Talk:Aukštieji Paneriai

message: I've wrote this message to another Talk, but here it is again:
:There was a very nice discusion over similar topic (I think Polich-German naming) and I think they have reached agreement about that:
::In English WP english naming (englisized current names) should be used for all cities regardless historical period (eg. Vilnius will always be Vilnius (not Wilno or Vilna), and Gdansk (not Danzig), and Kaunas (not Kowno) and etc.)
:The same rule applies to all namings, ex. rivers, lakes, regions, mountains and etc.
:"Namings of other languages and/or periods can be (and must be, in case of dispute) mentioned in main describing article
I dont want to be as Zivi, so I think we should decide what naming convention should we use and use it strictly.
eLNuko 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Namings

message: What is the source of it? Xx236 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? Czieslaw Michalski. Dr. Dan 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that person. Appears reliable. Although we should note he doesn't clearly states the nationality of the POWs, only mentions them in the paragraph about the Polish victims. I did further digging and I found another source (unfortunatly it looks least reliable of all our sources so far - i.e. least likely to be peer reviewed) with the number of 7500 POWs, but it claims they are Soviet - I have adjusted the text accordingly (and it makes some sense, Germans didn't actually shoot Polish POWs like that often (they preffered the POW camps for regular soldiers), not to mention the data (1941) is also telling). Still, more sources on that would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better sources and research (not a newspaper article or magazine) would be more credible, and third a party source would be even more reliable, but P.P knows that...--Lokyz 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Piotrowski's reliability was discussed here [mediation], and other Polish sources like these need to be scrutinized. So I suggest finding a third party source, as per Yannismarou's suggestion - although, removing info the way Piotrus did is not recommended to any party, because it's POV pushing.--Lokyz 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No serious arguments against reliablity of Piotrowski were presented. Feel free to 'examine' the reliablity of sources presented here by listing in detail what you find dubious or unreliable about them - other, of course, then them being Polish. On the other hand, plenty of arguments against reliability of Vilnija revalations were presented. If you continue to put Western academics on the same level as local hate group propaganda, don't expect others to take your comments or edits seriously.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have stated how you are dissapointed with OT discussions, yet you are bringing up Vilnija here. It's about as relevant as bringing up the Kielce pogrom. I'm not going to bring up the Jedwabne massacre for the same reason that it would be OT here, even though the events being debated are more related than Vilnija. Dr. Dan 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dan, it is Lokyz who brought up the removed (Vilnija) referenes issue. And yes, I agree that it is OT issue which bears little relevance here - alas, ask Lokyz, not me, why he perefers to bring OT issues instead of discussing the matter at hand.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I'm more concerned with the source you provided that does not confirm your objections to my disputing the assertion regarding 7,500 Polish POWs being killed here. In fact it seems to confirm this. BTW, the only reference to Vilnija on this talk page is from you.  Dr. Dan 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I'm more concerned with your denials that Poles and Russians died in that massacre. As for the 7500 POWs, I don't see the problem: the article no longer claims they were Polish but uses a source which claim they were Soviet. Unless you have any source to dispute that, the matter is closed. As for Vilnija, again, it was Lokyz who brought up the question of my removal of references, and the only case that comes to mind in our related discussions is my objectiosn to using Vilnija as a reliable reference.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad you can't understand the problem. Hopefully it's not a language issue. The operative words regarding my edits were mostly and Polish POWS. The victims were mostly Jews, and the POWS were not Polish POWS. These are not denials, but facts of the matter. As for the claim of them being Polish, the article no longer claims they were Polish POWS , is not thanks to you, but to me. Your original attempt to interject the magazine article as a "source" for Xx236's query about the 7,500 Polish POWS was untrue and innaccurate. The problem is when these attempts to use what resembles the Big Lie technique are left unchallenged, people unaware of the facts are left, to wonder whether or not they are true. I'll assume good faith and let it go as a semantical or language issue, rather than a deliberate attempt to misinform. Although this should now be clearer to all concerned, I have little expectation for any apologies or agreement that I am correct. Dr. Dan 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dan, I am sorry to brush you with reality, alas, your claims are simply not true. That the article on longer claims that the POWs were Polish is due to efforts of Xx236 who raised this question above, and myself finding the relevant source(s) and correcting that in the article. Your 'contributions' to the article were primarily based on removing data from it without any references to back it up. I am still waiting to hear why you decied to remove information about Polish and Russian victims from the lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the word mostly. Dr. Dan 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  including 7,500 Polish POWs  shot in 1941 

