User talk:Renata3/archive6

Hello. Since you know Lithuanian, I was wondering if you could help come up with a better translation for the party described here. I think ...and Exiled Christian Democrats would be fine, but I just wanted to check with you. Thank you. Biruitorul 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the move!Biruitorul 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in doing a little help here and there regarding motto of the day. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 10:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a query: can I comment about other's mottos? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted some time ago (February I'm assuming), and you said if it got in the top 100,000 on Alexa, it could return. Now, it's in the top 20,000, so is it notable enough for wikipedia yet? Amaas120 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute[1] Which might interest you. --Molobo 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Article Vytautas the Great suffering major vandalism, could you please prohibit editing at least for unregistered users? M.K. 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in this point to talk ti them I believe is pointless M.K. 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labas. Aš eilinį sykį apie savo žemėlapius (jei dar nenusibodau :) ) - padariau šiokį tokį seniūnijų žemėlapį (čia), tai jei kada reiktų angliško varianto, sakyk, mėginsiu padaryt (taip pat ir rajonų žemėlapius su pažymėtom seniūnijom kada nors kai darysiu - kai bus potencialios klaidos ištaisytos). Knutux 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work finding silly images for deletion. However, policy requires that the uploader be notified (preferably using {{idw|Image:Example.png}}) before we can delete. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this description is neutral ? [2] --Molobo 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. That's the nicest thing I've read anywhere on Wikipedia. So I'm keeping it in my award section (it's my favorite award of the them all). --Go for it! 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have counted me as Russian, I am Polish actually :P Cheers. --Molobo 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, it looks much better now. I've also lightened the coulour a bit. --Lysy^talk 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Renata,

Thanks for the praise, but I suppose my talents mostly extend to clicking on squares with a paint bucket tool with some degree of effectiveness. The starting point was List of governments by form of government, but some commentary and feedback from other editors has led it to deviate somewhat, and we've basically concluded that the list could do with some work. While I've been trying to keep it as cut-and-dried as possible, there's no doubt that there are some nagging grey areas--for instance, Finland has given us some headaches, and I know that in the Baltics the various Presidents are a little more active politically than might be seen in Ireland or Germany. The Tom 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Renata, Yesterday i have added a photo gallery to Lithuania: http://ee-photo.com/categories.php?cat_id=17&sessionid=5ac41846239b95866c4f9f845df62133 And then you have removed it stating it is spam. I can't see why, this site has 153 photos of Lithuania currently (Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipeda, Klaipėda, Kedainiai, Kėdainiai, Siauliai, Šiauliai etc.), it is a non commercial site also. Please elaborate why you believe it is spam. Regards, Daniel

Since you have no talk page, I will reply here. Lithuania article has only official links - Seimas, President, other institutions, official travel guides, etc. It's good to keep it this way because soon people are going to be adding bunch of their home-made stuff., I left your link on Vilnius. Renata 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, Now i see what was the point of removing that link, i agree with you on keeping just the official sites there, but i didn't know about this before. I have just contacted you because i don't agree the page is spam.

No problem. "Rv spam" is just a very short & quick way to say that I have removed an external link. It's not a statement :) Have a nice day, Renata 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You too! :)

Thanks. Large part of it is your work actually :) I'd really have to reconsider my proficient nitpicker remark actually. //Halibutt 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Its me again. This time there is a serious copyright issue I want your opinion on. Please check the discussion at the Indian Notice Board. The problem concerns the use of images that were taken nearly 100 years back. Under the Indian copyright law, the works before 70 years are ineligible for copyright. However, in this case, the newspaper's website is "Selling" these images. They are displaying thumbnails and promising high resolution images in return of money. The issue is whether the images that are displayed in the website can be used on Wikipedia, and if yes, would it fall under {{PD-India}}. For details of the debate, please go through the discussion going on. You may wish to reply in the on-going discussion or at my own talk page. Also, if possible please take up this issue with other senior and experienced wikipedians you know who can help in this regard. Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be ready to accept a compromise re naming Wladyslaw II Jagello Of Poland? I mean, does the article name need anything more than Jagiello ? How does this formulation feel from a Baltic viewpoint? Shilkanni 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labas, netycia sukuriau antra straipsni apie laikinaja vyriausybe Provisional Government of Lithuania, nepamates, kad jau egzistuoja Lithuanian underground government. As nezinau kaip man istrinti savo nauja straipsni. Be to manau kad pavadinimas "Lithuanian underground government" yra neteisingas, nes prie vokieciu laikinoji vyriausybe veike viesai, tai nebuvo pogrindine organizacija . Siulau pavadinti sena straipsni "Provisional Government of Lithuania (1941)", o nauja istrinti Sigitas 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labas Renata,
aš labai džiaugiausiu, kad du tiek daug ogg-failų įkalbėjai. Todėl aš turiu vieną klausimą: Ar tu galėtum dar šitus žodžius įkalbėti?

• Artūras Paulauskas
• Arvydas Sabonis
• Vytautas Landsbergis
• Kazimiera Prunskienė
• Nemunas
• Lietuvos Geležinkeliai
• Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas ir televizija
• Kryžių kalnas

Tu turi labai gerą ištarimą, tikrai labei puiku :) Atsiprašau už mano klaidas, aš labai ne be kalbėjau lietuviškai. Iki --Jcornelius19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a little favour please? I am in the process of translating Laima for German wikipedia. The English article has a sentence, I don't or don't want to understand. She was protector for incesting (right after interview in italics). Is that vandalism or simply a false translation? Could you check that plaese and take appropriate action or leave it alone, if I am wrong. Thank you. ----Gf1961 10:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it and your advice re quality of article. ----Gf1961 11:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya... There are no more!--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up one for today, and I'll do the rest of the week.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya there. Has your objection to this nomination been satisfied? I think it can be promoted but don't have much time to check on your objection. Re on the nom page. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Renata, for your splendid job on Lituanian municipalities. I translated it into french recently, and of course you will be duly credited in the discussion page. For sure there are still many red links and it will probably take long to have them become blue. Cheers and thanks again.
Archibald Tuttle 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute userpage :) While we are moving nicknamed Radziwiłłs, there is one we've missed: Michał Kazimierz "Rybeńko" Radziwiłł. Any ideas how to translate Rybeńko? AFAIK this specific diminuative of 'fish' was invented and used by him... in other words, should we translate idiolects? My gut feeling is that no. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure to meet you at Wikimania :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plz see response on talk:1632 series // FrankB 09:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. //Halibutt

