User talk:Pofka

Lithuania

Well, getting featured is a bit too complicated - I'd suggest a Good Article nomination first. Ensuring everything is properly referenced is a start, there are some sentences without notes... igordebraga ≠ 16:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Well yeah, GA nomination probably is a better way to start with. Which sentences you have in mind? Maybe I could find something in Lithuanian about these sentences? But I think the referencing is already fine? -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For instance, that sentence about the 1993 failure leading to the league creation, most of Cultural depictions, Supporters, and Uniforms and kit suppliers (replacing YouTube would help!), and is there enough data on pre-War games to add the 1930s managers to Coaching staff? igordebraga ≠ 00:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Just added a reference about the league creation in 1993 and a few more to the "Cultural depictions" section. Why YouTube is an unsuitable source for referencing? I think the video recording of the chant is the best way to prove it is really performed. Moreover, these recordings were done by an official Viasat reporter, not by some random fan. There hardly is any articles about the chants, so it would be difficult to replace these... The uniforms section was written just by looking at the pictures from these years. For example, even the article itself has the pictures of the 1937-1939 uniforms. Do extra references really are required here? -- Pofka (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's something that needs to be done to at least acknowledge the source - I did that myself. The uniforms, it's just that NBA articles seek to source text on this. igordebraga ≠ 21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just split a lot of stuff towards a Basketball in Lithuania article, and some of the sources might help the overall improvement. If you're willing to take a look... igordebraga ≠ 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I think that's a great idea! Sadly, I currently have absolutely no time in helping you with it. =/ -- Pofka (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sad to hear it. But just telling you I drew some things from Basketball in Greece, if you ever need inspiration regarding that new article. igordebraga ≠ 17:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel for you and Lietuva's defeat. Yesterday I had to suffer through a blowout like yours (plus a heartbreaking close game, and another that at least could give a bronze). Hope your basketball recovers fast - my country's has been in shambles for a while. And while on Wikipedia, why don't you erase from this talk page the bot reminders of errors and deleted media? igordebraga ≠ 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Just cleaned it up. =D It's okey, the Olympics were not very successful, but the 4-year period indeed was. Valančiūnas was playing without head this year, but we won two silvers medals in European championships and the 4th place in the World Cup. Coach Kazlauskas is still praised in the media after these three terrible games and everyone hopes that he will remain 4 more years with the national team. Following European championship could remind EuroBasket 2003 if Kazlauskas stays, everyone will be healthy, especially Motiejūnas, Valančiūnas will find his head and maybe Kleiza will return to basketball after recovering from injuries. As Lithuanians often say: "trečias kartas nemeluoja" (third time do not lie). =D -- Pofka (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Pagan chapter - Lithuanian Grand Dukes were titled as kings - Gediminas as Rex, Algirdas as Basileus in letters from other rulers. So maybe we should mention that. And they were kings for Lithuanians. Gediminas never titled himself as a Grand Duke :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 09:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Yeah, I know as I was reading some books about the Grand Dukes status, however we cannot call them kings officialy because they did not received crown from the pope (I know, ridiculous because they were pagans). So I think phrase Lithuanian rulers fits better here without hurting any side. P.S. tu lietuvis? Nereikėtų veltui laužyti kalbos rašant angliškai. :D -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Just some interesting discussion regarding Kings vs Dukes: https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/istorija/kodel-mindaugas-buvo-karalius-o-vytautas-ne-lietuvos-valdovai-ir-ju-titulai-xiii-xiv-a-582-289589

