User talk:Pofka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lithuania[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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[edit]

⚠

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[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, 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[edit]

Information.svg

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[edit]

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)
Lithuania gallery.png
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)

Orphaned non-free image File:FIBA Americas logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FIBA Americas 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. Pbroks13 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)