Hi. Can you let me know if you feel that all issues with List of dragonflies recorded in Britain have now been addressed? Thanks SP-KP 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved most of your objections. If you could take a look at the table for the 40's and tell me what's good and whats bad it'd be appreciated. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the pronunciation ogg files to all those Lithuanian articles. heqs 21:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time could you look at Palanga International Airport and the external official airport site. It looks as if it might have been copied but I can't tell if it's a direct cut and paste or if it's been rewritten. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there want one yesterday so i added one, in did the same for today and tomoz, i was wondering if you are still the overseer of the project. If you need help with it i will gladly join in. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out! It would be great if you could take over the whole thing since my schedule as predictable as stock market :) So, let me know. I scheduled the mottos for the whole month of July. Renata 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id gladly take it off your hands, i'm not really running anything project wise so i'll have plenty of time to do it :-> Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have time to be an adjunct overseer.Geo. 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant that i would be willing to be a assistant to Childzy and do the overseer duties when he is away.Geo. 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Labas Renata, nuo spalio 1 gyvensiu ir dirbsiu Albany, New York, butu malonu susitikti pintai alaus NYC. Sigitas 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for the kind words!  :) --Elonka 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lithuanian vs. of/in Lithuania: same as lietuvių vs. Lietuvos. Lithuanian apply only to ~85% of residents of Lithuania while of/in Lithuania apply to all 3.5M residents" Drįsčiau nesutikti. Anglų kalboje/sąmonėje Lithuanian vargu ar suvokiamas etnine prasme (o veikiau kaip "iš Lietuvos", o kalbant apie žmones "turintis Lietuvos pilietybę"). Pvz. Albanians vartojamas kalbant apie Albanijos piliečius, o kalbant apie Jugoslavijos albanus sakoma "ethnic Albanians". O tai reikštų, kad Lithuanian suvokiamas "nationality" prasme, kuri, savo ruožtu, šiuolaikinėje anglų reiškia ne tautybę (ethnicity), o pilietybę.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting those articles. I've developed 10 stubs. I'll expand the plot to two or three paragraphs and complete the cast section, then move to the next ten stubs. I'm using featured article List of Oh My Goddess episodes as template for this operation.--T-man, the wise 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary, or recomended? --Lokyz 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I do not want to become an admin:) I just love to structure out things:) Yup, I know alt+p:) I'm just too much in a hurry sometimes:) and - check this (mess) out User:Lokyz/tools/sandbox/Wikiproject Lithuania maybe it could become a real Wikiproject, and a real tool for timesaving.--Lokyz 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you moved Nida, Lithuania to Nida (town) a year ago. Is there a policy that prefers (town) over , Lithuania? Just wondering. Renata 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, really. Probably I wanted to be consistent with something or did it for future consistency reasons but don't remember now. I don't mind renaming if you find another name better for the article. --Lysy^talk 08:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It was nice to meet you at Wikimania! :-) I hope you increased your opinion on it ;-) Keep doing the good work here. :) Domas Mituzas 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My part is mostly donea and moved the page to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renata3 (3) already. If you don't have any major objections sign your acceptance and let me know once you do it. I'd then sign the nomination and post it in the RfA page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're off to a smashing 10-0 start. I figured you would sail through. Let me be the first (hope I'm not jinxing anything!) to say "Congratulations!" :) --Durin 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is looking real nice. Enjoy the ride! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am bad editor, so i voted as oppose just for intrigue. M.K. 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. joking, just joking :)[reply]

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Michael 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I put them down as cities but then I saw another city on the list which had the word "town" in it so it confused me a little, then I changed the others to town, but from now on I'll keep it in mind. And as for staying, I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon ;). Andrius 09:25, 11 August (UTC)

Hi, How can I help? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 22:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your NOTE I am beginning to understand what to do and will take a look. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Before I get started and screw things up. And really get yelled at. I find no rationale for the use of these images and don't see them as essential. Also, they are high resolution. AM I right or wrong? Do I speedy~

Image:175 sami omar alhussayen.jpg

Image:13C chemical shifts.gif

Image:17June1953DemonstratorsInBerlin.jpg

Cheers,

 :) Dlohcierekim 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I can tell that it will be a while before I can be effective. Thanks for explaining the individual imges.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Don't get angry over me on the RfA questions. One doesn't need to be a copyright expert to answer these questions. I just wanted your opinion on the Foxtrot image and framed it in the form of an RfA question (since your RfA was on). Your answers were great (as much as my understanding of policies go), and I expected them that way. Even I was unsure about how to go about the FPC pages. Cheers, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here would be appreciated, or anything to stop this from becoming a revert war.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears this is not an isolated incident: [3], [4]. I find this is a disturbing development, especially as I don't think any Polish user has ever removed 'Suvalkai' from Suwałki or would argue that it should be done. I'd ask you to revert the removal of those edits (and any you find in the future) and as a person who writes a lots about this period, I can assure you having Polish names is not some kind of nationalist pride but is simply useful, as many sources (Polish, English) use Polish names and they should be mentioned in the articles to prevent any confusion when a user follows a redirect (or simply types in a Polish name from a book they are reading)).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me, please, that today Kaunas city etc. have common with today Suvalkai? And if you read Polish books the best thing for finding Polish names is Polish sources. M.K. 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. if you want to talk with me use mine talk; i do not want to repeat what I said there here again.[reply]