@Pofka: taip, lietuvis :) Aišku, tai detalė ir nėra lengva iškart pataisyti daug metų kurtą tendencingą istorinį pasakojimą. Pagonių frankų ir germanų karaliai vadinami karaliais. Juolabiau, kad Lietuva nebuvo kokios nors valstybės fragmentas - kaip, kad Rusija ar Vokietija budo subyrėjusios į kunigaikštystes. "Lithuanian rulers" skamba per daug bendrai. Turbūt tada geriau palikti "Grand Dukes". Ke an (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Super! Kuo daugiau rašančių anglišką Vikipediją lietuvių - tuo geriau, nes lietuviškoji užsieniečiams (potencialiems turistams) absoliučiai neįdomi. // Taip, taip mane irgi tas pykdo, nes yra daug karalių, kurie negavo karūnos iš popiežiaus, bet visgi Grand Duchy of Lithuania ir Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania pernelyg įsišakniję, kad vadintume juos LDK karaliais, nes tada juk būtų Lietuvos Karalystė, kas vartojama tik kalbant apie Mindaugo ir Mindaugo II laikus (neseniai teko skaityti knygą, kur analizuoja jų galias, tai visiškas DK = karalius). Lithuanian rulers man kaip tik atrodo diplomatiškiau, nes tada išvengiama vakarietiško jų nužeminimo iki kunigaikščių ir pilnai neatsisakoma karaliaus titulo, kuo jie save ir laikė. Yra toks puslapis: List of rulers of Lithuania, tai šita frazė nėra naujiena ir manau tinkama. Tas Šventaragis (https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ventaragis) bent pagal naudojamus žodžius matau nebuvo niekada vadinamas Didžiuoju Kunigaikščiu, o tik kunigaikščiu (nors, jei toks egzistavo, matyt save irgi laikė karaliumi), tai jis po Grand Dukes kaip ir nepapultų. Po Grand Dukes ir Mindaugas nepapultų. :D Žodžiu, manau rulers yra OK, nes ta situacija yra pernelyg sudėtinga. // Grįžtant prie mokslininkų, tai aš kaip supratau negerai, kad buvau parašęs už ką jie žymūs, bet pavardes (kaip Germany) galima išvardinti, tai matyt reikėtų grąžinti tokias kaip Marija Gimbutas, Birutė Galdikas neaprašant jų pasiekimų Lithuania pagrindiniam puslapyje, o tik rašant kažką tokio: "Most famous scientists of the 19th century includes..." -- Pofka (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Hmm, taip - negatyvi viešųjų ryšių tendencija, nužeminannt valdovus tikrai pernelyg įsitvirtinusi istoriografijoje. Manau, istorikai pamažu tai pakeis. Čia nebloga santrauka "Lietuvos karaliai Arba Lietuvos valstybės statusas XIII–XIV a." arba S.C.Rowell veikalas "Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)". Kalbant pie mokslininkus viskas ten buvo gerai - būtina paminėti pasiekimus kartu su jų vardais. Tik kol kas, manau nebūtina skelbti turinčius labai tolimą ryšį su Lietuva ir jos mokslu - kaip tie 4 nobelistai ar Minkowski. -- Ke an (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Labai gerai, kad tokie kaip KAM leidžia su užrašais karalius. Kita vertus, galima prisiminti kaip Vytautas norėjo gauti tą tikrąjį karaliaus titulą Lucko suvažiavimo metu, tai, bent jis, matyt kad laikė Grand Duke žemiau už Rex (karalių). // Vokiečiai savo Germany nerašo pasiekimų ir jų straipsnis turi Featured Article žvaigždę (t. y. aukščiausia kokybė), tai dabar pagal juos surašiau ir manau bus gerai. Vokiškame nėra aprašyta mokslininkų pasiekimai. -- Pofka (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Vytautas juk jau buvo Jogailos - karaliaus pavaldinys. Iki Unijos Lietuvių valdovai titulavosi ir buvo tituluojami karaliais. Tame KAM šaltinyje ir rašoma, kad LDK titulą Jogaila prisiėmė tik tapęs 2 valstybių karaliumi. Dėl mokslinikų - gerai kol kas :) Ką manai apie Legal dalį? Mano manymu atrodo l.prastai - jokios informacijos pie teisinę sistemą, politinę tvarką, valstybės valdymą - vien tik 5 puslapio kriminalinės kronikos nuotrupos. Reikėtų ją perketli į Politics, kaip ir daugelyje šalių -- Ke an (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Praskrolinau tik tą KAM straipsnį neskaitydamas. Teisingos prielaidos tada. Taip ir reikėtų traktuoti. Nes dabar remiamasi popiežiaus/kryžiuočių požiūriu, kurie laikė priešais ir puolė. Jeigu žiūrėtumėm iš LDK varpinės, tai tada ir tų laikų popiežiai būtų nežinia kas - maybe, nusikaltėliai žmogiškumui vertinant pagal šiuolaikinę teisę? :D // Ta legal dalis nėra graži, bet tokia greičiausiai ir turėtų būti. Anksčiau (kokį sausio mėnesį) buvo United States straipsnyje tokie skirsniai kaip "Corruption" ir "Crime" prie legal, tai iš ten šitie ir nukopijuoti buvo, tai matydamas aš jų ir neliečiau. Polytics čia ne prie ko, nes gi korupcija ne vien politika, bet ir medikai, policininkai ir t.t. Crime išvis niekas kitas neapima, tai matyt viskas OK su jais. Tik man skaičiai kitokį vaizdą piešia, nei Detektyvui - atidariau diskusiją apie tai jo talk page, nes ten edit war nėra prasmės tęsti - reikia paprasčiausiai pasikalbėti ir išsiaiškinti. -- Pofka (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Tiesiog reikėtų paminėti kur nors, kad lietuvių valdovai iki Unijos buvo faktiškai ir nominaliai karaliai ir niekas į juos kitap nesikreipdavo, net ir popiežius neišradinėjo LDK kunigaikščio - rašydavo Rex. Jie matyt net nežinojo tokio titulo kaip LDK kunigaikštis :) Lietuviai dar turėjo titulą "kunigas"(germanų kalbos įtaka, matyt) kuriuo kreipdavosi į žemių kunigaikščius. Dėl Legal - aš žiūrėjau Europos šalių psl., tai Legal visur yra po Politics skyriumi - pvz. Germany, France, Latvia, Estonia. Crime ir Corruption skyriai visai nereikalingi, nes nėra tiek turinio ir statistiką geriausiu atveju galima sudėti į "Law enforcement". Netgi Albanijos psl. nėra tokių skyrių. -- Ke an (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Kad jau labai užkišta ten viskas, nebėra kur šnekėti apie DK statusą (žymiai logiškiau gal būtų Grand Duchy of Lithuania kažkokią skiltį pridėti, nes čia jau tokia grynai LDK, o ne dabartinės Lietuvos valstybės problema). Dar gi reikia daug skilčių sukurti kaip kitų šalių straipsniuose, pvz., Health, tai dar bus bitų... Bet kokiu atveju galima suprasti, kad jie buvo bosų bosai (rulers), nepaisant to kaip juos vadino įvairūs šaltiniai (Wikipedia draudžia original research rašyti, nebent ten kažkoks palyginimas pagal skirtingų valstybių mokslininkų požiūrius ar pan., o čia jau kaip ir yra tokie vietinių mokslininkų svarstymai ar jie buvo karaliai ar DK kol oficialiai visi šaltiniai nepradeda jų vadinti karaliais). // Dėl tų crime, tai pabandyk analogiškai perdaryti pagal kažką kas turi GA/FA titulus, nes jie tikrai yra geri pavyzdžiai ir nurodyk pagal kurį gerą straipsnį sutvarkei. Būtent pas amerikonus tokia struktūra, kaip dabar mūsiškiame, buvo, bet dabar jau matau nebėra, tai gal tikrai neidealu ir reikia koreguoti. -- Pofka (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Dėl Legal - gera idėja, manau, surasiu laiko perrašyti pagal geriausius pavyzdžius. Labai geras istorijos skirsnis - tikrai informatyvus, net ir man yra naujų faktų :) Amerikietiškame greičiausia vyko Wiki wars :) -- Ke an (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Stengiausi visas svarbias smulkmenas sudėti neprirašant belekiek, kai pradėjau gal gruodžio mėnesį po truputį pildyti, tad dabar ir nenoriu leisti niekam jį sudraskyti, nes pagal United States dydis atitinka ir viskas labai gražu. :D Kas buvo negirdėta pačiam? Kai pildžiau šitą, tai irgi įdomių dalykų prisiskaičiau. Spėju nuo okupacijos pradžios ten kas vyksta, ypač 1940–1944? Man ta vieta irgi labai įdomi buvo, nes apie ją mažokai rašoma, nors buvo labai geras kerštas už tuos pirmuosius trėmimus raudoniesiems - būtent todėl per tuos 50 metų jie šitą ir norėjo ištrinti iš istorijos šaltinių, bet išeivija žino kas vyko ir išsaugojo užrašydami nebijodami meškos cenzūros. -- Pofka (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Man nauja, kad Kuršiai ar Prūsai mokėjo duoklę Danijos karaliui. Kad buvo tokia Viskiautų vikingų sotvykla Sambijoje žinojau, bet apie duokles karaliui - ne. Kai kurie faktai apie Sovietų okupaciją irgi negirdėti - apie padarytus nuostolius raudonieseims traukiantis. Aš irgi manau, kad istorijos puslapio labai geras balansas dabar - ir išsamu, kad suprastum istorijos faktus ir gana lakoniška. -- Ke an (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: - Regarding the sample of Lithuanian national song. Why "Ant kalno mūrai"? It is based on quite international sources - I think music can be traced to some German march. It is relatively new - from XIX or some. What about puting Sutartinės or some other more old music? -- Ke an (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: I added it yesterday, but now started to doubt if one song really is a country-level thing. However, I did not reverted it because it is a very well known war-theme folk song, enjoyed by many generations from now till deep in the history (so kind of country-level). I think it is like a good classic Ferrari that newer gets old. It is frequently sang during the mass gatherings even today, most visibly during the basketball games (but not only there since it is not Trys milijonai and basketball fans begins singing it simply because almost everyone knows its lyrics and it makes you proud about your nationality, unlike any sutartinės). Sutartinės are nice, but not so patriotic and there can hardly be any extraordinary one, is there? Even Seimas has uploaded Ant kalno mūrai lyrics: http://www3.lrs.lt/docs2/THOLMKQV.DOC. :D I cannot confirm how old it is, but according to lyrics it sounds old enough. Have you managed to find any source about it? It reminds German march because it is a war-theme folk song. Old folk war-theme music is quite like that (especially due to dominant male voices) and it depends on the performers (which are obviously modern in this recording). Some work or wedding songs would sound differently. -- Pofka (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Here a the sources: https://kultura.lrytas.lt/-12055053231203995392-vilniaus-nacionalist%C5%B3-l%C5%ABpose-dainos-i%C5%A1-lenkijos-video.htm, http://www.ferrum.lt/forumas/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8799&sid=a56f9dc4462ad3df33fda98c632bf396&start=210, https://www.tv3.lt/naujiena/561472/l-sungailiene-emocijos-isgyvenimai-patyrimai-nuspalvina-musu-gyvenimus

@Pofka: Lithuanians have a lot authentic war songs. I personaly like modern interpretation of old mysterious "Bitė lingo"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlNZntF-i1E) a lot . Some of them can be traced to Grand Duchy of Lithuania such as mentioned here (http://www.aidai.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5158:kn&catid=317:1-sausis&Itemid=362)

@Ke an: If both the Mozurians and GDL forces sang different versions of this song - then there probably is no problem (how can you šlovino lenkų raitelius if they are singing about Lithuanians), plus this confirms that it is a really old song. Bitė lingo sounds quite Arabic (especially that part without women voices). Can you confirm that it is related to Grand Duchy of Lithuania times? Aidai.eu do not confirm this. -- Pofka (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka:No, there is no confirmation about "Ant kalno mūrai" what is is an old song - actualy it could be traced to XIX. The claim is that is is a cover, but not a common song from GDL , no way:) This claim ("it's a cover") comes from at least 3 sources, claiming that is not originally Lithuanian song. I didn't claim Bitė Lingo is from GDL(maybe even from an erlier period), but it is a War Multipart Song (Karo sutartinė), and multipart songs belong to archaic singing tradiction. How it sounds is quite subjective - but it is a modern interpretion by Donis https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_lingo. How can Sutartines be claimed "not so patriotic"? Have you listened to Karo Sutartinės(War Multipart Songs)? If you look for GDL songs, so finest example is "Mūsų Katkus labai drūts" - devoted to the Salaspils battle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmSZW6f0s_Y and more..

@Pofka: Yet another song about Salapilis battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKj52Ik63N8

@Ke an: Then it seems bitė lingo is completely modern and there are many of these pseudo folk songs. Even if they sound old - I doubt if they have any ecylopedic value. It seems you are more familiar with this type songs, so can you recommend recording of 30 seconds (Wiki restricts to upload longer songs fragments), which has historical value and is old? -- Pofka (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: No, it's not completely modern, and definitely not 'pseudo folk'. It was recorded in 1849. http://www.sutartines.info/slaviunas/result.php?id=26600&kas=dok_tur Although the music is modernised, it definitely retains the multipart tradition.

