User talk:Renata3/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] THIS IS THE LIFE

Hello Renata, I am a newer user to Wikipedia but I have contributed several strong pages regarding the Los Angeles underground hip hop movement. There is a major film that has been made about this music collective called THIS IS THE LIFE. I researched and wrote a page about it that you deleted as spam. Perhaps it was so well written that you thought it was a press release or something? LOL. I just can't imagine why it was deleted as spam. I took a lot of time with it. Can you pls revisit this deletion? And if it is still not to your liking, please tell me what I can do to fix it properly? Thank you kindly, MarieMaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemaye (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[/ THIS IS THE LIFE] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemaye (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Lithuanian press ban, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On November 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian press ban, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pongwiffy

Could I ask why you choose to delete the above article? Many thanks. DWJE 216 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history Baltic states task force

please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force --Termer 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philomathes

I have created an article on them. I've noticed that lt wiki has an impressive article at lt:Filomatai - perhaps you'd like to translate some of it to expand the article on en wiki? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trainmoney = Bloomfield?

Hi Renata, do you think Trainmoney could be a Bloomfield sock? His latest contributions seem to be restoring Bloomfields old creations. Martintg (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klaipeda Airport

Dear Renata, last year you had kindly "baptized" me into Wikipedia. I beg for your kind review/interference in the Klaipeda Airport creation/ranking. The topic is bordering on low-importance edge if not for confusion brought in by IATA. Thank you. Ttk371 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Seimas of Vilnius GA pass

Hi there! Nice work on Great Seimas of Vilnius, I've just passed it as a Good article. I also left a couple of comments at the Talk page; you may read them here if you like. Congratulations, to you and everyone who helped with the article. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Józef Piłsudski

I would very much appreciate your opinion, from Lithuanian perspective, on whether this article is neutral. This question has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Baltic_states#Rename

Hi Renata,

there is some dicussion about a possible rename. Your opinion is most welcomed. Martintg (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood electrification

Blood electrification Oldspammer (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Laimingų naujųjų metų! Glad you're back. Novickas (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pascual Ortiz Rubio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pascual Ortiz Rubio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heart attack

Gotcha, eh? :) But seriously, isn't it sad that we now assume the worst when the person does no longer seem to be around, and, sadder enough, "the worst" more often than not turns out to be the reason for leaving?

Anyway, as for me, I will never leave (you can quote me on that). I truly hope you can say the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment redirect

I restored the redirect, as the links are required for thw RFC process. Please do not redelete without first causing the incoming links to be fixed. I don't have AWB here because my IE is broken, or I'd just fix it myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Now handled by a bot. Please disregard in terms of actions on this redirect, but R2 speedies should usually be "followed" before deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica-watch

Hello there. I've spent less than two weeks in Vilnius, and that was over two years ago, but that experience was so happy that I was most interested by what you write on your user page. Since I sometime long for the authority of the EB, a reference source that doesn't always get things right but at least is safe from vandals and twits, I feel like sticking up for them. Furthermore, I'm tired of editing Wikipedia and it's a novelty to edit EB instead. So here goes.

  • 1. A settlement existed on the site in the 10th century NB this doesn't say no settlement existed there before the 10th century.
  • 4. EB's use of the word "dominate" is a stretch; but I think that the word is often used in this poetic (poetastic?) way to mean something like "be looked down on by", and if so then this isn't actually wrong. (See this standard tourist photo.) And then you have a question of the definition of Vilnius: strictly, no, it doesn't include Užupis (etc); but in a way it does, and thus it's hilly, no? (But yes, basically you're right.)
  • 5. The cathedral dates originally from 1387... Doesn't this depend on what's meant by "the cathedral"? Perhaps better: "The cathedral that we see now..."
  • 6. The only neighborhood with rectangular street plan is Žvėrynas and it can hardly be called "newer." Even if "newer" just means "newer than Vilniaus senamiestis"?

So I think you've been a bit harsh. Still, a lot of your shots hit home and EB should fix the problems fast.

