Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania

New topic - new section please. It would be much easier to communicate and not mix things.

Lithuania-myth-stub

IMO it is needed, because there are about 50-60 stubs, that in my opiniuon are deadends, and now they clog up Lithuania-stub place, and are only relatively related to it.--Lokyz 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one thing... I really believe all those stubs should be merged into one article/list because 95% of them are destined to be stubs forever (just there is no info about those reconstructed deities) and all of them have dubious claims. It would be much easier to find out any wrong statements in one big list than in 60 sub-stubs.

If merged, mythology stub is not needed. Renata 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

is it needed, will someone participate?--Lokyz 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a bit too early for that. First, let's get the whole project up and going. It's a good idea, but now right now and right here. Let's better think what is needed for the project to become alive? Here are some thoughts:

1. Category tree to explain/plan future categories
2. Article index - list of all existing articles about Lithuania and what needs to be done to them; at the same time articles could be assessed (stub-ok-featured; not important-very important). I might attempt to compile the list of articles (more or less from my watchlist)
3. Article talk template - "this article is part of WikiProject Lithuania" (btw, P in wikiproject is capitalized)
4. Compilation of missing articles
5. Comprehensive resource page

That's just some basic ideas. Renata 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

also adding on going votes related with LT M.K.

So this is next step:) Anyone should free to edit/make this page structure better. For now it is as programmer call it - in early alpha. Altoug, I do have feeling it could become tool.

sorry I still not see vote issue, could you please point me directly; I do not find it :)M.K.

Discussions ... - if you need a separate section for vote add it, altough, IMO it would seem as a conspiracy untill this page is not official. We could mark this feature as a will be enabled out of beta. Would this satisfy you? because i'm not so eager to vote, I've stated it before.--Lokyz 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

eee... I mean to notify editors which article related with LT is going a vote procedures like Jogaila was and etc. i'm not so eager to vote, I've stated it before. -sorry but I did not recall this your statement, maybe I missed some issues...M.K. 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Category

Should we add [[Category:Lithuania]] (or any othe category) to this, to be accessible by more editors or should we wait?--Lokyz 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many other things to do first. Renata 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tasks for the weekend

So, let's decide what we are going to do over the weekend.

First, I think, we need to decide if we want to do article assesment on quality (see, for example, {{Grading scheme}}) and/or importance. See for example existing template on Talk:Audrys Cardinal Bačkis. Should we have one like that? If so, start developing rating standards, rating template, categories, etc.

Second, start compiling a list of missing articles. Start with really important ones.

Third, since Lokyz seems to be the most involved with categories, you could make some sort of category tree to show existing categories and categories that might be needed. (btw, to link a category, you should put : in front of the word category. example: category:Lithuania) Renata 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment is good thing, just IMO it's a bit early to think about it. Importance - yes, it would be really helpful to make important articles better, also template indicating that this article belongs to WP:LIT is good thing (or should we wait until this WP will get official status?).

I just dunno how much time I'll have on weekend, so can't promise a lot, but I hope I'll participate.

Should we create a subpage for requested articles and/or turorial and/or references?----Lokyz 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Persondata

Should we use this Wikipedia:Persondata ? It is stated it's for automated collection of data for Wikipedia.--Lokyz 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Maybe we should build some sort of Lithuania related image data base? M.K. 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great. Added image request section.--Lokyz 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, simpliest way would to properly inventorize/categorize whatever images are on commons, here and on lt wiki. Easiest way - transfer all free images on commons. Renata 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what M.K was talking about - not create separate, just to collect into commons a propper amount of pitures to use both in Lithuanian and English version of Wikipedia.--Lokyz 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

btw what is procedure to upload alredy existing in EN or LT etc. wiks. pictures in comm.? Does another editor could do it (not 1 editor, who uploaded these images)?

maybe we need and some sort Articles needing copy/edit also? it would be very handy at least to mine articales for sure :P M.K. 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

one more note, near article which, is in the Requests for article part, to avoid collision when two editors work on same articles, we should sign near the article who will take to write about it e.g. in the list- is request for Kolduneliai - I have appropriate info etc. so I will take it and near the name Kolduneliai I sing to inform others that I will work on this issue. M.K. 21:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: images. I created category Category:Images of Lithuania so please "dump" all images there. When uploading an image from EN or LT to commons you need to give as much info as possible on the original uploader. See for example this image uploaded by Knutux to commons from Lithuanian WP where it was uploaded by Algirdas. Renata 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

so what we should do with remaining old images when they are placed in comm. tag with speed del. or just leave in one peace?