@Ke an: There are no recordings of these "Autorė mūsų istorinėse dainose randa tik 3 periodus: "Karų prieš kryžiuočius epochos dainos, baudžiavos įsigalėjimo laikotarpio dainos ir dainos apie XVII-XIX a. karus ir kariuomenę" (p. 9). Pirmajam periodui priskiria Sudaičio ("Išpylė pilelę, iškirto karelius") ir kitas karo sutartines ("Kada, broli, tu parjosi?", "Ką parneši?"), dainas apie kareivio išvykimą karan ir žuvimą ("Jau ir atlėkė gulbių pulkelis" arba "Visi bajorai į Rygą joja" ir "Aušta aušrelė šviesi pazarėlė") ir nelaisvėn patekusių karių vadavimo dainas ("Sėdi sūnelis nevalioj", daina paremta plačiai Vakarų Europoje paplitusiu "vadavimo" motyvu). Priskirdama šias dainas karų su kryžiuočiais gadynei, autorė pabrėžia jų patriotiškumą ...", so we cannot add it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: There lots of other fine examples - if you would search "Karo sutartinės" on Youtube. For example - "Pulkun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eZpWDkORlc

@Ke an: I found Pulkun as well, however it seems that it is a completely modern pseudo historical song. So, no historical value. -- Pofka (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Can you substantiate your claim about 'completely modern pseudo historical song' ? -- Ke an (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Now it is more clear after you showed me this: http://www.sutartines.info/slaviunas/result.php?id=26600&kas=dok_tur. Some bands creates old sounding modern songs. Bite, lingo is not well known, so I believe inserting one song was a mistake to a country page. It is too minor. -- Pofka (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Just to complement - authentically sung or recorded(no modern instruments) Karo sutartinės(War Multipart Songs) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbmqDG_-K4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyqW3nqfPZw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bziBbhN8D7M, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXktXgI2Bz0&list=PLC5933731BC95C1A3, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4P2oJYTM6o&index=35&list=PLC5933731BC95C1A3 -- Ke an (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

About K.Semenavičius illustration - maybe we should replace that fake and amateurish portrait with real page from "Artis magnae artileriae pars prima"? I would be more genuine. -- Ke an (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: I did not liked that fake portrait from Belarus as well. Good idea. Just done that. -- Pofka (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Maybe you would be interested to contribute to the section History of Lithuanian cuisine of Lithuanian cuisine page? I have started to fill it and there are so many forgotten history and facts about it to find out and collect. You have contributed to many historical texts - maybe you will have some facts up your sleeve? :) -- Ke an (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: My knowledge about food is very limited, so probably I would not be able to add anything. It seems your knowledge is deeper there. Though, I have in mind a few articles which I plan to expand sometime. Firstly, it is Lithuanian mythology / Baltic mythology because Gimbutienė and other authors possibly has written a lot about it, so searching for some valuable books would be very useful here and the information should be interesting. Secondly, a microstate in Lithuania called Republic of Paulava (Paulavos respublika: https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulavos_respublika) has no article yet, but is often nicknamed as Lithuanian Luxembourg/Liechtenštein, so I would be very curious to find out more about this topic and create an article about it. A mere 6.3 square miles, it was at the time the second smallest country in the world (https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/paulava-republic-pavlov-republic). I think would also be a great addition to Lithuania article, because Republic of Užupis is a kind of independent state (though, Paulava was completely independent and was recognized by King itself). -- Pofka (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Regarding the Lithuanian/Baltic mythology I would recommend Algirdas Julius Greimas "Lietuvių mitologijos studijos" ISBN 9955-584-78-5, and N.Vėlius, P.Dundulienė, G.Beresnevičius, and Matthäus Prätorius, of course :)

BC Zalgiris

Please remain civil in your edit summaries and don't add back uncited material (e.g. [1]). You appear to have reverted a large number of my edits and re-added unreferenced, or otherwise questionable material. It does seem that you have subsequently added some references, but it is not acceptable to just add back in uncited information. I will have a further look at your edits when I can. Eldumpo (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Eldumpo: Well you simply deleted almost the whole article without (probably) trying to check the information. If it doesn't (yet) have reference, it doesn't automatically mean that it is incorrect. I am a fan of this team and I read articles about it everyday and I know that the information provided by other Wikipedians here is correct, just without links to Lithuanian articles. I have already added a large number of references to a few sections of the article, however it takes quite a lot of time to find articles which were published 4+ years ago. Still, I will do my best to add as many reference as I can to this article. Sorry for my "hot" reaction, but simply destroying one of the most comprehensive EuroLeague basketball club article doesn't seem very civil to me as well. Your actions here were robotic as you simply deleted unreferenced (BUT CORRECT) information. -- Pofka (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for response. If information is unreferenced it's not possible to know if it's correct or not. A lot of what I saw used questionable grammar and opinionated/weasel words, and any text should be neutral and just convey the basic facts. Also, just because sources may state particular facts it does not mean they should necessarily be added to an article. The article for the club cannot reasonably accommodate huge amounts of reporting on each season, and routine match reports are in any case not the basis of notability. Perhaps there is merit in season articles for the club, where some of the detail (subject to reliable, independent sources etc) can go? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Eldumpo: The article mostly was written by other Wikipedians and not by me, and I have also found some ugly mistakes in it, but I think I have already fixed them. As for details of the season... Well, it includes only basic information of the season: short description of playoffs games and facts of signings new members (such information can be found in any National Basketball Association club history section), so I believe it is OK as it does not include too much information about the regular season which is not very notable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
      • From what I saw there was reams of information about each season for the last 10 or so, which you added back in, though perhaps you've thinned it back a bit? I don't know how it compares with NBA teams but I'd be surprised if they have that much season prose in the main club article. I don't think detailed reports on roster changes has a place in the main club article, and single sources indicating x player has signed for the club is not a basis for that fact going in the overall article, and considering how bloated the article could get in another few seasons. As I said, I haven't looked at the additional changes you've made since reverting my changes, am hoping to get back to the article at some point. Eldumpo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Eldumpo: NBA clubs previously had such amount of details in their main articles, however they were later split into two articles (f. e. Los Angeles Lakers and History of the Los Angeles Lakers; Miami Heat and History of the Miami Heat) and the second article includes quite a lot of details, so the moment BC Žalgiris gets too bloated - it can be easily split into BC Žalgiris and History of the Žalgiris Kaunas. At the moment I think it can be still kept this way. Keep in mind that NBA clubs articles includes trades which almost doesn't exist in EuroLeague as it is 99% based on signings, and because of it I don't see a problem in mentioning new signings. -- Pofka (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Name of Lithuania to Lithuania (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Regardless, the article is already far too long to read or navigate comfortably, and no more material should be added, especially content that already exists in sub-pages that are linked from the main article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Individuals in Lithuania->Science

Not to mention individuals in Science achievements completely is not possible. For example now Straižys is left(why?), but he is not the most notable or prominent scientist. And more known - Gimbutienė, Greimas are removed. I think we should allow to mentioning the most prominent individuals along with their achievements in science. Science achievements first, individual second to it only. Ke an (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ke an: All the individuals with their achievements were written by myself to the Wiki page, however by doing so I was attacked for violating the Wikipedia standards. In my opinion, it was fine as well because most of them were world-class and are not only individual but also national pride. Let's continue discussion in the talk page of the article because then it will be more useful, visible. -- Pofka (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Which Wikipedia standards were violated? That's ridiculous :) Should we write in Science and Technology page "Relativity theory developed by <censored>" :) We cannot separate science achievements from scientists :) I have looked at German, French, Polish, Latvian, Estonian pages. It looks like they violate Wiki standards, Germany especially hard :) In short we should definitely put Lithuanian scientists back with descriptions of their achievements. We should avoid only Lithuania related names - with very week connections Ke an (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: Well, then restore scientists who you think fits by comparing with other countries articles. I am currently doing a research about some new sections, which i will add soon to the Lithuania page. -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Šventaragis' Valley

Hi Pofka. Would you please review WP:COPYVIO. Not sure if it's also a problem but copyright also applies to translations -- if from another wikipedia, see WP:TRANSLATE re credit; if from elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Translation. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Hydronium Hydroxide: Hi, well these are just a few sentences that I copied from that external website. This is a basic information about the place that is being printed everywhere (they also copied it from book or similar source). I provided reference to the original source. "Šventaragis' Valley in pagan Lithuania was an important cult centre" line is taken from the book which I referenced. -- Pofka (talk)
  • Un/fortunately blatant copyvio is one of the few bright-line areas... "Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". I didn't touch the second para, on the presumption that it was your own work. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please communicate in English