message: I suggest to study some improvements by Dr. Dan, eg. the removal of the information about non-Jewish victims. I believe that such important changes should be discussed here before, not imposed. Xx236 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add any referenced info--Lokyz 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lokyz. 7,500 Polish POWS killed here? A reference to this "fact" needs to be provided or an immediate retraction is in order, and an apology for this Big Lie needs to be made. Even Davies doesn't cross that kind of a line. And Xx236, please do not diminish the horrors of the Jewish victims, by trying to divert attention to non-Jewish victims that are just propaganda. 7,500 Polish POWS were not killed here, and this nonsense only gives ammunition to those who would deny true examples of Polish POWS who were murdered while in captivity. And now for your references?  Dr. Dan 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please do not involve me into disputable things  - I did not state anything, i did not remove anything. Dr.Dan there are tags for unreferenced statements  or  - please do not remove things you do not like, instead tag them for referencing. --Lokyz 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks to you were only for asking for references, nothing else. Dr. Dan 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Soviet is the term used in text, and I believe it is better?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some improvements 

message: Do to the expansion of the events concerning this tragedy, it has transcended the scope of the geographical entity of Paneriai. It is unfair to the inhabitants of this town to make this event its end all, and be all. The people currently living there do not have to make these events the central focus of their lives, any more than the current residents of Kielce need to focus on the Kielce pogrom as the major event of their lives. In the former case, the inhabitants were under a brutal occupation, in a brutal war, with no oportunity to militarily oppose it. Let these events be recounted in a specific article dealing primarily with them. The article about the town can have the appropriate links to find them. Dr. Dan 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I agree that this deserves a separate article, and only a summary section should be left here. It's a shame that nobody had found a time to work on this article in the context of it's general history or even more important, architecture, administration, and other elements one would usually expect to find in an article about a quarter. That leaves the question of how should the new article be called.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Using the above criteria, and although I must say "google hits" are not my favorite method of measuring the basis of naming an article, the presenter of these facts ( of the % of google hits), shows "Paneriai massacre" to outnumber "Ponary massacre". Then he names the article Ponary (Poonary {sic})  massacre anyway. Since the article is not named Ponary+Holocaust, is this logical? Go figure. Dr. Dan 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Google Print is a much serious comparison, and it shows that Ponary is the proper name. And M.K, I am sorry, if you or other editors don't have time or will to edit Wikipedia, don't criticize those who do.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: According to the last issue of Gazeta Polska IPN refused to accuse Lithuanian executioners of Ponary. Families of many victims appealed. Xx236 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Families of the victims against the executioners 

message: As this articles biggest part is about killings, which presented not in NOPV way, for argumentation see: Talk:Ponary_massacre. M.K. 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct tag for such a case is 'expand, not 'npov'. I suggest on your talk page alraedy that you should familiarize yourself with what WP:NPOV is. To be clear: article which concentrate on one aspect but should concentrate on many is not POVed, only underdeveloped.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not balanced

