User talk:Legionas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Legionas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ačiū už Europos Parkas ;) Renata 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! I've added a link to russian wikipedia in your Gorodetsky article

And allso a link to full online version of "Mif Ledokola".

Best regards,

 Evil gonzo historian from Mars

[edit] Image tags

Hi, the unfortunate thing is that "wikipedia only" permission is no longer acceptable. You ave to convince the authot to release (or "publish") the photo under a license. Now you can choose two licenses - GFDL and CC. I am much better familiar with GFDL. It says that the author/source must be always identified. A third party cannot take the owneship of the photo, but can use the photo (with proper credit given to author) anywhere it wishes (that also includes commercial purposes). If any modifications are made to the photo, original author still must be credited. Hope this gives you a some understanding. If you still lost and confused, let me know. I will answer in more detail later, 'cause now I need to work (lunch breaks are so short...) Renata 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kadangi sneki lietuviskai :) Siaip reiktu kad paviesintum email, kur parko atstovai leido naudoti nuotraukas. Ty, reiktu kad kiti matytu leidimo salygas. Jei leidimas duotas tik Wikipedia, tai tada geriausia naudoti fair use. Sios licenzijos visi cia labai nemegsta, bet tai turbut teisingiausias variantas. Jei pateiktum email su leidimu, as gal galeciau ka geresnio sukombinuot...

Siaip dar norejau pakviesti karts nuo karto pasizvalgyti po WP:BSNB. Cia lietuviai, latviai ir estai bando jungti jegas ir ka nors gero kartu nuveikti.

Ir jei kas - klausk. As dabar labai mazai laiko turiu ir mano interneto rysys labai nestabilus. Bet as vis tiek prizadu atsakyti. Renata 17:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Na taip, jie patys copyright ne per daug ismano. Ar galetum jiem dar viena laiska nusiusti? Jiems reikia paaiskinti:

Mes prasome leisti nuotraukas naudoti GFDL salygomis (o ne siaip "imk ir naudok")
GFDL reiskia, kad a) Europos parkas islaikys autorines teises i nuotrauka, b) tretieji asmenys gales imti nuotrauka ir ja naudoti be atskiro parko leidimo, c) tretieji asmenys privalo ivardinti saltini, autoriu ir autoriniu teisiu turetoja, d) GFDL leidzia naudoti nuotrauka komerciniam tikslam, e) prasome tik poros nuotrauku, o ne visos kolekcijos, f) jei kas nors pakeistu nuotrauka, autorius/autoriniu teisiu turetojas yra neatsakingas uz pakeitimus, bet vis tiek islaiko tas pacias teises. zr placiau cia

Snekant bendrai apie copyrights, jie yra pusiau teisus del meno kuriniu. Taip, tokiu atveju yra du autoriai - tu ir dailininkas/skulptorius. Pvz, jei pagamini reprodukcija kokio garsaus paveikslo - taip, tada reikia ivardinti autoriu ir paveikslo pavadinima, nes is darbas yra ne tavo. Tu nepadarei jokiu pakeitimu paveikslo vaizdui. Jei Petras sugalvos padaryti to pacio paveikslo reprodukcija, tavo ir Petro darbai turetu buti identiski. Taciau reikalai kiek kitokie, jei meno dirbinys yra viesoje vietoje (t.y. neuzdarose patalpose) ir yra skulptura. Tu nuofotografuoji ta skulptura. Petras nufotografuoja. Kokie sansai, kad jusu nuotraukos bus identiskos? Jokiu. Nuotrauka yra daug daugiau tavo darbas nei reprodukcija, nes i nuotrauka ieina daug gamtos, aplinkiniu detaliu, tu gali fotografuoti is idomaus kampo ar perspektyvos, etc. Be to, viesu skulpturu autoriai is tikro nei pirstu neprisidejo prie nuotraukos kurimo. Tad jie neturi teises i nuotraukos copyrights. Isivaizduok, as nusifotografavau prie Niujorko laisves statulos. Nejau dabar ta nuotrauka yra pusiau ne mano, nes skulptura yra kazkieno autorinis kurinys? Nejau as dabar tos nuotraukos negaliu naudoti savo svetaineje, nes nezinau koks ten skulptorius ka meistravo? Aisku, kad ne. Nes kitaip nebutu galima fotografuoti istisu miestu (architektu kuriniu).