Both were part of the PLC, both had substantial Polish and Lithuanian speakers communities in their times, and even through they are in different countries now both former names should be used. Besides: Dubinki=102 mentions, Dubingai=7. Oh, and Kowno=6k, Kaunas=10k - I'd think that the name half as popular and used in hundreds of book deserves at least one mention in the article. If not, then you would agree that Suwałki=2,5k has no need to mention Suvalkai (barely 100 hits).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat my request that you restore Polish (and Belarusian, and German, and other) names at articles about current Lithuanian cities and such. Their lack is an ommission of important encyclopedic knowledge. :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you lead by example P.P., and add Liublinas to the lead of Lublin? You know due to the "importance" of shared histories of the PLC, and the "notability" of the Union of Lublin. Wasn't importance and notability Halibutt's rationale in adding Polish names to Lithuanian geographical entities. Can you demonstrate how these changes should be reverted back where Lithuanian names apply? I think my change regarding Lublin was reverted a couple of times before. Check with Balcer. Btw, can you help to add the Lithuanian names of Polish toponyms throughtout English Wikipedia. I'd be happy to get you help on it too. Thanks in advance. Dr. Dan 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You both, out of my talk page: here is the place for such talks. Renata 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice! I maintain a Fair Use Rationale boilerplate, which continues to improve. However, you put as one of the rationales "The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization." Are you sure we can use this rationale, since Wikipedia is mirrored by other websites with different intents? —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First - Thanks for the support :D (Ačiū).
Secondly, say if I see some inconsistency in terms of stubs - e.g. Marijampolė is a stub while Tauragė isn't, since they seem quite similar - are they both stubs or is neither a stub?

And also, would a featured list count as a featured article on the template? (Common sense says yes, but I'm not completely sure) Andrius 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June last year, you wished me good luck becoming an admin, and I kept the message on my user page. Today, I finally succeeded! Looks like the good luck finally caught up with me. Soo 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Recently several editors, including yourself, have reverted edits by User:Gene Nygaard which moved pages to diacriticless titles, or expressed concern at the moves on his talk page. Despite this, Gene has carried on making many moves of this type, some of which will require admin work to revert - this behaviour is becoming disruptive, and is reducing consistency in article naming schemes. Further comments, suggestions and opinions would be welcome either at User talk:Gene Nygaard or at the section started by Renata3 at WP:AN/I. I believe this may require a report at RfM - please let me know if you think this would be a suitable action or otherwise. Aquilina 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was genuinely concerned - I had some of these articles on my watchlist, and was worried when I saw how many articles were being moved in such a short time and I noticed there was a large consensus against this. Finally, when he said that I wasn't experienced enough to be listened to I didn't feel I had any other option than AN/I.

This is going to be a big issue in the future - some ice hockey contributors have decided to strip all hockey players of their diacritics - see Talk:Marian Gaborik and Talk:Teemu Selänne and the contributions of the posters. It's clear from how heated those discussions have become that this will spill out to other areas too. There is now some attempt to patch this up language by language - see here and here - but I can't see this fragmented approach working.

Happily, it looks like this will all clear up now in the short term. Good luck with your RfA in the meantime - I dropped by the ballot box yesterday...! Aquilina 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene has carried on his quest to highlight naming mistakes through page moving - I've left another note on WP:AN/I. If you have any further suggestions, it would be nice to hear them! Aquilina 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your adminship, it is well deserved. I will soon be largely unavailable for editing for a considerable period of time; if you could keep an eye on the above matter it would be much appreciated - your shiny new tools and buttons might help with cleaning up his mess! (Speaking of which, could you sort Detinja out...?). User:Freakofnurture has suggested opening an RfC against him - this could be a worthwhile option to pursue, and I will find time to chip in a statement if necessary.

See you round, Aquilina 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it should be OK? Tag PD-old is alright I think. Isn't it? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata. Thanks for your comments on this article. I've also made a substantial number of changes, making the article considerably larger and more comprehensive than when you last reviewed it. I experimented with the table format that CG suggested. Like you, I thought the bullet list was neat enough. In the end, I decided the tables made it easier to read and looked tidier. I can see that you are really busy at the moment. I'd really appreciate if you could spare some time to review and add your opinion. Thanks very much. If I can return the favour, let me know. Colin°^Talk 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've fixed the date column and added a longer introduction as requested by others.

I appreciate your concerns about relying on one source. Having the inline citations in their own column makes this stand out like a sore thumb! Many list articles rely on just a few key sources that are listed at the bottom as "References". I've been explicit in indicating the source(s) for every name, so it is more obvious. The LPwE article currently has 85 references, so I haven't just plucked the names out of one book!

Hughes long paper is an important one for this article and is unusual in dealing with so many people in one place. Most papers just deal with a single person. His research was extensive and that paper's own reference list is 154 entries long. I ensured that the LPwE article includes details of those cases where there is disagreement (amongst scholars) over whether someone had epilepsy or not. I plan add even more references and comment here to ensure a balanced reflection of the current debate (where there is one).

This list is now starting to get some support. Perhaps if you can add yours, it might encourage others? Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your newly-minted adminship. --Cyde Weys 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now let's play around with the new button a bit... :) Renata 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what I did ... delete a few userboxes, it really helps relieve the tension and stress. Until someone notices what you did and starts yelling at you for it, anyway. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I will with my own newbie mess :) At least no one will yell at me. Renata 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're now an admin, so use the shiny new tools to make this a better place and keep it improving. Be conservative with them especially at first, and re-read the policy before acting and ask questions as needed. Then dig in and help with the backlogs. Again, congrats, and have fun - Taxman ^Talk 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and have a nice time being the ADMIN:) !! M.K. 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gratz! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the cabal club! :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and good luck! :) --james^(talk) 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to pile-on another support in your RfA, but I have noticed a lot of great work from you. Keep it up, and congratulations. ×Meegs 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Lithuanian admin, finally !!! :-) I'm sorry I missed the RfA. Congrats. --Lysy^talk 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ALL. It is very nice and kind of you. I really appreciate it. I just don't believe in spamming people's talk pages with colorful & sarcastic boxes, so don't think I am being rude! Renata 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is running on AWB and as far as I know there's unfortunatetly no way to get it to recognize who uploaded an image... I am however trying to not tag very recent uploads with it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Congrats on your new broom and bucket! As to other issues, could you tell me what baran or baranas mean in Lithuanian? It's quite important as someone suggested that the name Baranauskas is typically Lithuanian and I wonder whether it has any meaning in Lithuanian at all. //Halibutt 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, we're not speaking of Christian names, we're speaking of surnames. I wonder why would a Lithuanian adopt a Polish surname, Lithuanize it... and never use it in his entire life. But this is of course beating a dead horse. //Halibutt 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's precisely why Radziwill changed his surname to Kowalski, and then Lithuanized it to Kovalskis? :) Anyway, next week I'm meeting a girl from Kaunas and perhaps she'd be able to translate the word for me. Cheers! //Halibutt 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree. Because: 1."It is not notable" It was not just notabale, it was notorious among punks in Lithuania in 80' and 90'. It was The Aristocrats of subcultures in Lithuania.

