Talk:Merkinė

message: I think that these should both be on the right. Having one on the left and one on the right, make the article look "weird" IMHO Athletes Foot 13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, it's a matter or personal preference, I believe. --Lysytalk 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Lysy, and the reason here? If you'd be so kind. Dr. Dan 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about queen Bona Sforza hill castle ? Or Władysław IV Vasa stayed and died here ? --Lysytalk 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon Lysy, these are the reasons to put the Polish toponym in the lead of this town? At least try to be shamelessly honest about it, and tell us the reason is the same reason as why a dog can groom itself. Answer: Because it can! Bona Sforza has been dead 499 years, her association with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has no more to do with Poland, than it has to do with Lithuania (her husband and son were rulers of both entities that comprised it). It's like telling us we should put the Polish toponym (Mediolan) in the lead for Milan, since Bona came from Milano. As for Wladziu IV Vasa, maybe we should put the Polish toponym Paryż for Paris, since Henry III of France, died there (actually a suburb of Parigi). Sure Lysy, sure! "Bona Sforza Hill Castle" would be a really good "historical" reason to add the Polish toponym in the lead of this article. Sorry, out it goes! As I've told you, and told you, Not in the Lead. Any relevant or important information can and should go into the article. but do try to stay away from trivia, if you possibly can! Dr. Dan 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, what about Paryż and Mediolan? Going to put them in their respective leads too po Polsku? Please don't give me the he made a deletion without explanation baloney in the future. And please do not portray yourself as the "neutral" Polish editor with the expertise that the Lithuanians lack, concerning Lithuania, it's history and it's geography. And regarding my lack of creditials as a historian, all I can say to your courteous comment, is I hope you know what part of the dog can groom itself, because it can. Dr. Dan 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Believe me, I may have done my share of trolling when it comes right down to it, but when it come to the Neutral, Un-biased, Polish "Expert" on Lithuanian matters, troll is an understatement, concerning you. As stated repeatedly by myself and others, what you call "historic" names, are merely Polish toponyms of Lithuanian geographical entities. Let my people go, you'll feel better. As to your observation regarding, adding some content to wikipedia, let me say that beside working twelve hours days with psychiatric patients (a large percentage being of your own ethnicity), I would like to find time to add more content. Unfortunately I got sucked into a vortex of correcting mendacity that I spend absolutely too much time trying to eliminate. There was a time not too long ago, that any false and biased information from your colleagues could be added and go unchallenged in WP. Fortunately this trend has been reversed and will continue to go the way of Elżbieta Rakuszanka on English WP.. Dr. Dan 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to its enemies, Poland ceased to exist from 1795 to 1918. That is not my interpretation of Poland, nor the Polish nation, nor the Polish people. You know this and I know this, why pretend? Somehow lost in this equation was the Polish POV that Lithuania somehow did cease to exist, somewhere down "some dirt road". You know this and I know this, why pretend? Dr. Dan 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Poland, Lithuania never ceased to exist, inspite of the fact that so many Lithuanians spoke fluent German, Polish, Russian, and their native tongue as well. But ultra-Nationalists seized on this in their census taking, and "staged" plebiscites, and other aggressions to attempt to justify their "political machinations", by claiming that these Lithuanians were German or Polish. There is no question that some, in their materialistic interests went along with this game (knew quite a few in Wroclaw, who pod czterymi oczami, sheepishly acknowledged this fact). And that was long after 1918. I especially love the non-existant Cabal's, distinction between Polish Jews when it suits their purposes, versus Lithuanian Jews ( or other non-Polish Jews), who might mess up their little game here on WP. You know, Polish Jews, when it's convenient, Jews (like Lithuanian Jews in Vilnius), when its not. Enough of the sermon, what's necessary is to stop the provocations of putting the Polish toponyms of Lithuanian geographical entities in the Leads, of articles and stubs of villages and hamlets of 300 people that are dramatically distant from the Polish border and have nothing to do with Poland (ever, let alone since 1795, if ever). And to stop this nonsense that a "hill" named after a Queen from Italy, who ruled as a consort 500 years ago in the PLC would be a sufficient "historical" reason to add a Polish toponym in WP in the LEAD of an article. Once this is agreed upon, we can then begin to add content and work in some kind of concerted way to make WP better. Dr. Dan 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your'e right about the racism. Lithuanian Pole is "oxymoronic". I prefer the reality of calling such citizens, Poles who live in Lithuania or conversely, Lithuanians who live in Poland. Perhaps someday you'll re-read your remarks (and those of your friends) regarding Lithuania, and understand why Miedzymorze didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding after 1918. It might also explain why "diplomatic relations" with all of Poland's bordering neighbors, were strained at some point or another between the World Wars. In fact, since these issues were usually over "territorial" questions, and "minority" questions, the racism issue, seemed to emminate out of Warsaw rather than the other way around. Finally Poland's largest minority, it's Jewish community, didn't have much good to say in the way of their treatment in the Second Republic. And I'm not talking exclusively about Shamir's opinion. Dr. Dan 14:43, 2 January 2007
I'm afraid I can only agree with you on treatment of the national minorities in the Second Republic. Hardly an excuse but increased level of nationalism is typical for young independencies and sadly Poland was no exception here. --Lysytalk 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Polish History Lessons?

message: Perhaps Jewish history merge with rest and make general History section? M.K. (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: The information is given a completely undue weight and is wholly irrelevant in the article of a town. It describes an obscure non-notable event with no lasting importance in great detail. The town has 650+ years of history and you zoom in on some skirmish. There was a ton of all kinds of different incidents all over the Polish-Lithuanian border. Some of the more notable ones might be incorporated into articles like Polish-Lithuanian War or Polish-Lithuanian relations or Vilnius Region or briefly mentioned in location articles. Like Gettysburg, Pennsylvania does not elaborate on the Gettysburg Address or Battle of Gettysburg or Kielce on the Kielce pogrom -- and these are clearly notable historical events. Renata (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish-Lithuanian incident