message: The editor Radeksz likes to dispense advice, and inform anyone that he has a dispute with what Wiki policy is all about. At this talk page we are asked ..."How about at least discussing it first before reverting? radek ..." Unfortunately Radeksz doesn't like to heed his own advice. A day or two ago he blindly reverted my latest edit at the Lithuanization article. It concerned the Selonians, Jotvingians, Nadruvians, and Curonians. Rather than asking me to come up with a citation confirming that these tribes shared cultural, linguistic, and religious affiliations with Lithuanians (and btw, Prussians) which they indisputably did, he chose to blindly revert me. Now really, Radeksz, try to be a little more objective, and even a little more consistent in your approach to subjects that you are involved with. You like to cushion your more controversial edits with some blather about WP:AGF. It's my opinion that you are becoming more and more biased in your editing and are bordering on disrupting the project. Once again, you might want to back off and spend your talents improving the WP project rather than wasting everybody's time with a lot of nonsense. If this article has a link to Polish Wikipedia (it does) our readers are one click away from getting the "indispensable" information as to what the Polish language geographical toponym is for this suburb of Lithuania's capital is. Meanwhile the pertinent information considering the crimes committed here, remains here. Nothing wrong with that. It's becoming obvious that your recent activities concerning Lithuanian related articles have an agenda that is more questionable than your claims that your are abiding by Wiki policies. Hits at Gbooks? Yeah, right. That's what this is all about. You've got to be joking. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very politely worded personal attack (despite what some think politeness and personal attacks are not mutually exclusive) - accusing me of not contributing to the project when in fact I have edited and created numerous articles, accusing me of being disruptive where in fact I always try to engage in talk and discussion on controversial topics. I note that my concerns about following Wiki policy on this article are completely ignored and Dr. Dan is once again just trying to change the subject.radek (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Also I have no "dispute with what Wiki policy is all about" - again! What are you talking about! I actually think that Wiki policy is actually pretty good and I am only trying to make sure it is being followed here and on other articles. Wiki policy is fine, it's the people who break it or ignore it (like Dr. Dan and Lokyz) that are the trouble.radek (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about personal attacks you've just gave a classic example . An apology would be appropriate.--Lokyz (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, that's not a personal attack. I'm asking you to elaborate your statement because I don't understand what you are saying (honestly, I don't).radek (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No, Radeksz, it's not about Wiki policy, nor were my remarks a personal attack. Thanks for acknowledging my attempts to be polite. Sometimes you do try one's patience. First question: did you tell Lokyz .... "How about at least discussing it first before reverting?..."? Second question: Did you "blindly revert me at the Lithuanization article. Third question: Were you following Wiki policy when you did that? Fourth question: Would you consider your advice to be consistent and worth following? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan, once again you are trying to derail this discussion from the matter at hand - the inclusion of alternative name in this article, and the relevant Wikipedia policy - to completely irrelevant matters. How about we come back to that. (Yes, No, Yes, Yes).radek (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radeksz, why are my remarks "irrelevant"? How has this discussion been "derailed"?  If you want to wrap yourself around Wiki policies, then you need to adhere to them. On August 2nd you placed an edit summary at this article..."(please at least make an effort to discuss this at talk first rather than blind-reverting)"... I wanted to bring to your attention, the fact that you did precisely just that yourself to a recent edit of mine. I think it's very relevant. In response to your other question, Ponary is not an alternative name for Paneriai in English, it is a foreign language variant. Rzym is not an alternative name for Rome in English, while Kraków is an alternative name for Cracow. That's the difference. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not even a foreign name - it's Polonized Lithuanian name. It's simple Pa-neriai literally means near Neris, a river that in Polish language is called Wilia. Ergo the foreign name should be Powilje or something like that.--Lokyz (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, it is. It's like with Danzig and Gdańsk. --Lysytalk 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you. And Wiki policy says that if at least 10% of the sources use the name it can be included in the article in parentheses after the main name. There's no getting around that.radek (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Lysy, long time since I've had the pleasure. Radeksz, what makes you so certain that Lysy wasn't referring to you? Or to both of us? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice

message: I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a third opinion, even though we already had one over at Birze.radek (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles on the Polish cities of Wrocław, Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Bydgoszcz, Bytom - are you really sure, that Breslaw, Stettin and other cities of the Recovered territories were Polish?--Lokyz (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...??..??Lokyz...what are you talking about?--Jacurek (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm with Jacurek here - I have no idea what you are trying to say.radek (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I understand him quite clearly. But let me help you out. I know that you are of the opinion that Vilnius is, was, and will "eternally" be a Polish city. He's only asking if you think the same of Breslau, Stettin, and the other cities that Stalin was gracious enough to give Poland, and referred to in Communist Poland as the Recovered territories. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I missed this one. I do not think at all that Vilnius is, was, and will "eternally" be a Polish city - where are you getting this nonsense from? Where have I supposedly said this? Seriously, please stop making crap up.radek (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The German names are there in the articles you mentioned, so should pe the Polish in this.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Mike, you are right... but I would like to point out to you that the subject of this discussion has been already switched and now the issue is either user Radeksz regards the city of Vilnius to be eternally a Polish city or not. These words are put into Radeksz mouth...now hopefully we will focus on something else moving away from the issue of Polish names being censored form all Polish Lithuanian related pages. :) Happy editing...:)--Jacurek (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed? Krakow, Gdansk, Lublin, Augustow and all the others on the list are they censored also?--Lokyz (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ..and what you are talking about now??????All the cities you have listed above have their names spelled in other languages...you know what Lokyz.. sorry but I'm really tired of this nonsense and I will stop answering to your posts for a while, bye for now.--Jacurek (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 3O