2."It is unencyclopeadic". Unencyclopeadic yes, unwikipedic - no. Unencyclopeadic articles such as Time cube make Wiki different. That is what Wiki is about. It is open to all (subcultures too).

3. "It is unverifiable". It is verifiable. www.google.lt search words: pankai strazdaneles

4. "WP:NFT" It is proper Urban legend. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area is from std.lt. Population density is adjusted based on the modified area. GDP figures are from the IMF (using the 2005 figures which is what the ranking is based on). Sorry for not stating them explicitly. --Polaron | Talk 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice box; so nice, in fact, that we're going to use it as an example for all other WikiProjects to follow. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did put it in a comment in the template, so it's not that hard ;-)

(Unlike some other projects... it's rather annoying when they copy everything but don't bother to change all the places where it suggests directing questions to the WP:MILHIST coordinators.) Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have a number of pictures of the Hill of Witches (I wonder how did you know this ?). The problem is that it's all in the trees now, so each picture would probably show only one or another of the sculptures, but not a general view. I'll have a look at it and try to select a representative sample later (in a couple of days). I appreciate your expanding the article from the stub. Some people (myself included) find it easier to collaborate in small steps: I would not add much to an article if nobody else touched it. --Lysy^talk 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was created out of process and is being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Renata

I have shrunk and reloaded one of his images. Then I got a message from ophanbot. Do we attribute his images some way other than fairuse?

Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note I guess I should have speedied it myself, but I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Thanks again, Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting material togethe for my first article. I am unsure if I am allowed to use the images on this site, http://www.solwaybrown.co.uk/residential_stgeorges.htm are the images copyrighted or not? Cowarth 10:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šiaip labai gerai padarei, kad sujungei visus tuos straipsnelius. Nebuvo aišku ką su jais daryti.

Dabartinis sąrašas nėra taip labai apgailėtinas kaip gali pasirodyti iš pirmo žvilgsnio. Didžioji to priežastis yra ne tik kad kažkas liko nesurašyta, o kad nelabai ir aišku, ką ir kaip rašyti. Čia įdomus psichologinis momentas. Narbutas nepateikė jokių aiškų šaltinių, daugelis jo aiškinimų yra nepagrįsti niekuo, išskyrus aš taip noriu, bet daugelis skaitytojų juo žavėjosi. Priežastis turbūt labai paprasta. Jis sudarė aiškų, nedviprasmišką ir tvarkingą “dievų sąrašą”. Toks tvarkingumas yra matyt žmogau proto mėgstamas. Bet šiuo atveju mes negalime jo dirbtinai sukurti. Juk skirstydami į kažkokias kategorijas jau leidžiame manyti, kad tokios kategorijos lietuvių mitologijoje tikrai yra. O juk iš tikrųjų autentiški lietuvių mitologijos šaltiniai nežino išvis kuopinių dievų (kaip kad 'namų dievai', 'karo dievai' ir tt. - kitos tautos, graikai, suomiai, tokius dalykus turi). Taigi, visos kategorijos irgi yra sukurtos dabar, ir tada tenka klausti, kurio mitologo skirstymas priimtinas. Tas kuris užvirė šitą košę pirmas buvo aiškus Pranės Dundulienės pasekėjas. Kitas vėl išmetė net nuorodą į Pranės Dundulienės straipsnį, sakydamas: ten išvis ne mitologija o tik duomenų kratinys.

Žodžiu, viską tenka dėti tik taip, kaip yra neginčytina (nors beveik neginčytina). Todėl ir išeina viskas labai paprastai ir labai nepilnai. Bijau, kad čia sunku kažkokio pilnumo tikėtis. Geriau to sąrašo išvis nebūtų ... Jis jau iš pat pradžių atsirado kaip bandymas sutvarkyti būtent tuos straipsnelius, kurių ten buvo prirašyta be saiko.

Šiaip, sakau, nėra jis toks blogas. Tik kai kuriuos apibrėžimus reikia dar gerokai patikslinti. Kai kurie yra aiškiai perkrauti detalėmis, kiti vienapusiai (remiasi Narbutu turbūt per Dundulienę).

Jeigu viską sutvarkyti tik istorine tvarka iškrenta vienas svarbus dalykas. Yra taip, kad kai kurie vardai kartojasi keliuose šaltiniuose (Pvz., Perkūnas bene visuose) be to yra partvirtinti tautosakoje. Kai kurie ir ne sykį. Tai ir yra tikroji mitologija, nes yra kažkokių mitinių reikšmių. Tuo tarpu tokię sąrašai kaip Lasickio ar Stryjkowski'o mitologijos atžvilgiu yra mažai turiningi, nes jie duoda tik vardus. Šias dvi grupes būtina atskirti. Iš visų sąrašų tik Ipatijaus metraštyje yra ne sąrašas o atpasakotas padavimas/mitas ,bet ten būtent vardai nelabai aiškūs. Todėl Ipatijaus sąrašą geriau aprašyti Lithuanian mythology o list of Lithuanian gods palikti tik vardus (gal net slaviška Ipatijaus metraščio forma) su nuoroda į Lithuanian mythology. Aišku, būtų labai gerai jei kasnors parašytų ištisą straipsnį apie lietuviškus mitus Ipatijaus metraštyje ir jų tyrinėjimus. Medžiagos yra labai daug, bet ji nesutvarkyta. Žodžiu, dėl Ipatijaus labiau reikia ne sąrašo, o rišlaus paaiškinimo, kas ten išvis yra. Vardų sąrašas čia mažai duos.