Ah, you've made me want to spend another happy half hour gazing at this excellent book. -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also it looks like the copy that was uploaded was pre-1990. I suspect EB is so vast that it is not subject to regular updates; it is updated more often in print but I suspect they are not as assiduous at editing as you expect them to be. Nevertheless, well done for highlighting how print media - including Wikipedia - are often at odds with the facts as people know them to be. Please don't stop highlighting these discrepancies, it is a job which I have become expert at and have in the past assisted public figures to clarify/update/edit their own Wiki articles - it is one of the pitfalls we run into because print media and other sources are often taken to be concrete fact whereas a lot can depend on the knowledge of the original author, political sensitivities and even typos in books. Good luck in your research :). Lstanley1979 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nazi Germany occupations

Dear Renata: Thank you for the creation of the {{Nazi Germany occupations}} template. You have done an excellent job that will help navigation for an important part of the history of the Second World War. IZAK (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Person of the year

I don't see any Lithuanian women listed as person of the year. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda of misleading. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Hi. Nothing is wrong with maps thay are good but I don't think it is good idea to place them instead images. Maybe it is possible to place these maps behind the infobox or in other place but photo should be main picture. We must show nice our rivers not borring maps for readers :) Of course it's my opinion and if other users will say that maps is better when I will not opposite. Regards, Hugo.arg (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Isara

An editor has nominated Isara, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isara and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, the fix to the Baltic tribes map is fine

Renata3, the fix to the Baltic tribes map is fine with me. From what little information I saw this morning when I researched it on the web, yes, the Curonians were a West Baltic tribe and should have been colored green. Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Prussian clans 13th century.png

@ Renata, the main mouth of river Vistula is very young.

Furthermore the local name of Pruszcz is seen as a hint, that Old Prussinas lived in the whole delta region, probably mixed with slavic people, as the left side of lower Vistula is undoubtedly old Pomerania, i.e. Slavic coastal region. Yours' sincerely, Ulamm (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Renata, I have found a mistaken name in the map: South of the coloured ares you have written "Masuria". That is wrong:

  • Mazuy/Masuren is inside the former Prusai area. It was settled by Mazovians in 15th and 16th century, after the original population had been killed or settled elsewhere by the Teutonic Order.
  • Where you have written Masuria, there is Mazovia/Mazowsze/Masowien. Yours' sincerely, Ulamm (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil war in Lithuania (1700)

I am not sure if the name of the article, which I just translated from pl wiki, is most appropriate. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From my readings it appears there was a little more to it, through indeed not that much in term of military activity (zajazdy, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe both articles are notable; on pl wiki the battle has a separate article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warmia

Hello Renata! Last year you had redirected "Persecution of Poles in Warmia" to Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. Molobo has since readded it to Warmia. Olessi (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état

Updated DYK query On 29 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

(on MainPage with a picture of Kazys Grinius). --PFHLai (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renata, heh, you caught me on an unusually leisurely Saturday morning. Couple of comments. GA reviewers would probably like to see more EN references; here's one [1] . Also "The new government lifted...", could you specify that government some more? Probably more q's soon, on article talk, but will begin ce now. Best, Novickas (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Military cout

Drumhead court-martial would be the closest equivalent, I think (although it has some connotations that may or may not be relevant to the original). Kirill 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppety goodness

Many thanks for your help; I'll let you know if/when he is back. Experience is apparently that he surely will be. Tb (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diffs I was collecting

In case it's later needed, I collected some diffs in order to make a report on the user you blocked. Thanks for taking care of him so quickly.

I commend to your attention this gem, and:
Decategorizing LGBT people and oganizations, possibly WP:VAND: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], & [13]
WP:NPA: [14], [15]
Judging from his first edit, he's been around here a while. His editing style sounds familiar, but I can't specify it. --SSBohio 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica.

Hello, thank goodness I found you (thank goodness for google :P). I needed someone with access to the online Britannica encyclopedia, to see if the Tsar Cannon article there says anything about it being the largest howitzer. Think you could help (it's for the cannon article, which we're trying to improve to FA quality)? Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disappointing; I guess I should have expected that though. :/ Well, I guess I'll have to keep hunting for a source, else have to remove the claim... Thanks anyway. :) · AndonicO Hail! 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon recategorizer seems to be back

Not on a big scale yet, but... Special:Contributions/87.74.16.171 seems to be him. Note the comment on the change to User:Tvarkytojas. Tb (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A star for you

The Working Man's Barnstar
  Wow.