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I only communicated a few times in Lithuanian with another Lithuanian because it was much quickier and easier to understand for both. These discussions were not meant for the vast audience, but I will avoid using Lithuanian if other languages are prohibited at all times even in users talk pages. Thanks. -- Pofka (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I take your point, but as it's hard to see what's being discussed.... and, by the way, the text about Lithuanian corruption is being discussed at the WP:TEAHOUSE#Are these statements NPOV?. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Lithuania article was just attacked by the Russian proxy trolls. We need administrators assistance who would add protections for Lithuania and Corruption in Lithuania. You can see discussion and evidences about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Detektyw_z_Wilna. -- Pofka (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Pofka: I have wrote quite extensive argumentation regarding breach of NPOV at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corruption_in_Lithuania#Neutrality too. -- Ke an (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop falsyfing information

Pofka, in the recent incident report discussion you have been constantly misrepresenting my quotes, making up stuff and twisting facts to fit your message. The latest example is beyond ridiculous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Detektyw_z_Wilna's_absurd_attempt_to_hide_this_investigation). You accuse me of deleting a sentence when I in fact did no content changes, just edited minor spelling mistakes. Feel free to attack me all you like, but at least do it in an honest way. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Radisson Blu logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pofka. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:15 min newspaper logo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:15 min newspaper logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Image spam

Not sure if your aware of the protocols...but best not to make an article look like a kids picture book. When you have time pls review WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY.--Moxy (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Moxy: Well, I did: "However, a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.". Check France's situation of images. You will see that it has way more images. Especially "Environment" and "Military" sections. Military section has SEVEN illustrations. -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does have lots but its not causing accessibility problems --Moxy (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Moxy: Well, you zoomed in a lot to create this effect. It fits perfectly on my modern screen. I also checked it on a smaller old computer screen and it fits perfectly as well. Though, I do agree that this article may had too many illustrations previously, so I removed some of them. You should discuss "Science and technology" section with Ke an because this section looks problematic (I'm currently too busy with my real life to be active in Wiki). I think only Simonavičius should be kept there and I would agree to remove Gimbutas, Greimas, Kubilius illustrations and keep them only in the text. -- Pofka (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No zooming in.... this is what the page looks like on big screen TV 's...you should look at the mobile version of the page too. Should look at FA articles to see what we are looking for Canada -- Australia I assume the last thing anyone wants is the page to look like a kids picture book over an encyclopedia. Best not to make it look all messed up because you like a few pictures.--Moxy (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: Canada's history is not that long and mostly starts from the colonial period, so we cannot put these two very different countries articles in comparison. European countries have a way longer and complicated history (especially from the middle ages till the modern times), so they include more illustrations in their history sections. Canada never been something similar to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with large enemies from both sides: Teutonic knights and Russia. I am not very familiar with Canada's history, but I doubt if it had different capitals before, however most of the European countries do have different capitals in their history, so they should be mentioned. By the way, Canada's page also does include images in both sides that reminds the "sandwich style" (sections "Foreign relations and military", "Law", "Government and politics", "Geography and climate").

I dont think your understand sandwich text pls look at WP:SANDWICH example. look at FA Bulgaria..note how organized and professional it looks..not a kids picture book.--Moxy (talk)

@Moxy: Check how many illustrations Bulgaria's section named "Geography" has... Isn't it as you call "images spam"? Also, Bulgaria does not have "Religion" section while almost every other country has it (including Canada and Australia), so I have doubts about it being perfect example. If it had this section, there would be at least two images of each religion (Orthodox/Muslim/Christian) most notable churches (not sure if they are Orthodox or Christian). Lithuania has at least three large religions (Christian, Orthodox, Jewish) and very important paganic herritage because it was THE LAST country in Europe to be a pagan country, so paganic sanctuary also fits there for me. Comparing different countries just by number of images included is not right, because they have very different twists in their history (some have multiple capitals, some have multiple notable leaders, decisive battles and so on). There is no such requirement which tells that to be FA it must have no more than X images in X sections. I believe that if it allows to easier understand the topic - it fits there. You should better start an discussion in the Lithuania's talk page and motivate why one or another image is not important and does not let to easier understand the topic, because I will not be able to actively reply these days. Edit wars leads to nowhere - we are humans and we should talk. -- Pofka (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Užklausimas dėl dalyvavimo projekto rengime

Sveiki Povilai!

Šiuo metu rengiu Lietuvos Vikimedijos dalyvių grupės projektą ir pradžiai ieškau bendražygių, veikiančių įvairiose Vikimedijos erdvėse.

Kreipiuosi į Jus, nes rašote anglų Vikipedijoje, o šio projekto vienas iš tikslų yra tobulinti bei gausinti Vikimedijos projektų straipsnius apie Lietuvą nelietuvių kalbomis. Tikiuosi Jūsų paramos, nes skaičiau, kad Jūs, taip pat kaip ir aš turite viziją populiarinti Lietuvą pasaulyje. Mano nuomone dar daug kas nežino, kas ta Lietuva, kokie jos kalba ir kur ji yra…

Man būtų labai džiugu, jei Jus tai sudomintų ir Jūs užsiregistruotumėte, kur diskusijų puslapyje galėtumėte savo idėjomis ir pasiūlymais prisidėti prie šio projekto plano tobulinimo. Gal turite kokią temą, liečiančią Jūsų veiklos sritį, kuria galėtų užsiimti Vikimedijos dalyvių grupė? Gal mąstote apie kokį projektą, kurį norėtumėte įgyvendinti su Vikimedijos dalyvių grupe?

Sulaukęs pakankamai rezonanso, šį bendromis jėgomis patobulintą projekto planą pirmiausia pristatyčiau Lietuvos bendruomenei, o po to kreipčiausi į Vikimedijos fondą dėl Lietuvos Vikimedijos dalyvių grupės oficialaus pripažinimo.

Jei Jums tai įdomu, laukiu Jūsų atsiliepimų.

Nuoširdžiai dėkoju ir iki malonaus

--Vogone (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vogone: Labas, dėkoju už kvietimą! Prisijungiau prie grupės, nes bendras lietuvių kooperavimasis Vikipedije yra būtinas norint pasiekti aukštą pagrindinių straipsnių kokybę. Pagrindinis mano netolimos ateities tikslas yra patobulinti straipsnį Vilnius, naudojant puikiai aprašytus straipsnius kaip pavyzdžius (pvz., Paris). Pagrindinį Lithuania puslapį su kolegų pagalba jau pavyko neblogai aprašyti, tačiau mūsų sostinės puslapis atrodo ganėtinai tuščias. Pagrindinis sunkumas su kuriuo aš susidūriau yra patikimų šaltinių trūkumas, ypač įvairios statistikos (būtent tai neleido sukurti analogiškų skilčių kokias turi Paris, pvz., apie ekonomiką, darbuotojų pasiskirstymą pagal sektorius: pramonės, paslaugų ir pan). Taigi, kitų wikimanų pagalba šiame svarbiame Lietuvai straipsnyje tikrai labai padėtų. -- Pofka (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

lets work together

Hello @Pofka: I hope you are having a good day or night in Lithuania, I never been there but now I know people like basketball there thank you for that info. And I know the Red army did commit war crimes, I did a paper about it. The way that the page is now does mention the rapes, the red army also did commit crimes before WW2 that is why I was thinking.

what if we blue link the part of the page that does talk about it? to the war crimes page, that way the flow of the article is kept. And the reader can continue learning about the red army then the other page can get more views.