Apskritai, nepatinka man tas List of Lithuanian gods tokia forma kaip yra, dar labiau nepatiktų jei ten nebebūtų pagrindinio sąrašo o liktų tik istorinis konspektas. Dalykas tas, kad pavyzdžiui niekas nededa pasaulio valstybių sąraše tokios valstybės kaip Utopia nors Thomas Morr vaizdavo Utopiją kaip esančią ir tikrą valstybę. Tas pats yra su tais sąrašais (Pirmasis, Ipatijaus metraštis yra visai normalus ir suprantamas šaltinis, – toliau prasideda visokios keistenybės). Iš tikrųjų, pavyzdžiui Lasickio sąrašas laikomas visiškai neaiškiu, o Narbuto požiūris, kad lietuvių dievai atitinka slavų – graikų panteoną (faktiškai jis parinko tik vardus ir ne visada tikrai lietuviškus) irgi yra gana ginčytinas. Todėl du ilgiausi sąrašai yra utopiniai. Gal tą sąrašą reikėtų kitaip pavadinti? Arba daryti atskiru sąrašus Lasicki, Narbutt, su pilnais vardų katalogais, bendrame sąraše paliekant tik tai, kas turi kokią nors aiškesnę reikšmę (Pavyzdžiui tokią dievaitę Nijolę – Neaišku, iš kur Narbutas ją ištraukė, bet vėliau tas vardas paplito ir yra grožinių kūrinių su veikėja deive Nijole ). Arba daryti dvi dalis: viena sąrašo dalis istorinė, kita apibendrinama. Toj apibendrinamoje dalyje turėtų būti kažkas panašaus į true gods ir doubted or fictional gods. Bet toks skirstymas yra nuolatinis karų šaltinis. Taip ir įsivaizduoju, kaip koks nors ramuvietis norės būtinai padaryti , tarkime, deivę Nijolę - “true”. Žodžiu, nežinau.

Gods list by Licinski? Perhaps Lasicki? Jei Lasicki, tai turiu visą tą sąrašą, bet nesu labai užsidegęs visko to sukrauti, ypač jeigu į bendrą sarašą List of Lithuanian gods. Dalykas tas, kad ten tikrai viskas yra smulkmenų lygio. Tokie dievų (??) vardai kaip kirnis, kr(i)ukis, srutis, pizius (na, galima manyti, tai nebuvo keiksmažodis, nors šiaip lietuvių kalba gana mažai keitėsi) sunkiai įvertinami ir buvo atmesti jau daugumos XIX amžiaus lenkų mitologų. Žodžiu, visa tai yra daugiau trivia than a real mythology. Tiesa, yra tame sąraše gal pusė, kurie neabejotinai turi ryšio su tikėjimu, bet tai įrodoma būtent tuo, kad jie žinomi iš kitur. Pats svarbusis Lasickio liudijimas yra paliudijimas tikėjimo Aukščiausiuoju Dievu, kuris ten pavadintas Auxteios Vissagistis (šitą faktą galima būtų įtraukti, plečiant Dievas (Lithuanian god)). Neabejotinai tikri yra Perkūnas (paminėtas Lasickio net dukart, lietuviškai, ir be jokio sąryšio su pirmu paminėjimu, prūsiškai tarmiškai), Žemyna, Gabija, keli -inis eilės vardai : Ežerinis, - Aitvaras, Kaukai. Taip pat galima spėti, kad Kerpyčius ar Šilinyčius irgi gali būti kokios dvaselės kaip kad Ežerinis. O šiaip dauguma ten paminėtų vardų svarbūs gal tik tuo, kad jais naudojosi kiti mitologai savo rekonstrukcijoms. Nežinau, kiek tokios rekonstrukcijos yra pagrįstos, bet manau kad būtų daug geriau jeigu sudarytume Narbuto sąrašą, jei reikia, su atitinkamom nuorodom į Lasickį ir tt. – Žinoma, wikipedi'jai tinka viskas, tinka ir Lasickio sąrašas. Bet geriau su juo palaukti kol bus bent kiek sutvarkyta visa likusi lietuvių mitologija. Linas Lituanus 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work for few months - because there are few reconstruction attempts - at least I do know Greimas, Vėlius (a bit ethnographicla) and Beresnevičius versions. Also ethnographical research sometimes seems productive. Just a minor problem - to put all these theories into comprehensive order would be at the verge of impossibility.--Lokyz 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tai turbut isvada daugmaz tokia: sutvarkyti niekaip neiseis? :(

Jei nori sudeti pilna, issamia moksliniu tyrinejimu istorija, teks prasikankinti ne viena menesi, o gal ir metus. O tai jau research on its own right. Nekalbant dar apie tai, kur gauti saltinius... As po ranka tik turiu tik Beresneviciaus viena knyga. Dar galiu bandyti gauti Gimbutienes knyga, bet cia bus sudetingai. O kaip su Greimu, Velium? (beje, kas dar tokie nagrinejo sita painavyne, be Dundulienes? kiek grybauja Trinkunas, Romuvos krivis?)

Galima sudeti bobuciu pasakas, "perkunas buvo senas dedulis, kuris su zaibu velnia is po akmenu gainiojo." Bet tai, aisku, ne lygis ir mes galim geriau :)

Lasicki saraselio noreciau butent tam, kad butu galima pelus nuo grudu atrankioti. Jei atrasciau, pvz, kur nors Piziu, zinociau, kad jis is to saraselio ir ji per daug demesio kreipti nereikia. Ir siaip galvojau daryti mazdaug tokius saraselius: pagal Ipatiju tokie dievai, pagal ta anokie, pagal trecia dar tokie. Tipo saltiniu saraselis. Tada butu galima prideti komentarus, kad sitas autorius saltini interpretavo sitaip, o kitas kitaip. Ir istorinius komentarus: Ipatijus patikimas, Narbutas savo agenda turejo ir tvarke panteona kaip jam patiko, ispopuliarino tokius ir tokius vardus, Lasicki is vis nusigrybavo :) As tai matau kaip vieninteli buda kokia nors tvarka ivesti, nes skirstyti pagal kategorijas ("namu dievai, karo dievai") nepasiteisino. Dar vienas variantas, pagal abecele, manau komentaru net nereikalauja.

Tad ka manot? Kokius saltinius turit? Kokius galit gauti?