That looks like it took some time; I really think that I would have had to take it to Word or something—I also really think that you deserve this barnstar for it. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:26 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, it took about 1% or 2% of the time it would have taken me. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:44 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Coins

Hmm. Ok, stay tuned for progress, M.K. (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But those look too ugly. Compare, M.K. (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly you have in mind? Photos? M.K. (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you try looking some pic in Bank of Lithuania museum? M.K. (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for translation

I am looking for a Lithuanian speaker to translate a part of a Lithuanian article into English or Polish; it is relevant to a RfC discussion on English Wikipedia. See my request on Polish Wikipedia here. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dmochowski's Laboratory

Renata, I appreciate your helping pursue my query. It did occur to me that the 1932 Wilno [sic] content might be better directed to Polish history editors, and I'll follow up that way. Actually I don't (yet) have more details on the institution, but expect to find more resources over time that will shed light on the various streams in Jewish secular education there in the 1920s and '30s. Thanks for your support! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NORTH OR EAST

Hi Renata, I'm fresh to Wikipedia, but my edits are far from being wrong. I tried to contact you earlier, but I couldn't find any private messaging system on the site. It is a disputable subject whether Lithuania is a part of eastern or northern Europe. The source you provided (UN Clasification) is not the only and final verdict on the subject. For example, according to the CIA Factbook, it belongs to Eastern Europe -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_colour_coded.svg My edit allowed different viewpoints on the subject, as it is a very disputable manner, and should not be described in such a cathergorical manner as in your entry. In fact, I am quite sure, that most of the world perceive Lithuania as located in Eastern, not northern Europe. This is why I propose a change in article, which provides the information that doesn't sound so final! Regards Kubster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubster (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Clips

How callous that you would delete this information. Did you possibly think that someone would make up all of these names and the years they worked on this YEARS. There is a source and I will find it. OneMarkus (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish ultimatum to Lithuania 1936

That redirect can be deleted, I presume (wrong 1936 date)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for help on my page, M.K. (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personall attacks

That's wasn't personall attack, because M.K has ever learnt Polish history, and you regulary write hoaxs about polish history. And I have Piotrus on one's good side. So if this sytuation to be contiuned I will this matter carry in an Arbitration Comitee. Regards. Alden or talk with Alden 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hello. I'm sorry. I was nervous.. I be blue in the face. Really I'm sorry, serio..So please block me on two days, because I earn on penalty. Alden or talk with Alden 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions made by Google

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions made by Google. Please respond. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1927 Polish-Lithuanian crisis

Nice job with the 1938 one; I wonder if the 1927 events deserve a separate article or should we just craft a para and add it to several related articles? Sources for start: [16], [17], [18], [19]. PS. Cite templates are too cumbersome and I refuse to use them until they are made easy to use, sorry :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of World War II (1939)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Timeline of World War II (1939), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Timeline of World War II. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1346

I'm working on it at User:Wrad/Sandbox2. There's an awful lot of stuff on that year out there. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Takes Manhattan postponed to Friday April 4th

All other details remain the same. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimatum articles (e.g. 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania)

Very impressive - I learned a lot: affected Wall Street, for example. (Did you look up old New York Times in the library?) Thanks! Novickas (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Problems

Category related [20], seems the same editing style. M.K. (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Nice work, it does look cleaner; I guess the legend was making it a bit cluttered. You're welcome for the font help, and I'm certainly not qualified to give anyone a lesson on layers :) Best wishes (and feel free to let me know whenever you need a hand), Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concordat of 1925

I added some comments on the talk page of the article. I basically feel, that the Lithunaian-Polish-Vatican problems did not originate or even culminate with the concordat and that therefore such emphasis should be discussed. looking forward --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet–Lithuanian Non-Aggression Pact

Can you use some inline citations for the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:A break?

I would love to, but I have to keep some trolls in check. Honestly, if not for them, I would have very little reason to write articles on certain issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you name those "trolls", I even could try to help solving problems with them. M.K. (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a very nice job, although I'd have to compare it to maps I don't have atm for any more meaningful reply. User:Halibutt is/was our map expert on that region, you may want to ask him about that, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I have no reason at this moment to disbelieve accuracy of Vaga (2001) atlas, therefore just a technical suggestions - change colors of the map :) It is hard to follow text on the certain colors as well; even using quite big px, it seems that map mingles into one big color X. Perhaps map needs additional cropping from the bottom. Baltic sea, should be written as such in the map,as it may look to unfamiliar with the region person as some sort unnamed "state". M.K. (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

well I would love to, however I have lack of free time :( Perhaps will take a look in upcoming weeks. M.K. (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ran across yours when posting in M.K's talk. I would consider highlighting Latgale, but that's neither here nor there. I do think you need a lot more differentiation in the colors (non-pastels and potentially hashed shading if needed). Great job on the content. —PētersV (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely more readable. I'd still try and go for more colors for more separation. I know it can get a bit garish, but it's a map, not interior decoration! More importantly, I don't know if you have the facility to do so (haven't played with the program you're using), but I think it would be very helpful if the Polish territory could be hashed (overlay partially translucent white diagonal hashing?) so it would be immediately clear what happened outside of Poland's borders. That should be intuitively clear. —PētersV (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes: the legend needs updating; also see my comments regarding Polish-Lithuanian borders here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I have on the Polish assistance of the anti-Bolshevik campaign as it pertains to Latgale. My thought there was, what was the furthest (stable) boundary of Poland-Lithuania? (Prior to first partition?) Certainly the Poles' reticence to evacuate Latgale had to partly take its justification from the historical extent of Polish rule.
   I appreciate your desire to have an a-political map. But the non-existence of Poland for 123 years (talk about patience!) I think needs to be dealt with somehow. I believe there needs to be some representation of "Poland." I don't think it's unreasonable to show the Polish border prior to the first partition of 1792 for some historical perspective. And/or to show the boundaries of areas in which Poles formed the majority at the turn of the 20th century (I might have something there). Otherwise I feel like we're missing some basic context, but that could just be me. —PētersV (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of words about other forces operating in Latvia: first, on May 22 Baltische Landeswehr seized Riga from the Bolsheviks and in the beginning of June Estonian units reached Jekabpils actually meeting the Poles nearby while on patrol. Maybe these events can be somehow sketched on the map to add some perspective showing how the Bolsheviks were squeezed out from the Baltics, if you think they're notable enough here. Oth (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on map being complicated enough... you might want to lighten all the colors a bit. To your question, I do have some information in Latvian... Poles promised to send 2 infantry and 1 cavalry division (20,000 men), commander of the Polish division was General Smiglijs-Ridzas (transliterated/Latvianized). Perhaps this is enough for some folks to search Polish sources? And there's some detail on the order of confrontation/battle with the Bolsheviks around Daugavpils. Hate to entice you and then not be able to translate for the moment! —PētersV (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Alas, I don't have maps about the Estonian offensive in Latvia and I am not aware if there are any in Estonian literature (probably are, though). I can only give a list of locations and dates for a general picture: 24 May Smiltene, 25 May Valmiera by 3rd division and May 28 Aluksne, May 30 Gulbene, June 2 Laudona, June 5 Jekabpils by 2nd division. All Bolshevik forces retreated towards Russia to avoid being surrounded. Maybe that is enough, you probably just want to add 2-3 small arrows to the map. And maybe our Latvian editors have better information. Oth (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done a very good job on the map I must say! Only the white arrows are a bit too dominant right now as the map is primarily about Poland/Lithuania and I would somehow differentiate Landeswehr and Estonian troops. I have also some reservations about calling these Latvian attacks: a) there were not many Latvian units involved in the Estonian Army offensive (2 Latvian and 8 Estonian regiments); b) Landeswehr at the time was an enemy to the Ulmanis' government and shortly aftewards (in June 1919) a conflict between Landeswehr and Estonia, who supported Ulmanis, broke out. Oth (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What events do the arrows pointing from Latvia towards east (Daugavpils etc) designate? Oth (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map Scans