I am open to what you may think I think this why both of are concerns are meant what do you think?Jack90s15 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: It's night here already and the basketball game is currently going between Serbia and Lithuania. :D What do you mean by "blue link"? I agree that I might have placed it in a wrong location (as a separate main section), however why don't we make it a sub-section of the "Personnel" section? It already has "Military education" and "Purges" sub-sections, so I think soldiers crimes would fit very well there. I want to make a section or a sub-section about this topic because these crimes are quite hardly visible in the article currently, but one of the Red Army's main "trademarks" are the horrific crimes they made everywhere they went. -- Pofka (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Pofka: a sub-section could work what do you have in mind? I think we should do a brief summary of them for the sub-section then have it linked to war crime page. And I mean hyperlink I call it blue link since its blue, or we could do my original idea we hyperlink the part of the page that does talk about it,

(Soviet soldiers carried out large-scale rapes in Germany, especially noted in Berlin until the beginning of May 1945.[67][68][page needed])

hyperlink on the words carried out that way the flow of the article is kept. And then that could be the readers introduction to the Soviet war crimes. And as I said I am open to what you may think I think this helps with both of are concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: I mean we could copy-paste that paragraph I added (and you removed) to a sub-section called "Crimes and atrocities" in the "Personnel" section. -- Pofka (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pofka: So I am thinking we can movie some of the info that is on the page already on to sub-section and I was going to add something to so it would read like this,

(Soviet soldiers carried out large-scale rapes in Germany, especially noted in Berlin until the beginning of May 1945,[67][68]they were often committed by rear echelon units [69])

The last cite I am going to Put a book cite Antony Beevor book. whats some other information you could add to this?Jack90s15 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: Yes, I think we should move such information to its own sub-section because now it is quite difficult to find their crimes without reading a large part of the article. / I think I already added all the best known crimes in that paragraph. Maybe we could add something about robberies, but I don't know good English/Lithuanian sources about it, which would analize this subject in detail. However, I do know that robberies were these beasts daily routine. Upon occupying Lithuania these monsters robbed most of the shops in Lithuania, especially its capital Kaunas (or they "bought" some items from shops after forcing the Lithuanian Government to exchange their worthless currency Rubles in a completely wrong rate to the Lithuanian currency Litas). -- Pofka (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pofka: OK So what about something like this for the Sub section,

In Lithuania army personal robbed Local shops. <ref> https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/istorija/genocido-tyrimo-centras-pradeda-viesinti-dokumentus-apie-raudonosios-armijos-nusikaltimus-582-1021960. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)<ref>Soviet soldiers carried out large-scale rapes in Germany Especially noted in Berlin until the beginning of May 1945.[67][68]They were often committed by rear echelon units.[69])

@Jack90s15: Looks good. That is a reliable Lithuanian source and I previously used it in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

OK I will add it @Pofka: Jack90s15 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your addition to Vilnius has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Diannaa: Well, you are right as I probably directly copied too much in some parts. However, you could have warned about this violation before erasing everything immediately, because now many other external references are lost as well since I cannot check the differences between the current and older versions (these references were used to support the copied information and do not violate any rules, but were also erased). The content I copied was carefully chosen by reading full texts of the sources, so if I had a copy of these texts - it would be muuuuuch easier for me to rewrite it in my words... Now I will have to read all the sources and find all the references you erased again. Now I understand that I did wrong edits, but I believe that respect to the veteran editors is important as well and a warning would have been a waaaay better solution as I would have immediately removed or rewritten all the text myself. I have never been a vandal in Wikipedia and I never was punished for thousands of my edits. That's harsh. Sincerely, -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I can send you a copy of the removed material by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Diannaa: That would be great. How can I active that Wikipedia email? Isn't it possible to send it to my registered email as I am getting auto messages to it from Wikipedia for years? -- Pofka (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't have email activated on English Wikipedia. Perhaps you've been getting messages from lt.wiki, on which you have email activated. I will send it there. If you wish to activate email for this wiki, go to Preferences and under email options, tick the box "Allow other users tro email me" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Email sent. Let me know if that didn't work, and we will figure something out when I get back from shopping. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Diannaa: Thanks! This will save a lot of time for me. I got your letter and activated my email in English Wikipedia as well. -- Pofka (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evaldas Beržininkaitis

Hello, Pofka,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Evaldas Beržininkaitis, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Vilnius

Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Do you mean edits by user Strongconfident? I checked it and it is mostly very accurate. The only questionable line is "But Lithuania regarded itself as a Baltic nation that is similar to Latvians and refused to join Poland." because I am not sure if this could be called an important motif for the independence (I mean similarity to Latvia) due to the fact that the Lithuanian-Latvian war was very near due to the territories disputes, so Lithuanians probably searched for differences much more than the similarities back then to claim rights to the territories (e.g., Palanga, Curonian Spit). I will continue to monitor new edits because I am currently expanding this article as well. -- Pofka (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in Lithuania

Hi,

I saw your note on Commons about File:Vilnius City Municipality building.jpg being uploaded here. Lithuania doe snot have a freedom of panorama for architectural works, and that applies here too at the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law where it states "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States." Because there is no freedom of panorama in Lithuania, the use of this image in the Vilnius city municipality building article can be done as non-free content, however, it;s use in the Vilnius article would likely not be justified. I suggest the licensing be updated to reflect non-free usage. And thanks for taking the time to take the photo and contribute it Wikipedia. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Kurier Litewski, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Thanks for your kind words! I previously nominated some of the articles for DYK, so I already know this procedure. Will Kurier Litewski be accepted in DYK? I nominated it for DYK, here is the link of nomination: link. -- Pofka (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it will be accepted! If nobody reviews it soon ping me and I'll give it a go! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi to both, I reviewed it at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurier Litewski, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I edited the article and included term how long the newspaper ran. What do you mean with "The claims in the hook (first, retained, despite) need to be referenced on the actual sentence in which they appear in article and the link(s) given here."? They are referenced in the article with links from vle.lt and old.ldm.lt. "Retained" is understandable from sentence "In 1840, the newspaper's name was changed: the Polish variant was renamed to..." and "despite" is a fact from Partitions of Poland article. @Piotrus: maybe you could assist with anything as well as I think there are more Polish sources than Lithuanian about this newspaper. -- Pofka (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply, I'll respond over at the nomination. Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If you decide to go for a Good Article I will see what I can dig in Polish sources. For a DYK it looks good for me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I doubt because sources, at least digital ones, in Lithuanian are scarce, so I don't have enough understandable material to improve this article. -- Pofka (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

And the Polish sources are often offline... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kurier Litewski

On 31 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kurier Litewski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kurier Litewski was the first periodical newspaper of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and retained the Lithuanian state name until 1840, despite the final partition of the Commonwealth in 1795? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurier Litewski. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kurier Litewski), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pahonia case request declined

The case request Pahonia that you filed has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. You may view a permalink of the declined case request here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for informing me, it was already moved to the Dispute resolution noticeboard: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pahonia and hopefully will be solved there. -- Pofka (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to your reverting my edits on the page, I added the wikilink of the coat of arms to the pahonia page. You reverted this with the explanation that the page was going to be going away soon, which is not a good reason or a guarantee, so I reverted it and gave my reason. You then reverted that with a new excuse, about the nature of the spelling of the name, and decided to throw in an insulting comment about me edit warning. I'd like to ask you to pick a reason you're reverting and stick to it, and watch your tone with other editors. StarHOG (Talk) 01:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@StarHOG: Pogonia and Pahonia aren't the same things. Just because some nationalists created an article with disruptive naming it does not mean that Pogonia should be wikilinked to Pahonia. -- Pofka (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point is that you reverted my edit twice and used two different explanations when the first wasn't valid. Then you accused me of an edit war which was insulting. StarHOG (Talk) 22:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact myself or a member of the community if you have more questions. – bradv🍁 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bradv does a good job of explaining our dispute resolution mechanisms, and I wanted to add on a little bit about what case the Arbitration Committee does accept. In a nutshell, it is very unlikely that any of your disputes will rise to the level of arbitration in the future. The kind of disputes that we do accept will overwhelmingly involve one or some permutation of (a) administrators using their advanced permissions or being repeatedly reported over behavioural issues; (b) two or more editors treating each other poorly where multiple attempts from the community (e.g. at the administrators' noticeboard (incidents)) have not solved it; or (c) some form of advocacy in a topic area (and the topics are not even necessarily limited to article space) that have spawned considerable behavioural issues that have not been solved through multiple attempts by the community.

