnew —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Constitution

[edit]

I have no idea where people are discussing the wanting of one, but I have been working on one here in the hopes that it can serve as a starting point. → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored

[edit]

I hope you don't mind: [23]. Also, you may want to comment here and here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcea

[edit]

Hello there :) Summer season is slow and I spend most of my time enjoying the nice weather - me and my fish scales.

Regarding Alcea, the verb "αλκέω" (al-KE-oh) means to help/support/oust/repulse, depending on the context. The root "αρ" (ar), "αρκ" (ark) or "αλκ" (alk) is found in many words. "Αλέξω" (a-LE-xoh) must remind you of something: Αλέξω+ανήρ (man, genitive: ανδρός - andros) -> Αλέξανδρος (Alexander). Healing is all about supporting the defence of an organism, keeping away what is harmful.

So, although I'm not a plant expert, there is an obvious connection. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-copyvio template

[edit]

Hi,

I see you employed a template at tariff-rate quota which I wasn't aware existed. Now I'm embarrassed about this, because I've created ~ 700 articles using this public-domain source and I plan to create ~500 more, and in each instance I copy-pasted the language that you saw under "references", which is quite inferior to the template you used.

I'm wondering if a Bot can be created which would replace all uses of

*Adapted from [http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf CRS Report for Congress: Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition - Order Code 97-905], a document in the public domain.

with

{{CRS|article = Report for Congress: Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition|url = http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf|author= Jasper Womach}}

Agradman talk/contribs 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm fascinated with CRS reports in general, and I co-created a template, {{refideas}}, largely for the purpose of attaching CRS Reports to articles; its effectiveness arises from the Category Category:Articles_which_could_have_free_content_incorporated_from_elsewhere representing all talk pages containing the template.

The template was not perfectly written, but I do generally like the idea of having a Category that shows all the wikipedia articles that could have public domain encyclopedic content incorporated into them.

Agradman talk/contribs 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I said "the template was not perfectly written," I wasn't referring to {{CRS}} -- which, at the time, i didn't realize was a recent creation! I was referring to {{refideas}}.
  • Here, let me clarify --

barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
for creating {{CRS}}, a template that couldn't have been more timely or more suited to my work. I plan to make use of it frequently in my editing, and encourage its widespread use. Thanks!!! Agradman talk/contribs 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

... re audit committee. It's not a big deal at all. Speaking about articles though... would you fancy to work on the Soviet ultimatum? Double thanks in advance ;) Renata (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also feel thoroughly unproductive... so I understand your feelings :) I have been kicking myself for not working on some top-priority articles since 2005. Talk about lazy! BTW, if you do kick yourself to doing something wiki-useful this weekend, the article would benefit from stronger "evaluations" section. I know you have a knack for finding some amazing research papers. Renata (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re book citation: see, I use mainly paper books not Google books. So for me digging out the url is just more work and I am lazy ;) I know urls are very useful, so please use as many as desired. Renata (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet reviewed in detail (hope to do it tonight), but it sure looks better :) Thank you very much! BTW, grammar question, when do you use "the" with people's titles? E.g. Merkys continued to act as [the] Prime Minister? Merkys was appointed as [the] Prime Minister. Merkys, [the] Prime Minister, was arrested. Any rules there? Renata (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geesh, you just read my mind :) I came here specifically to nominate it for GA, and here I find the orange bar with you telling me not to. Kinda creepy :) But I think I will submit the nomination regardless as it usually takes a good while for reviewers to look at it. And they usually don't nitpick on each sentence. Anyway, have a great vacation. Where are you going? Don't forget to take photos and upload to Commons, lol :) Renata (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I see what you mean. [Slaps myself with a trout]. Enjoy the break (if you have one) or the storms (if you catch some). Renata (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Site

[edit]

Nice article, but I suggest you move the article to the official name of the site, Mammoth Site of Hot Springs (without the "The"). This is probably how people will search for the article. Jllm06 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the museum to Dinosaur museums because it deals with fossils. Technically there are no dinosaurs, but the category also includes museums with extensive displays of fossils and petrified wood. Jllm06 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, interesting ... (RE {{CRS}})

[edit]

hi,

Thanks again for creating {{CRS}}. I'm wondering if it could be adjusted so that it somehow-or-other contains a wikilink to CRS Report (i.e. describing the document, rather than the agency)? It's very important that Wikipedians become familiar with this document form, since there are more than 4,000 of them out there, and they have the potential to help wikipedia grow very quickly and in a very scholarly direction.

thanks Agradman talk/contribs 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Hey, just tell me which category to delete and I will do it. I personally think "Lithuanian knyg." is redundant. Also, I don't particularly like "knyg." -- maybe change to English translation "book-smugglers" or some such? Let me know what you think. Renata (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry to hear that... I am sure you will make it up. Re category: my thoughts are above, but I do not particularly care. tell me what to do and I will do it :) Renata (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In deleted both old categories. Please repopulate the new one. My current internet is moving so-o-o-o slo-o-ow that I won't be able to help you with re-categorization (until I get home tonight) :( Renata (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mammoth Site of Hot Springs

[edit]
Updated DYK query On August 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of United States Justice Foundation

[edit]

I have nominated United States Justice Foundation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Justice Foundation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron

[edit]

I noticed your fine work on United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations I was wondering if you may be interested in join our group. We attempt to save articles which are notable, but lack sources, similar to what you did in this article.

Hello, Novickas. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the message, maybe in the future, best wishes. Ikip (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Gediminas calendar.jpg

[edit]

File:Gediminas calendar.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gediminas calendar.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Gediminas calendar.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Glad you decided to finally join! looking forward to seeing you soon!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Novickas, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welles Declaration

[edit]

I will take a look at it, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long - I just realized that I essentially did a GA review - would you like me to convert my comments over to one? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City websites

[edit]

As far as I saw they are official. I think I remember one or two for small towns that were not official and run by local communities, but those are rare and usually have something else in their url. The particular one about Garliava seems like an official website of Garliava eldership. Renata (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LITH/CLEAN. The bot updates the entire list and the percentages, but infrequently. It depends when next database dump will be available. I think it is supposed to happen every 1-2 months, but there can be significant gaps in between. Renata (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: mokslai.lt: totally not reliable. It's a place where students exchange their school/university work. Renata (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Thanks

[edit]

No problem, just doing all I can to help. It's good to see you again on here! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  07:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like t add something about the statue debate in the article, but I myself have not been really informed about the issue. I have only heard about the issue when a friend invited me to a FaceBook cause about building a Payton statue. Its definitely worth adding if we can add more info. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hate to bother you with this, but can you find time to help solve a dilemma that I keep encountering? It seems that a small group of editors on the project finds some weird and relentless need to place Polish geographical toponyms in anything concerning the geography of Lithuania in the leads of such articles. This seems to be predicated primarily on a guideline concocted by one of the group. The guideline is something of questionable merit but rather than waste a lot of time arguing about it at the moment, I would like to ask you to create "other name sections" as in the Warsaw article in a few places. I ask because I noticed that you have experience in having done so in the past, where as I find it cumbersome and time consuming. Happily my computer skills are improving and I'll soon try get this down pat and won't have to bother you in the future. Please take a peak at Samogitia and Kalvarija to begin with. There are a few others that you might take a look at yourself. If you are too busy or prefer not too, I would understand. On the other hand this would be a simple solution to a recurring cause of contention. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Vilnius Castle Complex

[edit]

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) 22:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Novickas thanks for helping on this! M.K. (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, but still good :)

[edit]
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your consistent attention to copyright concerns and exemplary efforts to address them. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this one is better than what we had. Score for Wikipedia! Thanks so much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Happy holidays

[edit]

Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų bei šlyžykų saldžių; jums taip pat ;) M.K. (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry & fat Xmas to you! :) Best wishes for you and your family. Renata (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas! Beagel (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, without your help, Welles would have no possibility for getting on GA statues. Tanks for your help, M.K. (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Petras Cvirka

[edit]
Updated DYK query On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petras Cvirka, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital

[edit]

Dont introduce inaccurate references. In your ref from Davies Europe - historian writes: Grand Duchy of Lithuania... Its capital city -Wilno ... was a true cultural crossroad. p. 660. [24] Mathiasrex (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref would be accurate in infobox about GDL but in art about Commonwealth only capital of this federation was Warsaw. Mathiasrex (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shale oil extraction FAC

[edit]

Hi, Novickas. I would like to ask your opinion if the Shale oil extraction article is ready for the FAC nomination or is there anything more what should be done? I also wonder if you would be around to assist during the FAC process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I think the lead is a little under-representative - needs a couple of sentences about O.S. economics, EROI, competition with crude, and something on national energy security policies. The technical terms in the article might need a little more glossing, but the FA reviewers would mention that. Also I still really wish it had a diagram of a 19th-century retort, since these were simpler and would IMO help the reader as they move on to more complex systems. You posted a link somewhere to a website that included such a diagram, but I seem to remember its Figure caption said "reproduced courtesy of..." so didn't know where to go from there. But that might not really be so important. I'll give it another read today.
It's definitely a Very Good Article. I'd be willing to contribute at the FA process and don't see any scheduling conflicts in the near future. Novickas (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment. Will try to find any free diagram of the retort, but can't guarantee any success. As of expanding the lead, please feel free to go forward with this. I would like also to ask your help with the descriptions on the 'alt' parameter of images. This is something I am not feeling very familiar with. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is no free diagram available in the web. I found only this page with photos of retorts from the beginning of the last century. By my understanding, the photos by the U.S. Geological Survey are free for use. What you think? Beagel (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're certainly free...am not crazy about the pics tho. But we should probably be talking at the article page. Later, Novickas (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

[edit]
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Response

[edit]

Hi Novickas,

Thanks for the news about food power -- that's really inspiring!

Also, yes, I am indeed an advocate of indicating the histories of policy pages on the pages themselves. I made a proposal along those lines a long time ago, and I'd have to dig around a bit to remember the arguments. What makes you ask?

Thanks for dropping by,

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

[edit]

Thanks for working on them! Much appreciated.

Supposedly you could self-generate the report using Wikipedia:CatScan (using category:Lithuania articles by importance and template:BLP sources and/or template:BLP unsourced), but I cannot make it work. I am not aware of any other places where such report could be generated (other than manual labor). For now I think clean up listing is sufficient (even if tad outdated).

FYI, as tax season is looming I will be gone until probably May. So I leave these & other pressing matters in your trusted hands ;)

Renata (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think our little project is doing ok. As far as I can tell all remaining unreferenced BLPs are from 2009 (I just finished one from 2008). We had one casualty (Justinas Burba) but I am not sure he was notable in any case. Renata (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Rolandas Paksas needs addt'l refs since 2006. And his bio is negative (not that he did not deserve that). Could you be an angel and take a look at it? There should be plenty of English refs about him. Thanks a ton! Renata (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paksas looks much better. Thank you!

Here is the manually generated list of unreferenced BLPs tagged with LITH project banner:

Renata (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (note: deleted list after copying it to LT Wikiproject) Novickas (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novickas/Archive_2&oldid=1146693142"