Aisku, geras tonas ir etiketas ir tt reikalauja, kad ivardintum skulptoriu ir skulpturos pavadinima. Taciau tai nera oficialus reikalavimas. [Cia siaip daugiau tavo isprusimui :)]

Klausimai? :) Renata 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GFDL istoriskai buvo sukurta, kad butu galima dalintis programine iranga. Bet Wikipedia paeme ir sugalvojo, kad si licenzija puikiausiai tinka tekstui ir jos tikslam. O po to pamate, kad ir nuotraukos labai puikiai dera. Is tikro pati licenzija (pilnas tekstas WP:GFDL) nieko nesako, kad tokie ar anokie informacijos formatai negaletu buti platinamu su GFDL. Wikipedia yra pilna GFDL nuotrauku, diagramu, zemelapiu ir tt.

Dar kitas galimas variantas yra Creative Commons License tik apie ja as mazai zinau. O tos tavo minetos as is vis negirdejau. Jei Wikipedia sako, kad ji yra tinkama - pirmyn. Renata 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Gintaras_Karosas.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gintaras_Karosas.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Lithuania

Thanks for your updates to music of Lithuania, but please fix the references. I had added footnotes citing my sources for the information; you added more info (which is good) but no more sources. The references I cited don't verify the information you added -- that's not a big deal for the sections you wrote where there was nothing (or at least, nothing with footnotes) beforehand, but if you add info to a paragraph with footnotes, you can't leave the footnotes unmodified as though they verify all the information you added. Anyway, I'm not saying I don't believe that what you added is true (I've no doubt it is), but you need to cite your sources for the added info. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin's offensive plans

Hi. My watchlist showed some changes made on Viktor Suvorov page. I'm grateful for your edits on Suvorov page, although a problem may arise, as Hoffmann is not regarded a very reliable author in the West (this is not my personal opinion, I haven't read him myself). So it may happen, that some other contributors may try to question your additions.

I've also been dealing with the subject and am about to create a more comprehensive article on Stalin's assault preparations (notes). My main source is Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov's book Stalin's Missed Chance. All in all, I think the issue should be dealt with, as Stalin's aggressive plans thesis -- which seems to be proven by now -- has not been accepted in the West.Constanz - Talk 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just copy the text from User:Constanz/Draft to let us say, Legionas/Draft and edit it. The reason why I've relied on Meltyukhov, is that he's an academic author, who has summarised the dispute amongst the Russian historians, and thus may be more plausible for Westerners. Viktor Suvorov is definitely not an academic historian, and many of his ideas seem to be exaggerative or speculative. His claims are heavily disputed as well (let us not forget Glantz' book 'Stumbling Colussus', which mainstream Western historians regard as a masterpiece.)

Guys like Meltyukhov, on the other hand, seem to irrefutable (the claims rely on archive sources). As for Hoffmann, the problem is that he's a politically engagé writer (wikiarticle states he's an holocaust denier; a way of thinking which I find appalling). My aim is to create an academic article, which could not be rebutted by some pro-Commie or pro-Soviet contributors here; thus, self criticism is recommended. As you see, I've tried to use reference inside the text, so that every claim would be directly sourced. Also, this way is prefereable because then one may cite (copy) certain pararaphs from sources, without copyright problems. So far, I've not written much, though.Constanz - Talk 16:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Constanz! You should read "Mif Ledokola". Evil gonzo historian from Mars.