I've e-mailed the maps to you, mind that my e-mail dosen't mach my username (and I forgot to sign the letter as Xil, oh well the subject indicates what it is anyway). If you have any questions ask on my talk page, don't send me e-mail - I check my e-mails very rarely ~~Xil * 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I checked my Latvju Enciklopedia for maps, there were only three tiny thumbnails of operations in specific places on specific days, nothing useful. :-( PētersV (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There dosen't seem to be any Latvian attacks in Piltene direction and from Jēkabpils further in Latgale (altough there is some activity markeed around Daugaupils). The first map looks fine. The legends you've written seem to be a bit wrong, but as long as you don't put them in map, I won't worry about it as I don't exactly know at which point which army is of what nationality (given that the war was fought between Latvians aided by variety of other forces vs, Latvians aided by Russians vs, Germans aiding Latvians at first and later being aided by Bermontians, who technicaly were Russians). The Atlas is Latvijas Vēstures atlants Rīga 2001 Zvaigzne ABC ISBN 9984-17-669-X, the maps showing directions and other details are from "Latvijas Enciklopēdija" (I sējums) Rīga 2002 SIA "Valērija Belokoņa izdevniecība" ISBN 9984-9482-1-8 ~~Xil * 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuania location map

Hi - I noticed this question. These location map templates are used by Template:Location map to create composite images of the base map with a (labeled) locater dot, usually indicating the position of a city. How it works is the base image and the latitude and longitude of the top, bottom, left, and right edges of this image are specified in the place-specific location map template (e.g. Template:Location map Lithuania), and then when Template:Location map is used it is provided with the latitude and longitude of a place (and generates HTML using fancy CSS stuff to create the appropriate composite image, using the longitude and latitude numbers for the place and the edges of the map). So, when replacing an image you also have to change the top/bottom/right/left latitude and longitude numbers to match the new image (and the image has to be an equirectangular projection - i.e. if you draw the latitude and longitude lines on the map they're straight horizontal and vertical lines, in particular the longitude lines are not curved).

I'm not sure it matters, but the replacement image you want to use is kind of large (4MB). I think an svg version of this would be way smaller. You might ask User:Obersachse about this. He was the original creator of Template:Location map Lithuania. Another possibility is asking whether the map size matters at Template talk:Location map. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In case you are interested

One such discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD G6 clause "cleaning up redirects". I've also proposed that anyone who wants to expand the current criteria for speedy deletion of redirects do so over there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policing other users talk page contents

Renata, I commented that I found Irpen's edits unproductive, supporting the opening and rehashing of old issues long since discussed and settled, and running counter to his other (recent) more productive and conciliatory edits, which I have commented I welcomed. I prefer to leave my comments on user pages where they are public. I have nothing to hide. If Irpen wishes to remove my comments, it is his talk page and his prerogative. It is not yours. Do not mistake my expression of disappointment as a "personal attack" on Irpen. You are not party to our editing history going back to before your involvement. Respectfully, PētersV (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The issue of republic or not and what was occupied by whom was argued and settled a long time ago. Dojarca opened up the issue, and Irpen (who has a history of supporting Dojarca's edits) took up the mantle of something that was a completely closed issue that Irpen is completely aware of as he was there for the discussion the first time. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'll just invoke a dose of amnesia regarding prior discussions to relieve myself of editorial baggage. Let's see what happens. —PētersV (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi and request

Hi Renata, hope you're enjoying the long-awaited pavasaris. Turned out to be an American spring after all - cold, cold, staiga 80 degrees. So I added the GA, but do you have any advice on how to rearrange my userboxes? They look messy. Best, Novickas (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Much better, thanks, also thanks for reviewing oil shale, hope to address yr comments soon. Novickas (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suwałki region

