Talk:Vilnija (organization)

message: While I usually prefer not to use Polonized/Lithuanized names of contemporary Lithuanians or Poles, I don't quite see why would "Kazimierz Garszwa" be supposed to be offensive ? Would calling the Polish president Lechas Kačynskis be intended as an insult as well ? I think you are beating around the bush, guys. --Lysytalk 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and Lysy, please remember that calling Kaczyński, Kačynskis, on English WP would be innappropriate, stupid, and possibily disruptive. Depending on context, maybe even offensive to some. Since you humorously weighed in on the gender issue, let me do likewise. As to his calling another editor a female, when over a greater part of a year of interaction, that's obviously not the case. Well, that's simply the low mentality of a "frat boy", thinking he's Emily Plater, at the height of an insurrection. Incidentally, the second picture down (yes, the one where he's sucking his thumb), on his user page, is rather androgynous, don't you think? Dr. Dan 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazimierz Garszwa 

message: May I inquire about the edit summary - "nationalists are gonna love me for this"? The meaning of it seems to escape me. Andrius 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better ignore it, maybe ? The discussion in this talk page has been mostly pointless already. I would suggest that we'd be better off focussing on the article itself instead of edit behaviour or summaries. How about that? --Lysytalk 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whaaat? And miss the chance to spend 10 hours and 1000 kilobytes discussing such an interesting edit summary that can be interpreted in 100 different ways? Sure :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I won't bore you with my interpretation and my thoughts on it (as much as I feel the need to do so). It is now, officially, ignored. By me, at least ;) Andrius 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrius, please read WP:dick, for a full understanding of the meaning of it. It's a faster way to understand it. There should be a link to his user page. Dr. Dan 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dan, you can offend me like you did in the past, but please do not escalate your wars on others and leave Andrius alone. He's done nothing wrong to you. //Halibutt 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Andrius is not a fool, and knows precisely what I meant. Nice try though, Hali! Dr. Dan 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I got what you meant straight away, but I think it was unnecessary. Even though it may reflect the situation (as I see it) accurately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndriusG (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hali: WP:DFTT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hali: let me agree with you on this one, Piotrus said more than there was to say (sic). He usually does. Dr. Dan 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: P.P., aka Prokonsul Piotrus, babbled something on the above talk that he and Halibutt are proud of their contributions to WP, and that they sign their "real" names and use their creditentials (sic). And the point of that statement would be what P.P.? And is Hali also proud of this openess and honesty? Dr. Dan 06:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: P.P.'s Pride in their Contributions

message: As headline says. M.K. 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, WP:LIVING concenrs itself with people, not organziations. For second, if you have specific concenrs, list them here first.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consult [[WP:LIVING]] before adding doubtful statements