message: It always strikes me as amazing how many disputes on wikipedia are related to things like what language we list a town's name in.  I have a question: there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here, involving some kind of ethnic conflict.  Furthermore, this appears to be primarily a dispute between editors and not an actual content dispute.  I do not want to fan those flames, but could someone explain - without using words like fascist or genocide or propaganda or anything like that - why we should NOT list an alternate name?  All I've seen so far are arguments in favor of listing the alternate name, based primarily on the rule of 10% of google hits, and arguments against the validity of the google hits.  But that doesn't change the fact that the alternate name exists.  What are the reasons NOT to use this name? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly WHY???????? Perhaps users Lokyz and Dr.Dan who are behind removal of ALL alternative names from ALL articles related to Lithuanian-Polish history would comment on it with something which actually makes sense? :)--Jacurek (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense but that is not a productive answer.  We are not trying to accuse anybody of being racist or crazy.  I am looking for a substantive reason, and if you don't think there is one, I understand that, but let's not make everybody more irritated.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, sorry about that, we just have such a long history of arguing about it that I allowed myself to be a little sarcastic here. Nothing can be said here anymore that it was not said before, just look at the history of Polish-Lithuanian related pages, if you have time of course and I will warn you, you would need a lot of time :). Hours and hours of endless discussions and arguments about such a simple and little thing ... an alternative name of Lithuanian city in Polish language. "Strangely" the issue is always and ONLY in cases of Polish names of Lithuanian cities  which once were Polish or Lithuanian personalities of shared Polish-Lithuanian history  etc... never vise-versa. :) All Polish names are ALWAYS deleted by the above editors. God bless them... and God help me to understand the reasons behind such behavior.--Jacurek (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  and just look how quickly the Polish name will be removed from this article... sometimes by the "strange" Anon who appears from nowhere and goes straight to "work" :) and it does not matter that the town have such a strong Polish connection.. The name will be removed. I can almost guarantee it! :)--Jacurek (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: just look now what will happen after my latest edition and remember, Ponary (Paneriai) where thousands of Poles and Jews were murdered and Vilnius (Wilno) were Polish towns before the Second World War...:)--Jacurek (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SEE!!! I TOLD YOU!! It did not last even an hour before being deleted by the "strange" Anon...:)--Jacurek (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't give up on Wiki Policies. If it will be needed, I'll ask for article protection.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: I'd like to respond to User:Dmz5's reasonable request. You are correct..."there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here". It's important to distinguish the difference between an "alternate" name and a foreign language variant of a locality. Just as États-Unis is not an alternate name for the United states of America, Cracovie is not an alternate name for Cracow. Not in English anyway. Many editors, especially those unfamiliar with the history of these areas might look at this conundrum incredulously and ask themselves what's the big deal. The quite small country of Lithuania having regained its independence after 50 years of dictatorial rule, it's capital being annexed for twenty years, it's independence restored after 123 years of obliteration due to the stupidity of it's partner would of course be sensitive to "neighbors" attempting to reinstate their variants of Lithuanian geographical toponyms. One day it's due to Google hits. On another day it's because it was the "official" language of an entity created 440 years ago (that has long ceased to exist). Each article on Wikipedia has its own story, each story is different. To say, hey this city has alternate names doesn't cut the mustard when not only villages hundred of miles from the Polish border are getting their "alternate" names added, but now neighborhoods need their "alternate" names added. I have long suggested that easiest solution to this dilemma is to write an article on Wikipedia in the foreign language about the subject and create a link to it. In that way we won't have to add the Hungarian language variant of Krakkó to Cracow. And Dmz5, another issue is whether these "alternate" names belong in the lead or if at all, possibly elsewhere. Placing them in the lead of the article gives them especially undue weight and is irritating. I have also less objection to linking them to some form of disambiguation somewhere in an article if it helps. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr.Dan..let me ask you these questions to start. Is Paneriai (Ponary), a suburb of Vilnius (Wilno), once a Polish City, were thousands of Poles and Jews were murdered during the Holocaust in Ponary massacre, hundreds of miles away from the Polish border? Don't you think that the average user unfamiliar with the history of these areas should have a right to know what this suburb was once called? Is Wikipedia being created to inform people or it is created to get Lithuanian nationalistic message across, because Lithuania regained its independence after 50 years and now should have special privileges on Wikipedia?--Jacurek (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan, what you just said is completely WP:POV, based on your personal beliefs, which are rather irrelevant. I disagree to almost every statement that you made and especially that this is irritating. The Polish names were official names for centuries, even the Russians used them in Cyrillic scripts - the Lithuanian versions became official only in 1918/1939. Why should we erase a history of 600 years? Because Lithuanian feelings? This were the official names of those places and people have the right to now that. Same as we present the Hungarian name of Cluj and ext. This is the history of the place and it should be presented at the top of the article.--Mikej007 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, and what you're saying does not even have an iota of POV? Six hundred years? Six hundred years of what? Of Lithuanian history? Six hundred years of Lithuanians not having Lithuanian names for geographical toponyms in Lithuania? 1918? 1939? You need to do a little research and a little less relying on stories that you heard from your grandparents. I wonder, btw, if you think placing Arabic names for the neighborhoods of Tel Aviv on English WP would be a good project to work on (not cities in Israel themselves mind you, just neighborhoods)? Personally I think it would be undue, as is the case here too. Once again..."there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here". Dr. Dan (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you ready to answer my above questions Dr.Dan, but without changing the subject? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll repeat that États-Unis is not an alternate name for the United States in English, just as Wilno is not an alternate name for Vilnius in English. Varsovie is not an alternate name for Warsaw either. Žvėrynas is a neighborhood in Vilnius (demonstrating how far-fetched and ridiculous this is being taken), Zwierzyniec is not an alternate name used for this neighborhood. Btw, like in my Tel Aviv analogy, now I'm talking about neighborhoods being pursued, not just cities and towns. It's becoming truly surreal. I'll let Dmz comment on how his request has been heeded, not your interpretation of it. As for your "reiteration", that's one way of looking at it. Another way is..."this dispute is unique to Polish names being inserted into Lithuanian articles and in fact their undue reinsertion is enforced by only a few, but dedicated, editors. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every article on every major Polish city has German, Lithuanian, Yiddish or Russian names listed for the convenience of the readers - particularly since these cities have a complex past. But you are claiming some kind of weird exceptionalism to standard Wiki practice and guidelines for Lithuanian cities - the fact of their complex history must be hidden for some reason.radek (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And again, since here everything must be repeated half dozen times before it is even acknowledged - Etats Unis is  not an alternate name for the US because it is not used by 10% of English language sources. Ponary is an an alternate name for Paneriai since way way way more than 10% of English language sources use it.radek (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Every article on every major Polish city has German, Lithuanian, Yiddish or Russian names listed for the convenience of the readers"...is that so? Are they presented in the leads? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm sure you will manage to find one which doesn't (and as it should be obvious, there is an "or" in that sentence not an "and"). But those are going to be the exceptions. Now, explain to me why is it that Polish or Yiddish or Belarusian names must absolutely not appear in articles on Lithuanian places.radek (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, back. Let's start with the first three largest cities in Poland Warsaw, Cracow, and Lodz. Don't see any in the leads. It really wasn't that hard to find exceptions at all. While we're getting to the bottom of this mess, I especially hope that you will organize an effort to place the Yiddish names in the leads for the majority of Polish geographical toponyms. Historically, the cities of Poland had dramatic Jewish populations often even with majorities. Since there are so many of such localities it could keep you occupied while this is sorted out. Naturally, doing so would not only provide the readers of WP with this information, but it would be..."listed for the "convienience" of the readers". Dr. Dan (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Dr.Dan, ‘‘‘historically, the cities of Lithuania had dramatic Polish populations often even with majorities as well..., please... you embarrassing yourself, why you keep going on? How many years now we are wasting our time talking about the same thing? Over and over and over, will that ever end unless we remove everything that is even slightly connected to Poland from all Lithuanian related articles??? Please...let it go....