I think I finally understand your argument: that Suvalkai Region (Suwałki Region) is a small part of Sudovia/Suwalszczyzna, limited to the city of Suwałki (while the larger regions has several other major towns and cities, such as Augustów, Sejny and Mariampole), right? If this is the case, I can understand why the merger may not be preferable; however: 1) references need to be provided to show that a term, Suvalkai Region, is indeed used and has a relatively well defined area smaller' than Sudovia (from what I read it appears that at least some sources use Suwalkai/Suwałki Region interchangingly with Sudovia/Suwalszczyzna) and 2) as currently written, Suvalkai Region makes no such assertion other then in the lead; the everything but one sentence is a poor version of the history of the Sudovia. I have expanded Sudovia and it has all information that exist in the Suvalkai Region; the article would honestly look better if we had removed all but the first one or two sentences of lead - it would be less confusing then. Still, it needs to be demonstrated that it is a notable, separate entity (there are regions around each major town and such, it does not mean that they are all notable). PS. I think it is also clear that if (and that's a big IF) Suvalkai Region is notable, it should be moved to the much more popular name, Suwałki Region (or is this again something different...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't some Lithuanian claims concern the entire Sudovia region?
Suwalki triangle is more used than Suvalkai region (and Suvalkai triangle, or course). But are we sure this is the exactly same region? And Suwalki region is more popular...
Overall, I think your move and redirect options have merit (we can always have disambig notes that x redirects here, for y look there). But can we find at least one definiton for every of those terms? Plus isn't there really a good name to describe Suvalkija + Suwalszczyzna, and are we sure the English sources refer to them as either Polish or Lithuanian with those names? I'd still be temted to keep the current Sudovia (under Suwalki region name), redirect suwalszczyzna and suvalkija to it, and - if proper refs are created - move a small and rewritten part of the suvalkai region to suwalki triangle (or suwalki region). Sigh, this is still confusing. We really really need refs with definitions. PS. Yes, there are almost no hits for Sudovia+(1918-1922). Also, to be fair, Suwalszczyzna does not appear to be often used in English sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, the split of Suvalkija/Suwalszczyzna is not supported by Łossowski (Konflikt...) who writes (p.138) in the chapter "Fight over southern Suwalszczyzna. Situation in Wilno. September 1920." subchapter "Lithuanian efforts to keep Suwałki, Sejny and Augustów": "Lithuanians considered southern Suwalszczyzna part of their new state [...] A minister has declared that Suwałki Region (okręg) has been incorporated into the Lithuanian state [...]". Now, I'd assume that for the Lithuanians then Suvalkija meant Suwalszczyzna as well (Poles, on the other hand, did not want the northern Suwalszczyzna - but Polish sources seem to refer to the entire region as Suwalszczyzna, distinguishing between Southern and Northern). So again, it seems to me that (just as interwiki suggest) Suvalkija = Suwalszczyzna. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Łossowski makes it clear Lithuanians claimed the entire region - all of the Suwałki governorate - during the P-L conflict in 1918-1920 (they later made some concessions, but their initial demands were for all of it, up to Augustów and Suwałki, which had a clear Polish majority).
As I said, I still think that we can deal with all of it in one article (probably named Suwałki Region). We can have a heading on Suwałki triangle and discuss this most problematic region there (although according to Łossowski, the most problematic region should be called the Sejny region, as it was Sejny more then Suwałki region that caused most trouble). We can discuss the various names, how, by whom and when they were used and so on in different sections of the article. If a section grows large, we can split it. I agree with you that those terms and regions are very poorly define, but it is not our job to do OR and try to define them, certainly not as a separate articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I expanded Suwałki Governorate a little, and added the seats of the counties, but the two beginning with W seem to be little known villages - I cannot determine their Lithuanian (presumably) name. If you could correct this, it would be great (I am sure somebody will accuse me of polonization or such if they remain as they are...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd try to avoid Polish Suwalszczyzna and Lithuanian Suvalkai, to keep down certain editors who may scream murder/polonization/lithuanization. I think either Suwalki Region (even without the diacritic) or the Sudovia are preferable.
We can certainly add Lithuanian ethnographic regions template to it; I have no problem with accepting that Suwalszczyzna is seen by Lithuanians in that way.
I think we can discuss different names and their usage in the separate names section, and the region really has common borders/history/geography etc. PS. Further, there are logical inconsistencies: yes, Lithuanians formed majority of the Suwalki governorate, but not in the southern part which includes the Suwalki city, which was mostly Polish.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am confused, but are you suggesting redirecting Suvalkija to Sudovians? Why not redirect it to Suwałki Region, which is where we should move the current Sudovia article too (with Sudovia being redirected to Sudovians)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) PS. If you have a high res map of Suwalki Governorate, can you upload it to Wiki? We are missing most of the maps of those entities and this makes it really confusing to deal with them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid as I explained above I see no reason for the article on (current) Polish region to be separated from the (current) Lithuanian region. They share most of the history, and the differences can be summed up in a para or two (region in modern Lithuania/Poland). Why not merge it, rewrite it and we will see if any headings need to be split off. Image - try to upload it as a zipped file to a file hosting service, rapidshare or such. PS. I got the @ with the image, thanks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: have you seen a map (or a source), even in Lithuanian, that would clearly differentiate between Suvalkai Region and Suwalszczyzna (or whatever the appopriate names of those two concepts are, I am sure you know what I mean)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the maps, they certainly clarify the issue. I wasn't able to find any Polish map of "Suwalszczyzna" other then the one already in article (without clearly defined borders). I totally agree w/ regards to total mess in naming. Due to scarsity of sources and refs, I still think one article is preferable. We can have a heading about Suvalkija, The Ethnoographical Region of Lithuania, where we can discuss that it's the northern part and hopefully include a map showing the border (it would be interesting, however, to see if there are interwar maps of this, as it is possible the modern definition of Suvalkija is not the same as used in the interwar period). Again, I will not object to splitting Suvalkija once the section grows large enough (beyond stub and with refs) to justify a separate existence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The draft - WOW. Novickas (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC) How about this ref - [21] Novickas (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Renata3/suvalkija looks very good; glad to see the AfD had a positive effect :) I am not suprised we need to throw the entire old content out and create a new article from scratch, though :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By forever you meant one day??? Well as it happens I have some photos of Rumsiskes, could scan and upload, or maybe email to you and you could put them on Commons. Novickas (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to do something in the mainspace? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoirs

In the US artificial lakes are called reservoirs by default, although if they are big enough and are used for recreational purposes, they often end up being called "Lake Pork Barrel" or whatever, see "Category:Reservoirs in the United States".

In the case of the two you mentioned, reservoir seems at a glance most used in EN: Kaunas Reservoir here [22] and here [23]. Elektrenai Reservoir here [24] and here [25]

Hope this helps. Novickas (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing glacial lakes, not one of my strong points, did it a long time ago. They have an astonishing, to me delightful, but probably WP-contentious, variety of names. Will do some research. Novickas (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, not a huge priority, after looking at Lakes of Lithuania - IMO a pretty good article, the reader gets the general picture. Curiosity somewhat piqued, but can wait. Novickas (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, List of lakes in Lithuania was a fun litle project, couple comments/requests. "With all baights"? Could you maybe bring the Elektrėnai Reservoir picture over from Vikipedia? Also, the phrase the phrase "when the local residents decided to dig a hole" made me laugh, pleasant memories of childhood, when we often decided to do this. Sometimes there would be half a dozen other kids from the neighborhood participating in the project. But maybe it should be rephrased to sound more purposeful. Novickas (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, rather. I wish my Lithuanian were that good :( Novickas (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Following the principle that compliments are more effective when specific: your latest article - the English is as good as that of most US college graduates. Your organization, content, and use of references have always been outstanding. If my work on them sometimes looks like slash-and-burn, that's because it's part of my RL job. But don't improve too much more! or you will deprive me of a favorite WP pastime. Novickas (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French commune navigational boxes

Why do the spaces make any difference? They work just fine as they are. Ksnow (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Ksnow

[edit] Vilnius letter

This article has been nominated for AfD. Feel free to weigh in with your comments. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wigund

A translation from Polish sources? Needs copyediting, and you did more work on this period than I (he is also not Polish, but Lithuanian/Ruthenian?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hello

Im doing some work on a Kosovo article. I found this source but i can't read Lithuanian and i noticed that you can. I was wondering if you would please translate it for me into English as i may need this source for the article im working on? [26]

Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thats been very helpful Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ethnographic Lithuania

While you are working on the region, perhaps you could stub this topic? Łossowski, for example, devotes an entire chapter to the discussion of this concept; I am however afraid that if I were to create it and base solely on his (Polish) perspective, it may not be seen as constructive by some editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lukiskiu aiskte

Laba, ispudingas straipsnis (ir nuotrauka!). Ar galetum pasidalinti saltiniais? Noriu atnaujinti angliska straipsnio versija. Renata3 06:03, 2008 balandžio 22 (EEST)