message: Some provided refs do not match with text provided in article, soem removed, some maybe still in place need to be carefully checked. M.K. 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to be more specific? Removal of referenced information is not constructive. Please discuss references which you think are incorrect here first, you have been asked many times to talk first and do controversial edits second. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing one reference and using it to broadly accuse an organization of being extremist, is a very dangerous and unscholarly way of adding information to an encyclopedia. Placing it it in the opening statement is even worse, and is something typically seen as a provocation. Currently I am trying to find out the sources that Piotrus used to claim that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona (Self Defense of the Repuplic of Poland), are extremist organizations, and anti-Semitic to boot. A further falsehood of P.P. aka the "Prokonsul", is his statement that any of the editors involved in this discussion are supporters of this organization (yes the one above, where he is saddened by his own fantasy). Dr. Dan 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have quite a few refs that describe 'Vilnija' as extremist (although I prefer to stick to English soruces and avoid Polish, they are enough per WP:RS to back up the English one). Care to point out where I have claimed that LPF or S are 'extremist'? I would also like to ask you to stop personal attacks (like accusing others of 'falsehood'). By making claims without any proof you are the one to whom such a description can apply, I am afraid. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you speaking for when you state, We have quite a few refs that decribe 'Vilnija' as extremist... Is this the Royal we, or some "group" that you represent? I'm happy to tell you where you accused these Polish organizations of being extremist and anti-Semitic, it was on November 8, 2005, when you created the peculiar article Żydokomuna (please check the article's history earliest entry). Now am I wrong that you did not say, that you were saddened that there are editors who supported the extremist organization, Vilnija? I have not read anyone supporting any organizations on this talk page. Isn't this statement of your a falsehood, or am I reading it wrong? Your statement is on this page made on January 13, 2005, at 18:13. Kindly quit making false statements, denying them, and then accusing me of making them. Dr. Dan 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, Dr. Dan, I was just translating the Polish Wikipedia article, and as I had no sources to defend the translation, I had no problems with the term extremist being removed soon afterwards by another editor (this also thought me to be careful translating articles from Polish Wikipedia, which is habitually underreferenced). Thus please stop misinterpreating other's actions: I did not call those organizations extremist, I merely translated a source that said this. On the other hand, as shown in this discussions, we have editors here who try to remove a referenced claim of extremism, and instead claim that Vilnija is an organization of Lithuanian teachers... seeing the general lack of references to show that Vilnija is anything but extremist real-life group of POV pushers, I have problems understanding who other then supporter of such organization would - lacking any refs to the contrary - continue to argue that the plethora of sources that call it extremist, nationalist and anti-Polish should be discarded. PS. Definite proof we have Vilnija fans among us.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so, Prokonsul. Your statement regarding these Polish organizations is not a translation of the Polish article. It is a declarative statement made by you (perhaps extrapolating information from Polish WP), without any explanation until now. Interesting that you should take wild and unreferenced accusations from Polish WP, and put them in English WP. I notice that the original Polish information and your so-called "translation" are no longer part of the Encyclopedia. However, let's return to the topic at hand, namely Vilnija, and your false statement that any of the editors involved in this discussion are supporters of this organization. Please do not make false statements, deny making them, and then accuse others of doing so. Dr. Dan 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Dr. Dan but if there are no discussions related to the Vilnija, I have no time to waste on this talk page, and especially no time to waste in repeating myself for the umpteenth time when you ignore any of my comments that you don't like.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen many examples of weaseling out of embarrassing situations by contributors, but this one of yours is going way up on the list. The relevance of your calling these Polish organizations extremist and anti-Semitic (then denying it, claiming that you are "translating" a completely different sentence) to this article and its talk page is pretty obvious. You were also asked to back up your blatently false statement regarding "supporters" of Vinija involved in this talk page. You didn't, because you can't. That's relevant too. And lastly, no answer to the question of who you meant by WE. Are you we? Is we a group working in tandem? Dr. Dan 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needing cite check

message: :I have adjusted things for clarity in somewhat more detail. and copyedited it for proper style. DGG 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As follows--
#I took another look at the article. There have been some good edits since I last saw it.  I consider the first section reasonably NPOV. The problem is with "The conception of the Vilnja " 
#I changed the title to  "Specific Controversies" which is I think what's intended. 
#I regrouped the sections. There seem to be two parts:  , Politics in general, and Schooling and Language; the second part has a reply; the first part does not, and I cannot write it, but it should have a paragraph saying what reply the groups opposed to the party make to the point 
#I removed "alias Vilnja " after the mention of the name of the party -- I do not know what meaning is intended, perhaps "from which its name is derived" ?
#what does "tuteishians" mean? 
#Is there a separate Vilnja Municipality and Vilnja district? and Vilinja County? and which of them is "Vilnius district municipality"? Please check each of the uses and be sure it's right, for I may have made errors here. 
DGG 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you please suggest how do deal with contributor, who removes info which he do not like and later removes tags, motivating that there is no POV issues ? M.K. 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: remaning problems and copyed. 

message: Another ref  which such point that occasion criticized by the Lithuanian government as well do not point nothing even close. M.K. 12:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is added for the sake of simplicity, just type the title in the search box and you'll find the proper article. Sadly there's no permanent links available on that site and all search results after some time redirect to the main page. Which does not mean that the article's not there. //Halibutt 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody will use the search box to find if this article properly uses its sources. If such precedent will be established the contributors will with ease start referencing google search page with statement The link is added for the sake of simplicity, just type the title in the search box and you'll find the proper article. M.K. 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper solution is to quote relevant text on talk, and/or also try to link to the stable page verion in the Internet Archive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtful references continues

message: Just found out that one of the refs at the beginning is no longer available. I tried to google the article, too, but couldn't find anything. - Paweł Cieplak. "Polsko-litewskie stosunki (Polish-Lithuanian affairs). --Miacek (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some source for the alleged 'minor Polish group' should be found, or otherwise the notion deleted. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link(s)

message: I certainly agree that we should have a list of notable members and possibly supporters, but also, that such a list should be properly referenced. Adding without references people to a list of members or supporters of an extremist, nationalist organization can indeed be seen as violation of WP:BLP. I suggest moving the unreferenced members here, and discussing them here. Hopefully our Lithuanian colleagues can find more sources in Lithuanian with a list of notable members of Vilnija? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you expect to make a list of "organization" then does snot have nor web page, nor have formal registry? M? And no, violations and suspected violations should be eliminated from WP pages, main space and not. M.K. (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you now denying that Vilnija exists?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Start reading that was actually written M.K. (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Members