Restructure

I did some work. IMO it looks much better now (what do you think?), but I am not quite done with resources part. So hold on, I just run out of time. Renata 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So I moved it myself... We are official now :) And of course, help make Lithuania beter so it can pass GA nomination. Renata 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GA issue should be the 'top importance matter now to us! M.K. 09:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AK

M.K added suggestion to look for references to Armia Krajowa article, but it is rather political, and calm head recommended. No need to start another one WW on this issue. At this state article is rather acceptable and allmost balanced thanks to Piotrus. No need to spoil this balance. So evaluate sources very carefully.--Lokyz 10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WPBS

Please join WikiProject:Baltic States by going to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

We need a userbox. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add we need Template.--Lokyz 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am against a userbox. Talk page template is the first thing on my to-do this weekend. Renata 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make one, I guess. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox is redundant. No need for it, unless someone just can't live without toys.--Lokyz 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's me. :P íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok: So create at least 5 decent Lithuania related stubs, and then we'll discuss this issue(later)--Lokyz 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it tommorrow when I have time. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's one. I'll do the rest later. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you still going to do the userbox? If not, I wouldn't mind giving it a shot... Andrius 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have created one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Userbox:

This user is a member of Lithuania WikiProject

Renata 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

BTW, we need to modify {{welcome}} to Lithuanian users, to invite them to the project, etc. Renata 11:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

featured picture

Maybe we should add featured picture related with Lithuania?? M.K. 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal Lithuania might be OK, but there are not enough of pictures. So everyone march to the store and buy yourself a fotocamera:)--Lokyz 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro memoria

Some people just go, therefore IMO it would be great to remember them and to say at least a few words by creating at least some stub. I happened once to be a pupil of Gintaras Beresnevičius and I think He deserves to be mentioned in this great enciclopedia.Lokyz 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lithuania Music stub ?

Who created this witout a request {{Lithuania-music-stub}}? For stub categories there are strict rules, and they should be requested, not created at will.--Lokyz 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, that was me. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

no need to be angry to Hurricane, he/she just wanted to help! M.K. 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don`t leave this project, do you? M.K.

I'm not gonna leave. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Ok, guys, we have some serious work to do. I have just finished creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Assessment. What you need to do is to take {{WikiProject Lithuania}} and paste it on talk pages of Lithuania-related articles. Add quality and importance ratings as per assesment guidelines. Short version is presented bellow. Please leave comments on what should be improved to reach better quality rating. Also, if the article is 1-3 sentences in length add substub=yes. Pretty simple really. See Talk:Dubingiai Castle for example. Questions? :)

(Stolen from Mathematics Wikiproject)

FA	Featured article
A	Article is well written, reasonably complete and referenced; possible featured article candidate.
GA	This is a good article
B	We have a decent article, but it needs further editing
Start	Significant cleanup or expansion needed.
Stub	Article is miserable or a stub.

(Stolen from India WikiProject)

Need: A measure of an subject's importance, regardless of its quality

Top {{top-importance}}	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
High {{high-importance}}	Subject is exceptionally important.
Mid {{mid-importance}}	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge.
Low {{low-importance}}	Subject fills in important details.

Renata 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't GA supposed to be #ccffcc? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, not really important. Changed to {{GA-Class}}. Renata 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So, say for example right now I'm filling all the red links in List of cities in Lithuania, should I put the template in the new articles? And what importance would those stubs be? Andrius 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The template goes on the talk page. Importance does not depend on quality. For cities, I would use population/political status as indication of importance. Say, 10 county capitals are top importance, other 50 municipality capitals are high importance, other cities are mid importance and cities with population with less than 2000 is low importance. That's rough guide, feel free to disagree. Renata 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Have question. Do you personally should add and rate this on your own written articles or you should wait for other person to do so as third side? M.K. 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

i see nothing too wrong about rating yourown articles. Renata 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If article is FA this means you have to rank it as FA also? M.K. 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. GA too. Those are deternimed by the community. (Well, some GA could be A-class) Renata 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles that need attention

Somehow I think this section Articles that need attention should be placed several positions on top, if not the main one. M.K.