--Jacurek (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Dan, if there was an Yiddish speaking person around who would like to add alternative name in that language to the lead in Warsaw article for example I would not have any objections. Go ahead, add one if you you want. After all %35 of pre war Warsaw residents were Jewish. Can I do the same now in the Vilnius article (the lead occourse)??? :):):)--Jacurek (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Warsaw has a separate etymology section. Cracow is in Krakow. Not sure what alternative name you're proposing for Lodz, that is used in at least 10% of English language sources. But look at already mentioned Wroclaw, Szczecin, Bialystok, Lublin, Koszalin, Kolobrzeg, Torun, Bydgoszcz, Rzeszow, Poznan, Gdansk, Katowice ... etc. etc. etc. (and I'm not even sure if all those alternate names included actually ARE used in at least 10% of English language sources)radek (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Dan, here[] list of Polish cities, most if not all, with their alternative names....happy hunting for ones without, have fun. :)--Jacurek (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Dan, if there was an Yiddish speaking person around who would like to add alternative name in that language to the lead in Warsaw article for example I would not have any objections. Go ahead, add one if you you want. After all %35 of pre war Warsaw residents were Jewish. Can I do the same now in the Vilnius article (the lead occourse)???--Jacurek (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any more patience for this completely unproductive discussion, per DFTT.radek (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radeksz, as a result of your track record on WP, but more specifically due to this last violation of the WP:PA policy, I am strongly considering not having any further personal interaction with you, or answering personal inquiries from you, etc. Don't worry though, I will definitely challenge any "information" that you post on the project that is inflammatory and/or untrue. Maybe an apology from you is in order? Try getting some rest. Otherwise, Do widzenia! Dr. Dan (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan, pls see Warsaw. Now, can we do the same in Vilnius article?--Mikej007 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, thanks Mike, please do the same to Vilnius now, I'm "sure" there will be no objections:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect what? "please do the same to Vilnius now". There might be objections concerning WP: Lead and undue weight concerning the present status of the city. If you're arguing "perfect" concerning Warsaw, that's your perogative. But really Jacurek, rather than giving instructions to Mike, how about going for it yourself. Why don't you start with placing the Yiddish name for New York in the lead of that article. Not only is there a historical and cultural basis for that, but unlike Vilnius and Warsaw, the Jewish presence was not affected by the holocaust and remains strong and vibrant. So Jacurek, "please do the same to New York now". Good luck! Dr. Dan (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Reasons 

message: A user requested informal mediation of the dispute on this page, and I am here to help. Please go here to make your case. I would like to hear what all sides have to say about this. -- Raziel  teatime  18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Mediation 

message: Is the tunnel the first in (geographic) Lithuania or is the the first in Russian Empire? In other words, was the first ever tunnel in the Russian Empire built in Paneriai, Lithuania, or somewhere else? If it is the first in all of Russian Empire at the time, then both (in Lithuania and Russian Empire) should be noted. 
Also there's no replace the image of the monument by the image of the pit. We can ADD the image of the pit in addition to the image of the monument. If that makes for a too high image/text ratio then the obvious answer is to expand the article's text.radek (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  monument, pit and tunnel 

message: So, now that the MedCab case page for this artic;e has been closed and we have the polish and yiddish names of Paneriai in the lead, I take it the conflict has been resolved? -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paneriai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010055108/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=194&id=3327&search=30903 to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=194&id=3327&search=30903
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224124407/http://www.wsp.krakow.pl/konspekt/konspekt5/ponary.html to http://www.wsp.krakow.pl/konspekt/konspekt5/ponary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified