User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2023/February

Dispute resolution

Hi, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Coat of arms of Lithuania with which you are related due to participation in the RFC. Leave your statement in a dedicated section for you "Summary of dispute by Cukrakalnis" and the procedure will move forward. -- Pofka (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, I will write my statement soon. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)

The article Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Marcelus -- Marcelus (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You only stated It's not GA quality right now but didn't give any reasons why. I thought I had addressed all of your points & suggestions. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't send that message, because I wanted to keep the review going Marcelus (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem either way. We should work together on this article and bring it to a GA-level article even if the review was closed and then, once the article is at that level, I just renominate it and then it is finally evaluated as GA. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

ZZ

Discuss on talk page your distruptive changes, I will revert them now Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling my improvements to that article 'disruptive editing' is wrong, because I was making the article better by removing problems within it (e.g. too many quotes in the text) as well as contextualizing his actions and then you re-added the problematic quotes and the notice naming that the overquotation in the article is a problem here. You have no right revert it and you have broken the WP:3RR. Revert yourself to show good will or this will be taken to WP:AN/3. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You can remove qoutations as much as you want (you added them in the 1st place). But don't remove Critic section. This is a shameful attempt at watering down criticims of ZZ nationalist writings. I will revert any change that will touch this topic. If you want to change it, start discussion on a talk page Marcelus (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I never removed the criticism section. You are lying.

This is a shameful attempt at watering down criticims of ZZ nationalist writings. You literally accused me of manipulation when I used the same source as you for what I was writing (and even provided direct quotes). You, as a person who dehumanized Zigmas Zinkevičius a chauvinist pig three times, should be the one ashamed of lacking basic human decency.

I will revert any change that will touch this topic. It's obvious by now that you are WP:NOTHERE.

If you want to change it, start discussion on a talk page To discuss what? You yourself stated that you will revert any change that will touch this topic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Zigmas Zinkevičius) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Magnate states

Hello, Cukrakalnis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Magnate states".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

CC in Lithuania

Hi, why did you reverted my changes on Catholic Church in Lithuania? I adjusted names to their articles. Marcelus (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Using Chełmno for Culm in the 13th century is like using Wrocław when talking about Breslau in 1813. It hardly makes sense.

On the other hand, using Lithuanian-language names for Lithuanians in an article concerning Lithuania is absolutely justified and makes a lot of sense. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We should use the WP:COMMON NAME. You are acting against established policies Marcelus (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you are acting against the Wikipedia policy of WP:UE: ...follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

But these figures have already well established names! You can make a request to change them, but you shouldn't change them in the articles. Marcelus (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy of WP:UE: ...follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). Ergo, Lithuanian names for Lithuanians in an article about Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The page you linked is about article names, the names used in the CC in Lithuania have all established forms in Wikipedia so they should be used. I inform you once again why your actions are incorrect. If you misrepresent WP:EU again, I will assume that you are simply acting in bad faith. Marcelus (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The same goes for what you keep linking (WP:COMMONNAME), which is a section on the article Wikipedia:Article titles. The Lithuanian names you keep removing from an article about Lithuania are in the established usage of WP:RS, so using them is allowed, unlike what you are claiming. Your actions are the incorrect ones as you're trying your best to manipulate the rules to push Polishness where you see fit in an article about Lithuania. You replace a Latin name of Slavic origins (Ladislaus) with the Polish Władysław, make Bishop of Culm into Bishop of Chełmno (removing Latin/German name in favour of Polish), and add Polish names instead of Lithuanian ones for most Lithuanians mentioned in the article which happened to live during the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

...I will assume that you are simply acting in bad faith Read WP:GF. What's the use of that sentence? I know that you have a WP:GRUDGE against me as proven by you saying ...I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus, you are pushing nationalist POV, and I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. in 16 July 2022. You stalking me is proof that your attitude towards me has not changed much. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think WP:RS support another form of the name of these figures then start WP:RM. At this point WP:COMMON NAME is established in that form. Naming within Wikipedia should be consistent. Jogaila took the name " Władysław" at his baptism, hence he is called "Władysław II". Chełmno is a Polish city. The article about the diocese also uses such a name. I'm surprised that you insist on the form "Culm" since you are very wary of the Lithuanian form for geographical names within present-day Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion to state that the Lithuanian names are used in WP:RS. It's an observable fact visible on Google Books and Google Scholar. Also, WP:COMMONNAME page that you linked is about article names.