Top Priority

Since Lithuania is now a GA, what's gonna be the top priority? Andrius 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just finish filling up list of cities?--Lokyz 06:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon for footieclub stub

Shouldn't we do something outstanding and for Lithuanian football club stub use a bit different icon than in eurofootie stub? Any proposals are welcome.--Lokyz 06:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Navigation box

do we nedd something like this Template:Ukrainian_topics?

I don't like it. Not needed clutter. Renata 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cities are done!

Bravo! All the city articles have been created! The two people we really have to thank is Lokyz and Andrius. Way to go guys! Now let's un-stub them!:) Renata 23:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Lithuania

This article is miserable... and we should clean it up. First we need to break it down to smaller periods. I porpose something like this:

1. History of Lithuania (before 1218)
2. History of Lithuania (1218-1377) → not 1385 because the whole of Jogaila belongs to Kreva
3. History of Lithuania (1377-1569)
4. History of Lithuania (1569-1795)
5. History of Lithuania (1795-1918)
6. History of Lithuania (1918-1945)
7. History of Lithuania (1945-1989)
8. History of Lithuania (since 1989)

Objections? Renata 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nope, just all the articles would be very small... Probably we should work on categories as well, split it into smaller parts.--Lokyz 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? (the first part). Categories can wait. Renata 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest to add section History of Lithuania (1939-1945)--Lokyz 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See my first half of #2 at user:Renata3/1219-1377. Comments welcome! Renata 16:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one idea - prehistoric Lithuania-1009, then mythical Lithuania 1009-1218 --Lokyz 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Such subarticles worked very well for the History of Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Minister Cabinet of Lithuania

I'd suggest that we create one article (probably two (three) - interwar period, and again independent Lithuania (by third i mean Lithuanian SSR also deserves mentioning as being specific form of government)). And if a need emerges, split it into more specific articles (be it the 1st or the 11th). not sure whether separate articles for ministers are needed. (Maybe joint- minister/ministerium would be useful). Or at least list for a start - every list encourages anyone who visits it to fill red links:) Another one suggestion - reserve Minister Cabinet of Lithuania for current cabinet,and use navigation box to access former cabinets. (A little evaluation of cabinet's deeds would be useful, don't you think?) Also list of ministeries would help. --Lokyz 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for your wikiproject!

First, let me congratulate you all on this splending WikiProject, something which I will want to emulate with the creation of Polish WikiProject and would greatly appreciate any advice or help here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And now for a much thornier issue

Second, I would like to address a much thornier issue, that of a conflict between some Lithuanian and Polish editors, a conflict that has started few months ago and seems no sign of dissipaiting. I believe that it will not dissipate unless we sit down together and discuss it; and unlike some I believe that public discussions are much better then some secret private emails (which take forever and achieve little, IMHO). In other words, I'd would suggest the creation of a local equivalent of round table negotiations. And going further, I would like from suggestion to the actuall talk, right now, right here.

The issue, as I see it (and I am certainly not unbiased), is that for the period of past few months (so it is a relativly new phenomena), two things have happend; one good and one bad. The good one is that we (finally) got a significant influx of active contributors from Lithuania, something that I, Halibutt, Renata, and certainly many other users where waiting for (incidentally it seems there are more active users from Lithuania then from Poland, at least to me). The bad one (and this, again, is my own interpetation, which you are welcome to disagree with and contest) is that those new users seem to forget how Wikipedia works: especially about Wikipedia:Consensus (Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (First: a Lithuanian POV is no better or worse then Polish POV, and second: everybody has a POV, so each article needs to be negotiated upon to eliminate both the Lithuanian and Polish POVs), Wikipedia:Assume good faith (to my knowledge, there is nobody involved with Polish noticeboard who displays any kind of anti-Lithuanian behaviour, there are however some editors who think that not having a Lithuanian POV equals to that) as well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks (some users persist with accusation that others are 'anti-Lithuanian', their edits have some underlying bad faith motive, or are just generaly impolite (violation of WP:CIV)).

That said, there is much truth in the proverb: it takes two to tango. I am sure some Polish editors have on occasion behaved uncivil or otherwise broke some wiki regulations, and a few weeks ago one was banned for (in part) such behaviour (I am all sure we know who it was, and let me use the opportunity here to wave a stick and remind some that it should serve as a warning).

Now, I would go back to the root of our problem. Most of it seems (again, in my opinion) revolve around several people: User:Halibutt (22793 edits, joined 2003/11/27, the 222-most active editor, a person who wrote a good part of several Featured Articles) on one side, usually supported by me (28220 edits, joined on 2004/04/10, the 150-most active editor), and User:M.K (1696 edits, 2006/04/18), User:Lokyz (3738 edits, 2005/07/06), User:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude (934 edits, 2006/02/24), User:Juraune (737 edits, 2006/05/04) on the other side (feel free to add anybody I forgot, I honestly have no idea which side if any User:Dr. Dan supports, but I am sure he will say something about this). Now, I am not saying that quantity is always quality, and I am not saying one group is completly at fault and the other is blameless, but I want to point out that both me and Halibutt have more experience with this project then his (our?) critics, so please, please assume good faith, and that I am trying to help us all here.

Halibutt contribution to Wikipedia in the terms of content creation are undisputable much greater then any of his critics, and many of his contributions are relevant to Lithuania; if not for him the entire Lithuanian section of English Wikipedia would be much poorer. He (nor I) may not use Lithuanian spelling, and obviously we write from Polish POV and not Lithuanian, but one can hardly require that one does so. We respect Lithuanian POV, but we expect that Lithuanian editors will show the same respect for our views and that we meet in the middle. We are not Lithuanian, so we simply cannot understand some things that are obvious to you, and by no fault of our own we may occasionally say something or write something that offends you. Yet because of that some people are assuming bad faith, and by repeating this again and again, and offending Halibutt (and me and some other Polish editors to the lesser extent). Further I am seeing that such an ongoing avalanche of accusations may slowly be turning into reality (per WP:CABAL, especially There is only a cabal if you want there to be one part). After several months of hearing how 'anti-Lithuanian' one is, I see Halibutt starting to loose patience and becoming less civil (although not as uncivil as some of the people who are constantly provoking him). Please realize that everybody has their own POV, and pro-Lithuanian is just as visible and 'bad' as pro-Polish; we always must strive for consensus and a middle ground. When one of us errs and sais something that irks the other side, please assume good faith, and point out to him (perhaps on talk?) that he has erred or hurt your feelings, instead of assuming one is a rampant anti-something. And especially when you are dealing with an editor who has done much more to this project then you, and has been here much longer, seen many more conflicts (and helped resolve them), please, please, be a little less self-righteous and consider that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle, and (gasp) that perhaps the more experienced editor may actually be more experienced with things like what is NPOV and what is not.