Another piece of advice: keeping presentations concise will improve the chance of your complaint being understood and acted upon. My rule of thumb would be about 500 words initially; anything above that risks being tuned out, and then if the original post gains some traction, maybe there's space for another 500 words, but past that it will quickly get excessive. Maxim_(talk) 13:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maxim: Thanks for information, well, I will try the WP:AE mechanism in the future if it will persist. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years, made 25,000+ edits and only now encountered such overwhelming propaganda attacks against my home country's identity in English Wikipedia. It seems to me that some users from Russia/Belarus, whose national Wikipedias are full of controversial statements, are not satisfied and want to carry on into the English Wikipedia as well (as far as I checked using the Google translate, many controversial statements simply were copy-paste translations from these Wikipedias). It is really becoming an increasing problem when such users attempt to challenge the WP:OBVIOUS, which I did not encountered before.
I carefully calculated and limited my initial report to just 500 words. I admit that I made a mistake by adding additional information to the initial report as I thought that it is allowed to reply in the initial report. Dreamy Jazz already explained to me below how the words limit of replies work at WP:A. I hope that I will not be dragged into such edit wars again, but if it will happen, then I will certainly seek help at WP:AE. -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statement at Requests for Arbitration

Hi, Pofka. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Systematic disruptive editing, provocations of edit warring in Wikipedia by user Лобачев Владимир. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit and currently stands at around 1700 words. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online.

Furthermore, your latest comment pinged many of the participants in the case request who had already made comments. Pinging many participants to a discussion which they have already commented on should be sparingly, as it can be seen as disruptive if used for the wrong reasons. Please ensure that you keep pinging many participants to a minimum in any future statement you make in an arbitration case request or other arbitration page as the arbitrators (who decide on whether to accept the request) almost certainly have the page watchlisted and are keeping up on any new comments.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:: Hi, Dreamy Jazz, I thought that after the initial report it is allowed to write replies. I limited my initial report to exactly 500 words. This case will certainly be declined, so is it still necessary to modify the initial report? If so, you can freely remove paragraph starting with "Comment: (following the first statements by administrators)", which I added later. But I'm sure that this case will be removed from AP:A in the very, very near future. -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Replies to direct questions from arbitrators are usually exempted from the limit, but even then these replies should be concise. Anything you add in that section is your statement and it is your statement that is limited by word and diff limits. It will be removed today in the evening unless anything changes. As it will be declined soon, if you don't have the time then it can probably be left as is. If you want to add more or change anything, please reduce the length. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings from Italy

Hello, I just noticed your edit on the Italian version of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and I was curious about who made it, because it's not very common to find an English comment. I read your description and I understood that you are keen on basketball, but my question is what about Lithuanian history and geography? I randomly felt in love with Lithuania a couple of years ago even if I never visited it [😞] and I created/revised more than 200 pages about this Baltic country. I'm just a law school student, not a historian or something else and was asking to myself if you could help me with some topics. Unfortunately, those pages can be found only on the Italian Wikipedia and the language could be a great issue (but a lot of times they're translations from the English/German wiki). This is a little bit said, because currently I'm struggling to improve "[Crusade" in order to made it a featured topic. Things didn't go well with "Jogaila" and "History of Lithuania (1219-95)" (look for the Italian version) and I firmly hope that you may help me to improve the status of the topic I mentioned. May you help me somehow? Best of luck! -X3SNW8 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@X3SNW8: Thank you for your kind words about my home country! First of all, there is a big problem that one user from Belarus keep attacking the Lithuanian topics. He insert innacurate flag, coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania globally: see this edit at Italian Wikipedia and French Wikipedia. The authentic colors of the Coat of arms of Lithuania is with azure (blue) color: this. If you could help to protect the Italian and French Wikis from this user's disruptive editing - then it would be great. If you need some kind of help about Lithuania from me, I can certainly help you. What issues are you facing and how exactly can I help you? -- Pofka (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: I could use some help on the revision of the Italian version of the Lithuanian crusade, maybe there are wrong or missing informations that you can fix/add. Anyway, I pinged you in the discussion about the banner of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Italian version). Please, as soon as you can join it.😊 -X3SNW8 (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@X3SNW8: I am using translator in order to communicate in Italian. :) In reality, I know only a few Italian words. I love Italy and its language, but it is too complex to learn. :) Consequently, I cannot contribute by writing articles in Italian, but I can certainly help you if you have any questions. Here is reliable Lithuanian language source about Jogaila: LINK (from Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia). Try using google translate for this text and if something won't be fluent, then I can help you to translate it. /// Now about the CoA of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: user Лобачев Владимир is from Russia and I think you know very well what type of "peaceful" relations are between Lithuania and Russia, therefore he attack Lithuanian topics with inaccurate statements (he is also using online translator). If he will continue such disruptive editing, please initiate processes against him at the Italian Wikipedia for his disruptive editing / edit warring. The real colors of the coat of arms of Lithuania are with blue color, not plain white like in an alternative National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia. The same user attempted to push an identical lie at English Wikipedia and did not succeeded. See real colors at: Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. -- Pofka (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@X3SNW8: Here is an excellent, extensive Lithuanian source with 696 pages in English language if you are interested in the history of Lithuania: link. It should certainly help you to improve articles. :) -- Pofka (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will try to improve the "History of Lithuania" page, because the Italian version surely need an upgrade. I'll keep an eye on the English version, because it looks very well done. By the way, I knew this book that you sent to me: it was helpful in a lot of pages (i.e. some Grand dukes, historical events, monuments and so on). If this is the full version (on Google Books you can read only few pages), you made me a happy guy. :) -X3SNW8 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@X3SNW8: Yes, this is the full version and it was uploaded to the official website of Vilnius Academy of Arts, which originally published it with sponsorship of Research Council of Lithuania, therefore it is an excellent URL to insert as a reference in articles. This book of Stephen Christopher Rowell, published by Cambridge University Press, is also excellent: link. -- Pofka (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 😊 there are a lot of excellent books related to the history of Lithuania and the one made by Rowell is absolutely a good choice. -X3SNW8 (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Call for WikiNEM

Hi Pofka!

This is a request to do Wikimedia Northern Europe 2021 this autumn.

The proposal is two days, Friday and Saturday, for an event where we put together a program together. There are many projects and collaboration opportunities that we can share with each other. Proposed dates are: Friday and Saturday 5th–6th November 2021 Suggestions and program can be decided together – perhaps focus on some project that involves all participants and work together.

We have marked the site WikiNEM 2021 for a first draft. The next step is to see if enough people are interested and want to carry out the event this year. If this sounds interesting and you want to join in, let us know so we can set up some suggestions for the next meeting and plan some more.

Sincerely, Wikimedia Sweden. Best regards Tore / Wikimedia Sverige. Tore Danielsson (WMSE) (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbE

Hi Pofka, I am not very experienced in the area, but I'm fairly sure there are couple items in your Arbitration Enforcement filing that need to be tweaked. As you'll see in previous requests, the item "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should provide a link to the relevant arbitration case (Eastern Europe, presumably). Likewise, the item "If discretionary sanctions are requested..." should link to evidence that the users are formally "aware" of discretionary sanctions in the area. KL is certainly aware, due to this alert in April (diff). I am not sure about Hugo; no alerts, they've never given out an alert, and they haven't participated in any ArbE in the topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I added case: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia which resulted in RfC and was solved with WP:CONS in RfC, but some users still refuses to accept the decision they previously opposed in the discussions. As far as I know, Hugo.arg did not received any DS alerts in his talk page, however article Pahonia itself is under the discretionary sanctions, so both of them violates WP:CONS and DS (see: statement by an admin). -- Pofka (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand about the RFC, but ArbE is for enforcing arbitration cases specifically, not any other forms of consensus. We’ll see what happens with Hugo’s awareness, but I’d say the case on him is on rocky ground. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I believe their disruptive actions violates discretionary sanctions, presented by the Arbitration committee, therefore the committee should enforce such users. -- Pofka (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks. I've warned you against calling good faith edits "vandalism" (WP:NOTVAND) so many times, but those warnings are obviously not working. At this point, I'm not sure what else to do to make you absorb this imperative, save this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: In this edit he removed information how the Lithuanian coat of arms appeared on the Hungarian King's seal which is important because it received wings of a hussar. Such content was single-handedly removed. Also, some valuable references were removed. Please check changes in the last two paragraphs (yellow). That's what I meant. I believe that removal of quality content without discussion qualifies as WP:VANDALISM. Some of his modifications certainly might be accepted, but some of it is a removal without a valid reason. -- Pofka (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: @GizzyCatBella: I had in mind this text which was totally removed by him when describing WP:VANDALISM:

"The history between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Lithuanian [[Jagiellonian dynasty]] and the [[Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)|Kingdom of Hungary]] and [[Croatia in personal union with Hungary|Kingdom of Croatia]] is closely related as [[Władysław III Jagiellon]], the eldest son of [[Władysław II Jagiełło]] and his Lithuanian wife [[Sophia of Halshany]], was crowned as the [[King of Hungary]] and [[King of Croatia]] on 15 May 1440 in [[Visegrád]], moreover, following his father's death, he also inherited the title of the Supreme Duke ({{Lang|la|Supremus Dux}}) of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, held it in 1434–1444 and presented himself with it, as such share of powers was agreed in the [[Union of Horodło]] of 1413 between his father and Grand Duke [[Vytautas the Great]]. Furthermore, the Royal Seal of Władysław III Jagiellon includes a Lithuanian {{Lang|lt|Vytis}} (''{{lang|pl|Pogonia}}'') with the wings of a [[hussar]] laid out above the [[coat of arms of Hungary]] and alongside the [[coat of arms of Poland|Polish Eagle]] (1).

-- Pofka (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit summary marked - vandalism

Pofka, seriously, you have to be careful. Here[2] you just referred to edits of one contributor in good standing as reverting vandalism. Avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia. In that case they did not. Please don’t get yourself in trouble over something like this. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, too late. I just noticed the 24h block above. Just, please remember about such things going forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: He removed information how the Lithuanian coat of arms appeared on the Hungarian King's seal. That's a removal of content with an aim to harm the article and Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, but how do you know if they meant to vandalize Wikipedia? One can’t use the word "vandalism" as a justification for their reverts. Do you see how quickly you were blocked without nobody even reporting you? Well, I can see that the blocking administrator wasn't too harsh on you. That's good. I hope this is going to be a helpful lesson for the future. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Please check quote I provided. I had in mind such removal. Not the entire edit of his. -- Pofka (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, yes, in that case, you probably should have reverted but WHY for Christ's sake WP:VANDALISM edit summary? Their edits were not vandalism, not even close 1 inch to it. That's the whole issue here and that's why the block. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: He removed quality content which was added by myself, so I believed it qualifies as vandalism. Why remove quality text single-handedly? That's a really malicious activity. Now I got blocked because he removed quality content I contributed? With all due respect, but I'm kind of lost in this case. How else I should have qualified such removal of a quality content? -- Pofka (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, okay, let's demonstrate something here. How would you feel if the user you reverted came back to that article right now and reverted you with an edit summary "Reverting WP:VANDALISM by Pofka" How would you feel? I guess not that great, eh? Because it sucks and that would be a personal attack on you. Do you understand? If the mentioned user kept erasing entire pages replacing content with pornographic material then, yes. You could use the term "vandalism" but not for something like that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Next time say - "Reverting, in my opinion, unjustified removal of sourced content" for example - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Well, in this case the difference between his actions and mine was that I contributed a quality text and he totally removed it. So his another revert would be another removal of quality content I added? It was not a content dispute. It was a removal of a well-referenced text and his summary said that "I removed some unnecessary parts". You also said that I had the right to revert (having in mind quote I provided). -- Pofka (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, just don’t use WP:VANDALISM in regards to other users edits unless they delete an entire page replacing it with --> "my brother is a great horn spoon and a dick". Okay? Then all will be fine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Ahh, well, I thought that vandalism can mean smaller scale of damage like in real life as well (e.g. graffiti on a beautifully painted wall). In this case, it seems that in Wikipedia only total destruction of a building (article) qualifies as vandalism. -- Pofka (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh Gosh.. Pofka.. there is more here I just noticed - [3] So there you accused an editor in good standing of:

• belonging to the anti-Lithuanian nationalistic gang
• being a vandal
• not being reliable and not deserving extended-level rights

Pofka, seriously, you should thank EC_I for being kind to you and you should try really hard to learn from this episode otherwise you will get yourself in trouble very quickly. I don’t want to see that happen. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: It is a really long story. There are reasons why articles Coat of arms of Lithuania and Pahonia are extended-protected. They really suffered from attacks quite recently. You are not familiar with his red-hot case, but El C witnessed all that brutal edit warring in the past. I was really disappointed when I saw that yet another user is removing content from this article. Check edit history from 9 August 2021 and earlier and you will understand a bit why I got so disappointed when I saw identical things happening in this article two months later. About nationalism, you should check article Litvinism and you will understand why such things are happening in this article. Long story short: some Belarusians (Litvinists) claim that Lithuania is not Lithuania. Even some Poles also support Litvinism. Judging from your username, you are probably from Canada because of the leaf. So imagine if residents from neighboring country would claim that Canada is not Canada and that actually Canada history belongs to the United Kingdom (not very accurate example because Canada's history is quite modern and not so much is related with medieval period If I'm right?). That would be similar to Litvinism. -- Pofka (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Pofka, but there are certain things you just can't say without violating Wikipedia rules. No matter how much you are right. You know what? Why don't you use this 24h break to study WP:GF, WP:NPA and WP:VD. If you learn and follow these policies I'm sure you will be okay going forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I was peacefully editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and never received any sanctions in the past, but there is some kind of new large wave of Litvinists attacks on the Lithuanian identity going on here. Article Litvinism perfectly summarizes the fact that Litvinists have a strong anti-Lithuanian point of view and they want to rewrite history of my beloved home country. -- Pofka (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ten years without any problems, why such fundamental slips now? Oh well, I guess we are only humans. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a slip. It's been a pattern for a while now. But the warning stage is over now, since as mentioned, it has proven ineffective. El_C 21:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: @GizzyCatBella: User Marcelus continues to remove quality content in article Coat of arms of Lithuania (1, 2). Will he be finally stopped and blocked for what he is currently doing? In these edits he removed facts published by the Oxford University Press and Lithuanian National Museum of Art. How such actions qualifies as good faith edits? -- Pofka (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hope you are doing well.

GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Another hopefully useful hint

Regarding this -->[4]

• Struck what should have never been there[5]:

There is a content dispute caused by user Korwinski who attempts to prove that the name of Grand Duchy of Lithuania at some point of its history was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. He is basing his point of view exclusively on sources published when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania already did not existed (the earliest source he provided is from 1854, while the state was wiped out in 1795 following the Third Partition of the Commonwealth).

Such triple name is not supported by Lithuanian sources (e.g. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia) or top-class international sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (see provided articles). There are many authentic old maps of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (dating before 1795) and not a single of them uses a triple name. It is either Grand Duchy of Lithuania or simply Lithuania. Moreover, the Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth was only proposed, but never actually existed. There is a Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (pay attention: TWO nations) which proves that there was nothing else in the state's names than Lithuania and Poland that later together formed the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The rulers of Poland, Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth held other royal titles as well, but these were smaller duchies (e.g. Duchy of Prussia, Duchy of Masovia) which were part of Lithuania or Poland and their names were not included into the state's names (e.g. see: this authentic document from 1791 which includes list of the royal titles).

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Etymology, however at the end of this discussion user Korwinski issued a threat (his statement) that he will wage a revert warring if his obviously incorrect statements will not be included into the article, so an administrators intervention in this content dispute is a must as I don't want to be part of any edit warring.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This content dispute requires a decision whenever information about this triple name should be included into the article text or not.

In order to avoid any false modern interpretations and ensure WP:NPOV, I suggest to discuss by only including sources published before 1795 as this is about name of a state, not about some kind of niche thing. However, user Korwinski refuses to provide any sources from before 1795 and wants to rewrite history based on interpretations in later/modern sources.