Dar vienas darbelis butu nutarti, kurie gi dievai savo asmeniniu straipsniu nusipelno... Renata 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dundulienė, Greimas, Beresnevičius, Vėlius, Gimbutienė :)) - ir tai dar ne viskas. Iš esmės pirmi trys nagrinėjo būtent dievų vardus, kokie svarbiausi, kokie ne tokie svarbūs, ką reiškia kuris vardas ir tt. Dundulienė daugiau laikėsi Narbuto, o Beresnevičius Greimo. Vėlius ir Gimbutienė daugiau bandė nustatyti senovės lietuvių pasaulėžiūrą ar ką, jie ties vardais nelabai apsistodavo. Bet tai kaip sakau ne viskas. Kiek aš suprantu Mythology tai pirmiausia yra tai, ką žmonės pasakoja apie dvasinį gyvenimą ir, jei plačiau imsime, pasaulio sandarą. Savotiška vaizdais išreikšta filosofija. Bet ką mes turime mūsų mokslininkų (dar neminėjau J. Balio ir Z. Ivinskio), tai daugiau yra Religion (kai kur gal worship customs) negu Mythology. O iš tyrinėjusių gryną mitologiją, galima dar visiškai teisėtai imti Basanavičių, taip pat mūsų tautosakos instituto (dabar turbūt yra literatūros ir tautosakos, ten keitėsi) darbuotojus (pvz. Sauką, Bronislavą Kerbelytę), kurie tyrinėjo lietuvių pasakas.

Todėl ir tas sąrašas dabar tiek klausimų kelia. Jis iš pradžių buvo Lithuanian mythology dalimi, todėl sudėsčiau pagal tai kas randama iš tikrųjų mitologijos srityje (padavimuose, pasakose, dainose ir pan.) ir kas užrašyta kitame kontekste. Be to pastaruosius duomenis dar teko skirstyti į patvirtintus kelių nepriklausomų šaltinių ir abejotinus. Iš visų kito konteksto duomenų tik Ipatijaus metraščio įrašas yra pakankamai mitologiškas (ten pateiktas padavimas), visi kiti užrašai yra daugiausia apie paročius, su vardais (maždaug: garbino tą ir tą), bet nesigilinant nei į mitus nei į esmę.

Išvis, taip jau istoriškai susiklostė, kad parašyta labai daug darbų, bet niekas neparašė jokio apibendrinimo. Be to daug kas skubėjo “atkurt” religiją, nesirūpindami giliau panagrinėti pačių, padavimų, pasakų ir kt – tas trūkumas labai jaučiamas. Bet vis dėlto galima išskirti tris tyrinėjimų kryptis (1) teigimas, kad Lietuvių religija buvo primityvi aplinkinių daiktų garbinimo religija (remiamasi daugiausia Lasickiu,- Hermann Usener, iš dalies Pranė Dundulienė). (2) vienokio ar kitokiu mastu Graikų panteono taikymas lietuvių religijai ir visko aiškinimas pagal tai (Pradininkas bus be abejo Narbutt, XIX amžiuje turėjo pasekėjų gausybę, ypač tarp nelietuvių, lenkų, vokiečių autorių. (3) nagrinėjimas pagal tautosaką (tuo naudojosi daug kas, bet būtent čia darbai labiausiai padriki ir nesusiteminti – o būtent jų mums labiausiai ir reikia vardan verifiability). Ir dabar, jeigu skaitome kur nors (enciklopedijose ar panašiai) Lietuvių mitologijos aprašymą, tai paprastai būna vienas iš šitų trijų atvejų. O jeigu dar pridėsime, kad (4) daug kas išreiškė savo daugiau asmenišką supratimą, kaip atrodė senovės lietuvių pasaulėžiūra (Basanavičius, Gimbutienė, Vėlius, iš dalies ir Greimas, ir dar visa eilė mažesniu mastu), tai tikrai atrodys viskas labai supainiota.

Todėl, man atrodo taip: (4) požiūrį reikia surašyti prie atskirų autorių. Taip ir straipsniai apie atskiras asmenybes (Beresnevičių, Greimą, ir tt. ) įgis gražaus spalvingumo, kurio jiems taip trūksta. O į Lithuanian mythology įdėtume tik nuorodas Jonas Basanavičius, Marija Gimbutas ir tt. Nes jų visų asmeniniai tyrimai per sunkiai suvedami į kažką vientisa. Tuo tarpu (1) – (3) požiūrį reikia kažkaip derinti, nors ir nelengva. Labai norėčiau kad vyrautų (3), ypač kai kalbama apie mitologiją, bet čia kliūva tas nesistemingumas. (2), Narbuto požiūris, galėtų būti išdėstytas smulkiai, bet kiek atskirai (ten aiški sistema, ir nesinori, kad sudėjus su kitkuo viskas pavirstų į neišskiriamą maišalynę). Tai tokia galėtų būti bendra tvarka.

Jonas Trinkūnas kiek aš žinau jokios savo teorijos nėra sukūręs, bet surinkęs daug ką iš kitų. Šituos dalykus būtų gal geriau dėti į Romuva (church), nes iš tikrųjų Romuva ir yra didysis Trinkūno kūrinys ir jo “teorija” (jis teorijos, kiek žinau, nelabai pripažįsta, jo išpažinimas gyvi papročiai ir praktika). Tas straipsnis iš idėjos dabar nėra blogas, bet nelietuvis jo niekaip nesupras :):]:).