Naming within Wikipedia should be consistent. The naming that I use is consistent with the context of the article. Naming within Wikipedia is according to the context - just look at the different use of Gdańsk/Danzig depending on the period. A vote on this was a notable event that happened in early Wikipedia.

People were baptized as Catholics in their Latin names instead of vernacular. That does not preclude the vernacular version of the Latin names from being used when speaking/writing vernacular, etc. Unless you show to me Jogaila's proof of baptism from 1380s where it is written that he was baptised as Władysław instead of Ladislaus, the Latin version should be kept - Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church. You should also note that I wrote in the same article that Vytautas was baptized as 'Wigand' instead of Vygandas, just so we're clear that I am not applying any double standards here.

I fully agree that Chełmno is now a Polish city. But it certainly wasn't a Polish city (in the sense of a city within contemporary Poland) when it was a part of the State of the Teutonic Order, which is precisely the context in which it is mentioned on the article on the Catholic Church in Lithuania. I would be totally in support of naming it as Roman Catholic Diocese of Chełmno if we were talking about the periods 1454-1772, 1920-now. But we aren't. Also, there's a difference between clearly different names (Culm vs Chełmno) and just different spellings of the same name due to the specificities of given languages. For example, when Germans spelled Białystok as Bjalistok, because they don't have Polish diacritics and pronounced different letters differently. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said if you think that names of this figures should be spelled differentely, start move request, as for now names for them are established. We will not write about Nicolaus Copernicus " Mikołaj Kopernik" in the Polish context and "Nikolaus Kopernikus" in the German context, it will always be Nicolaus Copernicus. This is pretty much the end of the discussion at this point. I am simply giving you a courtesy explanation of the reason for my change.

Unless you show to me Jogaila's proof of baptism from 1380s where it is written that he was baptised as Władysław instead of Ladislaus, the Latin version should be kept - Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church. You should also note that I wrote in the same article that Vytautas was baptized as 'Wigand' instead of Vygandas, just so we're clear that I am not applying any double standards here. I'm not going to do it, because that would be WP:OR, Jogaila took the name of Władysław, this is what is confirmed by WP:SECONDARY. Besides, you are not consistent, because if you were you would use not Jogaila or Vytautas but Jagalo or Wytowdus/Wytolt, because this is how they are called in texts from that era. It doesn't matter much, I'm simply showing you the nonsense of your argument.

I am not aware of a rule that dictates the use of a different city name depending on nationality. I'm surprised that you raise this argument, since you yourself often rename Lithuanian towns in a 19th century context to Lithuanian rather than Russian. Where does this double standard come from? Marcelus (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the whole situation - Nicolaus Copernicus is a name that is firmly established in English usage that has been mentioned in thousands of books. People from the late 17th-century Lithuanian nobility are absolutely incomparable, because several different names are used to refer to them in WP:RS and frequently both Lithuanian-language and Polish-language names are mentioned at the same time.

I am very consistent. Spelling Vytautas as Wytowdus is clearly the same as Germans spelling Białystok as Bjalistok. The correct spelling in the original language should be preferred instead of a garbled transliteration. Or do you want to make life more complicated for the readers than it already is?

You are demonstrably wrong when you claim that calling Jogaila Ladislaus is WP:OR. Jogaila was baptized as Ladislaus, multiple WP:RS indicate that:

...Jagiello, christened Ladislaus... (p. 60, A Thousand Years of Poland)

After the baptism, when Jagiełło took the name Ladislaus (Władysław), he not only proved to feel at home within the Latin culture of the Polish Kingdom, but also made his mark as a founder of numerous churches and religious houses, was a sophisticated politician and diplomat, and a patron of the University of Cracow which he, along with Queen Hedwig, re-established in 1400. (p.515, Ladislaus II Jagiełło (1386–1434))

I am not aware of a rule that dictates the use of a different city name depending on nationality. You are surprisingly ignorant of Talk:Gdańsk/Vote. Also, the thing is that for lesser-known places like towns and villages, it would be far too disorienting for the average Wikipedia reader to see four or five different names for e.g. Utena depending on who is in control of it. There are already enough people who confuse the Baltics with the Balkans, let alone the countries within it and their capitals. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the thing is that for lesser-known places like towns and villages, it would be far too disorienting for the average Wikipedia reader to see four or five different names, cannot agree more -> use Chełmno Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Religion in the Lithuanian military has been nominated for merging

Category:Religion in the Lithuanian military has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Communications units and formations of the Lithuanian Army has been nominated for merging

Category:Communications units and formations of the Lithuanian Army has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)