Last but not least, let me apologize here for having written anything that you may find offensive. I want to say here that I respect Lithuania, respect Lithuanian people, respect millenium-old history of Lithuania, and I hope that we can work together, in the spirit of our common ancestors, to build something together and teach the world about our respective history, instead of repeating the mistakes of the past.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing. Discussion is posible only when one of the sides, does not treat other side as some sort of village idiots who can not differentiate between seeking of true compromise and POV pushing masked as a discussion (examples can be provided on request, but I hope that will not be necessary). However well derogative attitude will be masked, I can assure you, that it will not go unnoticed. And PLEASE don't be just writers, be the readers too. AND don't take it so personal Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly both sides have to assume good faith for the discussion. I hope we are doing this, so I will simply nod in agreement with you and add something to my previous post (which I had to actually cut short due to RL issues). I have no time and will to dig through history and see what started this, and who is more at fault. Pointing fingers is rarely a good strategy, and I think it's rather irrelevant if it was Halibutt who snapped at somebody first or one of his opponents that jumped the gun, misinterpreted his edit and accused him of bad faith, or both in some combination. What done is done, and we can either continue the vicious circle or break it. For breaking it, I have the following recommendation. The accusations that Halibutt (and me, and some others) are anti-Lithuanian must stop. All parties involved (I named some users above, feel free to add them) should 'reach out' and apologize, as I did, to sooth the feeling and so we mid midway and on the same ground, dividing the blame. Then, with the past behind us, I would like to suggest we run a joint project on some topic related to Poland and Lithuania so we can learn to work together. From my personal experience I find out that nothing help to bring the editors together like a common, good faithed effort to improve an article (long story short, in my early days I was involved in a conflict over an article, but through collaborative effort not only did I an my erstwhile opponent ended up improving that article to FA status, but we bacame good wikifriends and I got nominated for an admin for my behaviour (the other user was an admin already)). Therefore I suggest that after the round of apologizes and burying the hatchet (a WP:TEA is a good place for that) we chose an article and collaborativly, as a joint venture of WikiProject Lithuania and WikiProject Poland (to be formalized), raise an article to FA status. Nomination for which article we should work on are welcomed, but for a start I would recommend something that is uncontroversial and that both of our nations can take an undisputed pride in. Warsaw Confederation (1573) perhaps? Battle of Grunwald? One of the kings?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good that you brought up the matter Piotrus. Thank you for giving me some distiction in this matter, as to where my sympathies lie in this mess too. Somehow I got branded by Molobo and SylwiaS as being anti-Polish which I'm not. Some of the most happiest times of my life were spent in Poland, and I have travelled the length and breadth of Poland over and over again. My admiration for the Polish people is genuine, and I know their hearts. On the other hand I went to communist Poland with an open mind and would have acknowledged its "superiority" to another form of government, if it deserved such acknowledgement. It does not, and I have opposed any weasleing pretending that this is not the case. This has probably clouded my edits and participation lately. Now to the Lithuanian issue. I have made Lithuania a part of my academic life and travels too. Poland 75%, Lithuania 25%. But I understand the Lithuanian people's valiant stand against persecution and oppression, and admire it too. I understand their history and culture as well. I resent it being bullied and patronized. It was my perception early on in my dealings in Wikipedia, that there was "Super-Editing" going on by Polish contributors and editors in matters regarding Lithuania. I have not changed that opinion. A most simple example would be naming a small Lithuania city (one that had little historical association with Poland), in the the lead of the article in the Polish language. And then arguing about it because the town was mentioned in a children's book written in the 19th century in the Polish language. I could go on and on. My solution in solving the problem is different that your suggestion, Prokonsul, (the cooperation on a mutual article). It's too far past that. Too much damage has been done already. My solution is this. First, read How to deal with Poles and apply that to your dealings with Lithuanians. Second, a moratorium on these "Super Editors" needing to meddle in the nascent and budding Lithuanian contributions to Wikipedia would be a good idea. This I'm sure would be the hardest thing for them to do. But why should it be? Should I stir up the pot and suggest that they write about and edit matters about Zulus or Portugal? Obviously the issue is too emotionally charged for the matter to be resolved other than by this moratorium. So unless there is some blatantly false and insulting attack on Poland or claim against it's integrity, I say leave it be, and leave them alone, and after sometime we can assess the entire situation differently. Here's an Olive branch being offered as a viable solution (I think others have been offered and rejected), to the cuurent problem. These are now two seperate countries that are neighbors, and seem to get along better on the international scene than they do on Wikipedia. I say "Let My People Go" , a metaphor, an old Negro spiritual. Dr. Dan 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your solution is not possible: there are too many common subjects for any kind of separation to be possible, besides, it runs contrary to various Wikipedia policies, especially ones related to NPOV. We have survived the Gdansk Vote and we have a rather good relation with German noticboard. We were able to work with our eastern neihgbours and have FAs on some quite controversial subjects. This, believe it or not, is just one of many problems I have seen in my years here, and nothing to alarming. Working together will help, trying to split into two camps will not work and will further create some nasty 'us and them' divisions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Excluding anyone is neither welcomed nor necessary. I would be against it. It is not an option. But revert wars are waste of time and it would be nice if they could be avoided. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude

Edit wars are controllable and already almost nonexistent. IMO much more time (and emotionally) wasting are these "circular" discussions, as someone (be it Lithuanian, or Pole) tries to bash his own POV over others (never mind how many of them), (pretending?) not to hear any arguments form other side. That’s why I have told earlier, that I will not participate at any of the votes in Wikipedia until things do change.