Please pay attention to such things - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I am really getting tired of these constant false arguments that Lithuania is not Lithuania. Do editors from other countries also face such disputes? I patiently once again explained that these are royal titles, not name of a state (HERE). -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe once-mighty Lithuania is an unusual case because of its history as part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth for centuries. Please take care of your general conduct, be understanding and try to learn other editors' viewpoints. That's all I can say at the moment. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Here is another extensive explanation by me (mine edit). Since you seem to participate in these disputes, I believe it is useful. :) It might seem crazy how a state of Lithuania which currently has less than 3 million inhabitants annexed and ruled the present-day lands of Belarus (9.3 million), Ukraine (41 million) and part of Russia (e.g. Smolensk). Well the arguments are simple: 1) the populations everywhere were smaller; 2) united Lithuanians were a serious danger for separate Ruthenian principalities (see list of them at Template:East Slavic principalities) when the centralized state of the Kievan Rus' was destroyed during the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (before that the Lithuanians were paying tribute to the Kievan Rus'); 3) the Ruthenians (together with Lithuanians, Poles, etc.) were also fighting in favor of Lithuania/Commonwealth against other Ruthenians/Muscovians (e.g. Siege of Smolensk (1609–1611), Siege of Smolensk (1632–1633)); 4) many Lithuanians were killed fighting for their identity (e.g. see: January Uprising, November Uprising; Mikhail Muravyov-Vilensky nicknamed as the "hangman of Vilnius"). These are extraordinary accomplishments of the ethnic Lithuanian Gediminids (and Jagiellonians, a cadet branch of the Gediminids). -- Pofka (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jurevičius

Hi Pofka, about a year ago I put a request on Talk:Jurevičius (and also at Talk:Lithuanian language asking for somebody to give information on the pronunciation of the name Jurevičius. Those of us who don't know Lithuanian can only guess. I suspect there will be many other articles on Wikipedian people and places where the same help would be useful. If you are not sure how to do it, you will find the necessary tools at Help:IPA/Lithuanian. But your Lithuanian language competence is the most important thing. I would be very grateful if you can handle this. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: Č sounds like CH, so it pronounces as Jurevichius. Š sounds like SH, so Šarūnas is pronounced as Sharunas (Ū basically is long U). I'm not philologist myself, so it is quite confusing topic for me to convert these names and surnames into text dedicated for pronunciation. -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, well thanks for that information anyway. To be honest, though, IPA is not hard to learn, for a language you already speak, and if nobody else here is doing that, you could do us a great service with it. Just a thought. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vladas Knasius Basketball School logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

Hi Pofka. I have had a look at the first two references for Trial of Neumann and Sass via Google translate and found almost the whole of the first reference repeated almost unchanged in the article. I started to check reference two, marked © 2019 Atvira Klaipėda, and found a chunk of that too. As you were informed previously, this is not allowed by WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Translation.

Diannaa, I see that you have advised Pofka previously. Do you think it would be possible to remove the copyvio, which looks like at least half the article, or should it be deleted and rewritten from scratch? TSventon (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Sources for this trial are still very scarce. I haven't found any comprehensive English sources about it and all we have are a few Lithuanian sources which step-by-step presents facts about the trial. The article was based on multiple sources and probably it is possible to expand and diversify it even further using THIS SOURCE. So the article is not a copy-paste/translation and involves creative work. I will likely improve it even further using two Ingrida's sources in the near future. -- Pofka (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The overlap between the Google translation and the first two sources is high - especially the first one, where the overlap is 87% according to Earwig's tool. I am listing the article at WP:CP, which gives you a minimum of one week to clean it. See below.— Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I didn't realise that Earwig would work on a foreign language page. TSventon (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't; I had to run it through a translator and paste the results into another document.— Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa, please can you explain what you did so I can try it? It sounds quicker than what I did and I didn't get a percentage. TSventon (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Trial of Neumann and Sass

Hello Pofka! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Trial of Neumann and Sass, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from translations of https://www.mle.lt/straipsniai/neumanno-sasso-byla, https://www.atviraklaipeda.lt/2019/12/23/noimano-zaso-byla-mazasis-niurnbergas/, and possibly other sources used in the article, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Trial of Neumann and Sass, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I believe that this one was treated way too harsh. This is a trial and it has many things which are simply irreplaceable by other words (e.g. participants of the trial, evidence which was found, convicts, specific actions performed on specific dates, etc.). The article of MLE.lt simply followed the steps of the trial, so it was likely based on court's documents in some kind of archive and these documents certainly are not copyrighted. Based on such treatment, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation rule would be violated every time somebody would mention participants of a trial, sentences, etc. because such lines of texts are constantly published in mass media before articles in Wikipedia are created.

I honestly do not understand how is it possible to paraphrase such factual sentences as "Lithuanian law enforcement authorities prosecuted 126 people of which 34 were from the CSA and 92 were from the SOVOG.", "At the end of July 1934, an in-depth interrogation was completed, containing 32 volumes of material, and the indictment was published in a book of 528 pages.", "About half of the defendants were young people aged 18-26, commanders and members of the strike squads.", "The defendants denied their guilt, explaining that the Nazi parties were legal and had no secret aims.". We can make them different only by changing names and numbers into incorrect ones - then they will have different meaning from the referenced article. There are many, many more of such examples which clearly are based on statements in court's documents.

Mass sources cannot copyright court's documents. That is close to a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. -- Pofka (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There's just about always ways to re-write content in your own words. The overlap is 87%, that is far too much to be acceptable and requiring its removal/reworking is not "way too harsh" in my opinion, as it's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy to leave it in. Sorry.

If you are having trouble meeting our standard, here is some advice that might help you: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (other than things like names of schools, names of organizations, alphabetical or chronological lists, etc). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation rule states that "simple statement of fact (...) should be acceptable". I believe that the quoted sentences above simply are facts (e.g. "Lithuanian law enforcement authorities prosecuted 126 people of which 34 were from the CSA and 92 were from the SOVOG."). They do not include figurative expressions (e.g. I would agree that it would be a violation if the same sentence would be something like this: "The prosecuted 126 people sadly looked at the judge with long, gray beard and long moustache when he slowly, but loudly read names of the convicted members of the CSA and SOVOG, who at the time were afraid about their doubtful future and hardly controlled their involuntary tremble"). The absolute majority of MLE.lt's article content are facts, not sentences with figurative expressions, so naturally facts will overlap with the same facts in other source. -- Pofka (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with you. There's just about always ways to re-write content in your own words. For example "Lithuanian law enforcement authorities prosecuted 126 people of which 34 were from the CSA and 92 were from the SOVOG" could be paraphrased as "34 members of the CSA and 92 members of the SOVOG were brought to trial in 1935." — Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I rewritten the part based on a reference from AtviraKlaipeda.lt. Could you check using the same tools if now the modified text satisfies the copyright requirements? -- Pofka (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am still seeing the same amount of overlap - 87%. Check using Earwig's tool here— Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Pofka said they rewrote the part based on a reference from AtviraKlaipeda.lt, i.e. reference 2 before the article was tagged for copyvio. Could you check that reference with Earwig's tool? TSventon (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Pinging. @Diannaa: TSventon (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I checked the wrong one. Sorry. The new version is much better. I have done some additional fixes.— Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: @TSventon: I did my best to remake the remaining part. Please check if it is solved. -- Pofka (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you pasted some new material into the article without removing any of the copyright-violating material copied from https://www.mle.lt/straipsniai/neumanno-sasso-byla. That makes it pretty impossible to check. It will a lot easier if you could follow the instuctions provided above: you are supposed to paste your rewrite into Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass/Temp. The portion that needs work is from the top of the {{Copyvio/core}} template to the bottom of the article. So please undo your edit to the article and follow the instructions. Then, once I am satisfied that the rewrite is ready, I will move it into position in the article. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I moved the rewritten text into Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass/Temp. -- Pofka (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it right now.— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There's still a lot of overlap. Please use this Earwig report to make further alterations everywhere that there's similar prose. Names of organizations or places or people of course do not need to be altered. Please let me know when you are ready for me to check your work.— Diannaa (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I lowered the percentage to 39.4% and now it shines in green color. Please pay attention that some similarities raises from job positions (e.g. "the First Colonel of the Lithuanian Armed Forces", "Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs"), so it simply cannot be modified, but these are important explanations. Without these the percentage would be ~30%. -- Pofka (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We really can't go by Earwig's percentage or what color it chooses to use. I will have to go over each bit of overlapping text and check. I will get to this soon.— Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That one is done. Please stand by while I check the other sources.— Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything is done now.— Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, many thanks for all your work on fixing this article. TSventon (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Great, finally this issue is solved. Thanks for your help. Earwig's tool is really useful to identify problematic sentences/phrases. -- Pofka (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lithuanian People's Army

On 15 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian People's Army, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that following Soviet occupation in 1940, the Lithuanian Armed Forces were transformed into the Lithuanian People's Army, dropped all use of Lithuanian national symbols and faced repression? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lithuanian People's Army. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lithuanian People's Army), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Trial of Neumann and Sass

Hello! Your submission of Trial of Neumann and Sass at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TSventon (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Marcelus (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• @User:Pofka - please promise there not to discuss editors anymore but content. (this is not looking good) - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: He was ignoring the ongoing discussion and performing the Polonization. Maybe I should have reported him first for that. -- Pofka (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

Editing or discussing anything to do with Poland or Lithuania, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per a March 14 ANI report (permalink). While the long term disruption in the topic area by you does ebb and flow, I think we've now reached critical mass. You simply do not appear to be willing or able to engage the topic area dispassionately. I'm sorry, but one way or another, the WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct needs to stop.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)