Atskirų straipsnių gal reikėtų apie tas dievybes, kur surašyta pirmoje dalyje. Be to, tiktų keli vardai iš Narbuto sąrašo, ypač tie, kurie turėjo atgarsių literatūroje (Milda, Nijolė, Praurimė). Žvaigždes (yra atskirai Sėlija, Žiezdrė) reikėtų surinkti į vieną atskirą straipsnį (išskyrus Aušrinę), kaip ir Ežerinius, Miškinius ir Girinius. Galimas straipsnis apie Sacred serpent (old Lithuanian religion). Nepalikime visko neišversta (kaip kad Žaltys), nes baisiai trukdo suprantamumui. Galų gale išeina visiškas klaidinimas, kai mūsų bendrinis žodis (kaip žaltys) anglų kalboje verčiamas tikriniu. − Kol kas tiek... Linas Lituanus 10:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šiaip manau straipsnį reikia struktūrizuot pagal periodus, o ne pagal dievus. Religija (institucionalizuota)-Sinkretizmas-Liaudies tikėjimai (folkloras). Chronologiškai tai atrodytų maždaug taip: iki krikšto - po krikšto iki XVIII a ir nuo XIX a. Nes XIV a. ir XIX a. Perkūnas toli gražu nėra viena ir tas pats. Taip rūšiuojant medžiagą gautus tikslesnis ir gilesnis (atsispindėtų įvaizdžių, mitologemų evoliucija) vaizdas.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norėtųsi, bet kažin, ar tai yra pasiekiama. Faktiškai, viskas ką žinome apie Perkūną yra iš to paties XIX amžiaus. Visi duomenys iki tol paprastai yra ne mitologiniai o paprotiniai. Daugiausia apsiribojama tuo, kad Perkūnas buvo garbinamas ir kad jis susijęs su griausmu, perkūnija, dangumi. Tai, kas kalbama apie ankstesnius amžius yra kažkieno rekonstrukcijos. Todėl turi būti ir aiškiai pasakyta - kieno. Daryti mišinį iš visų rekonstrukcijų neaišku kokia proporcija būtų mums jėgų ir laiko švaistymas, nepaisant, kad aprašyti jas visas atskirai irgi didelis darbas. O tai kalbant apie Perkūną, kuris buvo minimas kone visų, kas apie lietuvių tikėjimą rašė (dar Gabija, kartais Šv. Ugnis, panašiai dažnai minima). Su kitais vardais iš mitologijos tuo atžvilgiu dar liūdniau. Linas Lituanus 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirmiausia, tai as nekalbu apie Lithuanian mythology straipsni. As cia tik apie dievu saraseli. Nes net neisivaizduoju nuo ko mitologija pradet rusiuot. Antriausia, as kazkaip nematau skirtumo tarp religijos ir mitologijos. Bent jau lietuviu atveju jau visas reikalas ir taip per skystas, kad butu galima kazka aiskiai atskirti ar pasakyti. Trecia, kadangi nera jokio padoresnio apibendrinimo, mes cia tokio parasyti ir negalesim. Ketvirta, ar yra koks normalesnis veikalas, kur nagrinetu dievus (o ne apskritai pasaulejauta) dainose, pasakose ir pan? Jei ne, tai tiesiog vienintele iseitis bus imtis (4) Lino ivardinto budo. Bent jau tuos saltinius turiu, ar galiu gauti. As visikai nesutinku, kad Beresneviciaus teorijos priklauso prie jo asmeninio straipsnio. Tiek labai trumpai. Renata 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tie visi dalykai yra neatskiriamai susiję, bet gal aš čia ir per bendrai parašiau. Dėl religijos ir mitologijos, tai nesiūlau skirti į du straipsnius, tik, jeigu tame straipsnyje vyraus religijos dalykai, tai gali iškilti pavadinimo klausimas. - Apie sąrašą savo nuomonę parašiau. Dėl šaltinių, tai jokių ypatingų šaltinių kaip ir nėra, kurie būtų nežinomi. - Šiaip, ar gali dabar prieiti prie šito: N. Vėlius (sudar.), Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, 4 Vols. (Vilnius, 1996-2005). ISBN 5-420-01579-X. ? (Iš str. ;Norbertas Vėlius) Arba: N. Vėlius (sudar.), Lietuvių mitologija, 2 Vols. (Vilnius, 1995-2005). ISBN 5-417-00677-7 (Yra vėlesnis antras leidimas, ir dar papildomas tomas 2004, redaguotas jau Beresnevičiaus)? Pavarčius porą vakarų daug kas paaiškėtų. - Enciklopedijose yra apibendrinančių straipsnių, bet jie visi priklauso vienam iš trijų mano išvardintų tipų. Galėtume parašyti 3 lietuvių mitologijas , paėmę pagrindu Lasickį - Dumdulienę (tarybinės enciklopedijos) arba Narbutą (senos lenkų) arba J. Balį - Z. Ivinskį (Bostono?). Visą tą reikia kažkaip jungti. Vardų sąašo apibrėžimai irgi čia su tuo susiję!

Hi Renata, congratulations on your promotion. I have a lt translation question for you. What is a good translation for Vytis? Coat of arms of Lithuania originally had it as "the charge". I thought it meant "the chase" or "the pursuit", so I changed it to the former. It was later changed to "the chaser", and then again to "the pursuer". Appleseed (Talk) 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Renata!

I was apologizing for the comment "escaped on foot, on bicycles, or on boats" because "chose to emigrate" seemed so dry compared to the stories I heard from my parents and their friends. But I don't mind being edited. It's so exciting to be a part of this project.

I'd like to just fix grammatical errors and awkward phrasings for a while before plunging into content, so if you have any particular pages in mind, let me know. (I love editing, but my day job pays much better). You seem to be doing an amazing job! Novickas 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Renata3. I've craved this image for some time for the Timeline of Largo, Florida. Is fairuse justified? Is there a better tag? Is there a better way of stating my rationale? Or will have have to delete the thing? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reple(short reply on fu rationale) I think I've done that adequately. Not sure Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you take a look at my first article? Cowarth 03:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George%27s_School%2C_Ascot[reply]

Uh what? You weren't an admin already?? I'm sorry I missed your RfA; I would have certainly voted support. Congratulations on the new mop. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done extensive editing of this article the last few days. Would you please take a look at the new page? Cowarth 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George%27s_School%2C_Ascot[reply]

Dear Renata, when a link goes nowhere in Wikipedia, do you think it's better to create a stub of some sort or to point to an external reference? Clearly, the ideal is to create not just a stub, but a nice long article, but that isnt't always realistic. Another ? - what is Wikipedia's definition of a sub or sub-stub? I haven't found that yet. Sincerely, Novickas 16:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Another question: do you have a "boilerplate" request for permission to use photos from Lithuanian sites? And do you know of any such sites that have a blanket permission? For example...I created a stub about Uzgavenes - it would be nice to include some pictures. If you could tell me that so-and-so site cheerfully allows Wikipedia to use its pictures, that would simplify things a lot. Novickas 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Renata; I did my best to answer it for this particular encyclopedia on my own talk page. A general rule for Lithuanian works might be very difficult to arrive at. Any later cut-off dates might also be extremely hard to verify, because in both cases one would need to consider Soviet law, with all the known and contentious complications. So I hope that these encyclopedia articles have no authors mentioned. Lupo 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the sentence The encyclopedia was published by the same people who published that threw me off as a bit awkward and unencyclopedic. Other than that, you're right, there's little to be fixed there. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some links to the Aukštojas hill article.