As for this issue - for certain amount of time personally I was trying to avoid Halibutt as much as possible (even stopped my work on certain historical articles and persons) to avoid clashes. I don't know maybe that's bad chemistry, or bad temper of both of us. Although after few times being shut up, and told that I'm ignorant by few abrupt "rewordings", I felt like I was bullied ad lost my temper. Now Piotrus says that there were more of people who behave the same way. Doesn't this show that there is a problem with certain persons? I do not want to blame anyone or say someone is such or that – just sometimes it does not work. Maybe it is spoiled by bad beginning? I still do try to avoid few other editors (and in this I do succeed much more). So much of emotions.

As for suggestions - there is strong urge to establish some firm procedures, which can help avoid such misunderstandings and clashes in the future. But for that we have to choose what we're doing - encyclopedia or some fictional literature composed of someone beliefs (sometimes even insulting).

One of my emotional and intellectual anointment is this outrageous usage of Google books as I do have master degree in History, during my studies I had to learn one basic thing: there are reliable and non reliable sources. To trust any source you need to read the whole book (document, article, whatever) and evaluate it. Any citations out of context are an absolute no no. Any quantitive evaluations are rather disputable. Any research based on original documents, rather than synthetic work (i.e. compilation) is much more reliable. Any "contemporary" documents and terms are to be treated in contemporary context. And so on.

And one more thing, quite common sin amongst non professionals dealing in history - evaluating different things in nowadays context (for example most common mistake is - wast majority of Ruthenians in GDL, and small minority of Lithuanians - without having any contemporary data, and a conclusion - Rutehnians were predominant. This one conclusion is quite easy to deny, suggesting to take a look at the map of 16th century cities infrastructure in GDL and density of population).

And here (I mean Wikipedia) I did came to a different world, where everything is based on POV's, beliefs and open hearted and emotional "argumentation" "ad hominem", and again google books and what annoys me even more - google hits and google fights serves to all logical arguments be dismissed as irrelevant.. And this is emotionally tiring, demotivating and absolutely unproductive. If these are the rules of the game to stay, I'll think about finding another activity to spend my spare time (sometimes I feel, like someone is aiming for that).

And the last thing - I'm strongly against baning, excluding or otherwise exiling anyone. This would not solve anything, and to some extent would even make it worse. Just simple change of tone and a little bit more patience by some editors would be sincerely welcome.--Lokyz 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so my very difficult proposition of a moratorium is not missunderstood, a self imposed moratorium would cool things down. That would be better than the kind of "moratorium" Molobo is going through. And like Lokyz, I'm against such censorship. Yes, let me go on record, much as I personally had lots of issues with Molobo, He should not have been banned! Maybe a 30 day moratorium could be tried instead of a longer period. The strife is, and has become a very thorny issue, as P.P. has called it. A larger type of "cooldown" is needed before there is a real "meltdown" here. Think about it. As for there being some uniqueness in Lithuania's and Poland's shared history, requiring some "super editting" or the requirement of a "modus vivendi" between them on WK, that's way overblown. Some of the Polish editors could spend time repairing similarily poor relations with Russian and German and other editors, along a similar vein during the proposed hiatus. Dr. Dan 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For me moratorium on certain tones and poses in Talk pages (rather on all edits) is enough. If it is possible to avoid it, that's great and we can sorting things out, if it is not posible, then I don't think any moratorium would change this. I have no hard feelings towrads any of editors. As a warm up we could use Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, and move step by step from smaller problems towards more complicated issues Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While discussion and finding the solution is much welcome, but coming here and indirectly accusing some editors of cabal behavior, praising Halibutt`s and Piotrus deeds and even indirectly suggesting to shut up, because they “are” how “good” they; sorry but I cant believe about good faith from this. And let remind you: this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania not the Wikipedia:WikiProject Halibutt nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Piotrus, try to find suitable location in different place. M.K. 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)