[edit] References

A big No-No! Pirmiausia, sauniai darbuojasi! Malonu matyti straipsnius, kurie auga ir ilgeja... Taciau, visada reikia tureti patikimus saltinius: knygas, straipsnius, filmus, websites, etc. Tai yra Wikipedijos tvarka. Ilga istorija, bet esme, kad vienas straipsnis apie kazkoki ploitika buvo siaubingai iskraipytas. Tas politikas, turedamas itakos, paskelbe tai visam pasauliui ir koki menesi spauda (ir pati stambioji) pirmyn-atgal rasinejo "oj vaje vaje, kaip mes galejom anksciau pasitiketi Wikipedia." Zodziu, nuo to laiko yra reikalaujama, kad kiekvienas straipsnis turetu ivardintus saltinius, kur trecias asmuo galetu nueiti ir patikrinti ar tu tikrai teisybe sakei. Gerai, tavim ir tavo zodziu galima pasitiketi. Bet ar galima pasitiketi kiekvienu is miliono uzsiregistravusiu vartotoju? Tad "as ten buvau ir alu midu geriau" netinka. Ir ne tik, kad taves negalima patikrinti, ilysti i tavo galva, bet ir prisiminimai gali buti klaidingi. Mano pacios klaida: Vilniuje as gyvenau kitoje gatves puseje nuo Vito Lingio. Galejau prisiekti, kad jis dirbo Lietuvos Ryte. Bet pasirodo jis dirbo Respublikoje. Pasitaiko. Zodziu, don't shoot the messenger, bet tau reikia ivardinti patikimus saltinius. Jie gali but bet kokia kalba. Svarbu tik kad jie tokie butu. Sekmes, Renata 13:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sutinku, taciau tas straipsnis neturi jokio saltinio, jokios uzuominos apie knygas/straipsnius, nieko. Tad jis galejo buti tiesiog nurasytas nuo lubu. Atsimenu, visai neseniai vienas user istryne info apie SKAMP, kodel? Jo edit summary buvo "does not assert any notability" ar kazkas i ta tema. Gal pats matei. Man ir tau yra trivialu, kad SKAMP yra viena geresniu muzikos grupiu, bet jam ne. Kodel? Todel kad jis greiciausiai nezino kur ta Lietuva is vis yra. Reikia, kad saltiniai butu surasyti atskiroje pastraipoje po ==References==. Zodziu, reiktu imesti bent pora nuorodu, tai nera taip jau ir sunku. Itas galioja ne tik rokui, bet ir viskam kitam, pvz, Poeple's Parliament.

Dar vienas mazytis dalykelis: kategorija Lithuanian writers/politicians, etc jau yra kategorijoje Lithuanian people. Tad neverta deti Lithuanian people kategorija kai jau straipsnis yra Lithuanian writers kategorijoje. Bet cia smulkmena. Renata 14:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced tag

I reverted your removal of the unsourced tag at Lithuanian rock. See WP:V -- the authors' experiences are not sufficient. This article needs to be verifiable using reputable, outside sources. Using one's own experiences to write an article constitutes original research. Tuf-Kat 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. About Dekanozov - if you speak Russian, you should notify in the talk page of the Russian article about this issue as well, because if the information is not true, then it has no place in the Russian Wikipedia either. And if it is true, perhaps you would get link to some reliable source quicker there. D'Italia 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AK

Thank you for your contributions to this little known aspect of AK activity and P-L relations. It would be great if you could expand on the sources used - see my comments at Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Lithuanians.2C_revisited.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have already replied there. May I recommend editing your signature so it would contain the 'Legionas' part? Perhaps as a link to a talk page? See Wikipedia:Signature for related ideas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian resistance

I am getting a little confused about the various Lithuanian organizations during the IIWW and whom they fought agaisnt. Perhpas you could create an article (or a disambig) similar to Polish resistance?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I started a page in my userspace - User:Heqs/Lithuanian resistance during World War II. Not sure yet if it's an article or a disambig page, or what... there is a lot of info like this missing from Wikipedia still. The see also section gives some idea of how non-standardly this is formatted/named from country to country as of now. heqs 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanded, and moved to main. heqs 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On June 11, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian Security Police, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but you seem to be referring to a content dispute. I am not competent to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of your comments, but it's something that should be raised on the article talk page. Exposure on DYK will possibly open up that discussion to wider informed debate. That's what this place is all about after all. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional gov.

Siulau tiesiog merge (visa teksta perkopijuoi) i Provisional government of Lithuania. Underground gov (tu teisus del pavadinimo, tik ne as ta straipsni rasiau) tada virstu tiesiog redirect'u. Manau metu pavadinime nereikia. Ar buvo dar kita Provisional government of Lithuania? P.S. labai puikiai darbuojasi prie ivairiu straipsniu :) Renata 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian Security Police

You reverted my edit [1]. In my opinion the current form of this sentence gives the impression thatr the whole AK or a large part of it was a criminal organisation. Can you provide any sources that the high command of the AK ordered, encouraged, or suggested that the AK units in Lithuania should engage in criminal acts against the lithuanian populatuion? In my opinion it should be said that it was the decission of individual low-level, autonomous (as usualaly in partisan organisations) AK commanders to commit criminal acts against the lithuanians. Like in the AK article it shoulsd also be noted that the crimes of the right wing forces like the NSZ were sometimes wrongly atribiuted to the AK (as a result of error, or for propaganda reasons) Mieciu K 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War2

Some time ago you noted, that you were preparing some stuff on Stalin's aggressive planning, just like I was. How far have you reached? My own draft has not improved a bit (apart from my recent bibliographic additions), due to almost complete lack of English sources. The only bulky reliable source in English is a book by mr Weeks, Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 ISBN: 0742521923, which, alas, is inaccessible for me. Have you read the book? It would probably be useful for contributing here.--Constanz - Talk 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgy Zhukov Mediation