Juozas Rimas 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Juozas Rimas[reply]

Kruopinė Hill redirect done. Good point.

Juozas Rimas 09:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Juozas Rimas[reply]

Hi there,

I saw this oppose vote of yours and was wondering if you could advise me. I'm working on List of inhabited islands of Croatia and that's my first (future) FL candidate. Now, it isn't finished yet, I have to make those redlinks blue and I'll ad a nice satelite image of Croatian coast, but I don't know what else to put into the intro. So, I was wondering if you could advise me. What info should I put into the lead (I'm not asking you to write me a decent lead, just to give me some guidelines ;-) )? --Dijxtra 11:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, don't you think that all the stuff you mentioned make a good article, not a list? :-) I mean, "economy, political stuff, what role do those islands play in mainland Croatia" - those sound like article stuff, not list stuff. Regarding other points you raised, thanks a bunch, I'll work on those.

Aham. OK, I'll try to dig a sentence or two on every point you mentioned... thanks for the help! :-) --Dijxtra 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian encyclopedias, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

What a nice historical article, Renata! Enjoyed the read and the pictures were a nice addition. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirma, ačiū labai už ordiną . Mano nuomone, tie karai tarp Lietuvių ir Lenkų yra labai beprasmiški ir dėl to nekišau nosies (nors sekiaiu apie ką kalbos vyksta). Deja, jie paprasčiausiai bando vieni kitus apkaltinti dėl dalyku kurie ivyko praeitije, vietoj to kad bandytu išspręsti dabartines problemas. O aš maniau kad tai ne mano reikalas (nors kai prasidės balsavimas dėl Jogaila/Władysław II Jagiełło tai reikes nuomonę pareikšti). Andrius

Gotta love those newbie screw-ups, huh? Unfortunately the Williams2.jpg saga has resulted in the loss of the main image for the William S. Burroughs article, and due to new rules regarding biography photos I can't just reupload the earlier image of the author (which is still available on Answers.com and other Wiki-mirrors). Is there any way to replace the Burroughs photo that was there before it was overwritten by the one of the soldier, or are we sunk as there appears to be no images available of Burroughs that satisfy the new fair use criteria ... we can't even use an image of his most famous novel in lieu of a photo, so I understand. 23skidoo 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The image that was deleted was not of William S. Burroughs. Someone messed up and uploaded an image that overwrote the original picture. There had been no deletion request or controversy regarding the original image, which was uploaded a couple of years ago. The "new rules" I refer to are the tightening of fair use which has rendered it virtually impossible to upload biographical images without either having to take time and effort (unpaid time and effort I must stress) to contact copyright holders or basically personally knowing the subject and taking a photo yourself. An image of a fashion model doing her work is not allowed, a book cover for an author is not allowed, and a screenshot of an actor doing his work is not allowed. So unless someone wants to pay me to spend the time to basically play copyright lawyer (I charge $100 Cdn per hour) I'm not bothering anymore. But images that are deleted through someone else's incompetance should be simply replaced ... unfortunately it appears the Burroughs image is lost forever. 23skidoo 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any "new rules" set out -- that's the problem. People are interpreting them willy nilly. Scroll up on my talk page and read comments regarding Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet and you'll find a link to a discussion that pretty well sets it out. Anyway, it's my turn to be confused because I never saw anything being posted to William S. Burroughs about the image of Burroughs not being appropriate. I think we're talking about different images. The one you deleted is an image of an 1800s painting of some general which was uploaded a few days ago as "Williams2.jpg". The image I'm talking about is a photograph of the Beat Generation author which was uploaded about 2 years ago and is a black and white photo. You can see the photo on the Answer.com mirror of the WSB page here. If there was a discussion regarding this particular image, I missed it even though I have WSB on my watchlist. I have no idea who the guy in the soldier painting is. 23skidoo 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's weird is the color image of the soldier began appearing on the WSB page. Obviously the filename must have been the same. Maybe someone put the William2 image in there to be snarky. In any event as I stated above I really don't care anymore. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is only a few months away from banning images altogether, and it's not worth my time to go hunting for one that meets the finicky standards of a few. In fact I was at one point planning to remove all 1000+ images that I have uploaded (of all types) from every article that I have contributed to. However that apparently is considered vandalism so I won't. I am however intending to resign as an administrator because I do not support the culture of copyright paranoia that has arisen here. That's not to say I support blatant copyright violation -- I regularly delete lyrics and copyvios from articles and I also agree that the use of images in certain contexts is inappropriate (the old "using an album cover with a rose on it to illustrate an article on roses" argument). However there is no need to prohibit illusrations of a person's work, whether that be an actor in a film or the cover of a book by an author. And despite repeated requests, no one seems willing (or able) to tell me how these sorts of uses in any way affect the commercial viability of anyone's copyright. 23skidoo 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unrelated issue, however it's another example of how Wikipedia is inconsistent. It has been decided that when it comes to categories "Films by actor" (i.e. Category:Humphrey Bogart films) are not allowed, however identical categories regarding book authors are OK. See, for example, the defeated CFD here . It clearly shows that people are just interpreting the rules willy nilly as they see fit. On the plus side, I now have a precedent for arguing to keep Film by actor categories. But you see, this is the same sort of thing plaguing fair use and the overall use of images. If you check the licence tag for film screenshots it clearly states that screenshots can be used to illustrate "a film or its contents". Going by the dictionary definition "contents" includes the actors; yet in the arguments related to Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet I referenced earlier, people are choosing to interpret "contents" differently -- or ignore this altogether with statements like "well, that shouldn't be there". No one will give me a definition of what "contents" means under fair use. People are making up the rules as they go along and it's getting harder to support Wikipedia as a result. 23skidoo 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Renata: I made some copy-edits to the above page. If you see a problem with it, let me know. Whew, the Polish-Lithuanian conflict is getting hairy! But please carry on your wonderful work. Yes, it's political, but politics is the highest and best human endeavor. Novickas 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Several months ago you kindly respond with some comments on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preparation for submission as a featured list. Would you mind reviewing the progress - I think the only thing lacking is that each row does not yet have a picture. However, since pictures aren't required, I think it is ready for review. TIA --Trödel 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]