Hi, I am mediating the Georgy Zhukov dispute and and you are listed as a party. Since the dispute is about your deletions/reverts/edits, your participation is required, and I strongly encourage you visit the mediation page, plead your case, Thanks and I welcome your comments on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 01:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone on the cabal: do you think such a reputable Western historian would include these memoirs if they were so controversial as Legionas claims they are? I don't think so. And it is just an example, since a lot of Western researchers use Zhukov's memoirs as an estimated treaty on the Second World War. For instance, David Glantz, another reputable American historian, quotes Zhukov in his works, see for instance

Funnily, Suvorov's book which I've been reading, points out that Zhukov's memoirs said (lied) that on June 22, 1941, Germans had “6 to 8 times more tanks than the USSR”. Appearantly, the USSR had 800-900 tanks... (Reputable source for Glantz and Erickson!). If I'll find the passage, I'll cite it on the cabal page.--Constanz - Talk 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be I Take Back..., for I haven't got it from my local library yet. Earlier today, I lent Suicide and Ten' Pobedy (in Estonian). As I was looking for the passages, I couldn't find it immediately in the latter book, I'll glance at the first one again. But such calculations were presented, Suvorov made lots of fun over it. All the books are fortunately availabe online as Russian originals.--Constanz - Talk 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tam źe: О количестве танков и самолетов в армиях Германии и ее союзников Жуков сообщает дважды. Страница 263: 3712 танков (это он слегка приврал) и 4950 самолетов (тут он крепко соврал). На странице 411 повторил: 3712 танков и 4950 самолетов. И тут же вывод: «Количественное превосходство войск врага было велико — в 5-6 и более раз, особенно в танках, артиллерии, авиации».

Это жуковское «в 5-6 и более раз» прилипло-присосалось к нашей истории. Но давайте проявим бдительность. Обратим внимание на странности: немецкие генералы наскребли 3712 танков. Это то, что произвела промышленность Германии в период между двумя войнами, и то, что собрали со всей покоренной Европы. А Красная Армия только за два с половиной года до германского вторжения получила более 7000 танков. Но получала их и ранее. Откуда же у немцев превосходство в 5-6 и более раз? [2] Zhukov pages, in case Suvorov cited the same version [3]--Constanz - Talk 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a Mediator's Proposal on the Georgy Zhukov Mediation page, let me know what you think. BrownHornet21 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Of course! Pati norejau paklausti kur Amerikoje apsistosi (tik kaip visada rankos iki to nenuejo). Tik siaip alu butu geriau pakeisti kuo nors kitu... Kaip keliausi? Kiek laiko NY praleisi? Jei nori, gali rasyti i email: pridek @gmail.com prie mano username.

[edit] del vardu

laba diena. na as manau kad valdovu rumai turetu buti vadinami royal, na manau butu protingiausia pradeti oficialu pakeitimo procesa jei ka. O tikri musiai del vardu vyksta cia . butu gerai kad issakytumete ir savo nuomone ir siuo klausimu. M.K.

gal pabandom pasklebti pervadinima i royal po to jei bus didelis pasipriesinimas pasiulysim kaip kompromisa ruler formuluote? M.K.

dar norejau pakviesti gal noresi prisideti prie vykdomo naujo projekto cia gal kils kokiu nauju minciu. M.K.

[edit] MedCab case

Hi, I am going to be the mediator for the Armia Krajowa MedCab case and the discussion is going to start on the talk page. Thanks, Addhoc 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armia Krajowa

1.If you like my edits, then please leave them in, don't obliterate them in your reverts. Reverting and asking me to readd them amounts to destroying content. 2.Vandalism has a very clear definition on Wikipedia, and Piotrus's reverts, however much you may disagree with them, are not vandalism. If you continue to use that inflammatory and unjustified term, that will give me an excellent reason to revert you. Balcer 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karai kareliai

Sveikas, siulyciau nepasiduoti provokacijoms ir elgtis protingiau. jei nepastebejai ponaicio su kuriuo prasidejai taktika revertint tavo versija, ideti papildomos medziagos, o po to, jei tu atstatai pradine versija verkslenti, kad tu neargumentaves istrynei saltinius, medziaga ir t.t. ir is salies ziurint jis atrodo teisus. zinoma rv greiciau, bet is sono tai tikrai graziai neatrodo. o balsavimas isvis bloga mintis. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Snieckus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snieckus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.