Labas, turi omenyje pasidalinti nuotraukomis? jei taip - tai be abejo; dalinuosi. jei ne - tuomet apie kokius šaltinius kalbi? jei teksto, tai tekstas sumestas remiantis šiais šaltiniais: ruošiamos spaudai Vytauto Jogėlos, Elmanto Meilaus ir Virgilijaus Pugačiausko knygos rankraščiu Lukiškės: nuo priemiesčio iki centro ir Evaldo Zilinsko Lukiškių aikštės 2004 m. urbanistinių ir paveldosauginių tyrimų moksline ataskaita bei Kęstučio Katalyno 1992 ir 2004 m. Lukiškių aikštės žvalgomųjų archeologinių tyrimų ataskaitomis, 1992 m. Indrės Baliulytės šios aikštės istoriniais tyrimais ir Vidmanto Vaitiekūno 2004 m. atliktų šios aikštės žvalgomųjų inžinerinių geologinių tyrimų išvadomis. Jei norėtum visos apžvalgos - galiu atsiųsti. figuura 22/49 08/04/24 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.162.158 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New LT Universities template

Could you please review Template:Universities in Lithuania, and fix if it is needed. Thank you in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Suwałki Agreement

Please: this is a very short and simply written treaty (barely two pages). You can quickly read it and if you find anything that indicates the Vilnius was ceded, please, show it to me. This errors seems to have originated with, ummm, what's the better word... untruth of Lithuanian propaganda in the interwar period and indeed, some English language publications, which do not go into any detail and do not quote their sources, repeat this claim. Łossowski goes into details and shows it was false, and again - this is a simple treaty which does not sais anything about Vilnius. I could accept Novickas version, if we add a note that the "Vilnius was ceded" version is erroneus (per Łossowski, if you want to cite the rationale for the claim, but again - please read the treaty). PS. Please note this was discussed on talk some time ago, so my reverts are not unexplained.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Party

Hi. Just thought I'd mention, the talk page still needs to be moved over to the new title. Narson (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Governorate template

Well, I still have this infobox on my to-do list, although it is not a priority. If {{Infobox Former Subdivision}} is working out for now, that's great, but I suspect that down the road it will no longer be sufficient as there are going to be some very particular specifics that generic infobox would be unable to handle. In any case, if you have any ideas, drop me a line. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Cleanup reply

Hi, Renata - responding to your message here, but I'll put it on my talk page, too. The page with a listing of the backlog of POV tags needing attention is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes Midway down the top paragraph is a link to the cleanup page with more thoughts and guidance on what is needed. For myself, I've been more than a little bugged by some who tag articles for the wrong reasons or petulance - "I disagree or the topic is unpleasant, so I'll just tag it." Anyway, I've been doing it, I hope, sentitively. Many pages I've encountered have editors asking on the discussion page, "Does anybody know anything about a POV dispute?, what's that tag about?" meaning it wasn't the editors of the page who put it to begin with, and they have no knowlege of any issues. Well, a bit of a rant, maybe. I've been finding the service of cleanup is much needed - many tags are long forgotten, but people either won't or don't know how to remove them. Thanks Jjdon (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Renata, I remember that article, and it's one I thought carefully about. The point is, as is said on the POV dispute page, that people will simply put them back if they have cause. The real thing is that often the old tags were placed for reasons that don't mean anything anymore. New tags = new reasons. Often there is no apparent reason why they were added at all. And there are quite a few articles that I left the tags alone, or commented to editors that they might remove them, as they seemed to have consensus. The whole point is consensus, and much of tag cleanup is drive-by - "I don't like it, so I'll tag it." That's not editing, that's graffiti. As for your desire to retag the Prussians - you'll get no argument from me. I'm not the tag police, just the cleanup crew, though in my messages I'm trying to get folks to pay attention to why tags are there, too.Jjdon (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add something more about this, too. In the beginning of my starting this effort, some of the tags were from 2006. As I'm progressing into more recent times, it's not always so easy to do. I leave more and more of them alone as I get more current, even though I often think the reasoning is pedantic at best - but that's just me.Jjdon (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant

Thanks for the link - could you check what I added there?

Re "was" - I thought about that; it was the first such in the Baltic Region at the time, but there may be other ones out there now; can't tell without a fair amount of research. So the best thing seemed to be to use the past tense. And if it closed - if you could clarify that there? - then it would have to be in the past tense. Novickas (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that someone will invoke "WP is not a Crystal Ball", but until then, will say "is" (ohh no, it depends on the definition of what 'is' is!) Thx again, Novickas (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Ruthenia

I wondered if you could inform me what ideological agenda lies behind some of the edits to Black Ruthenia. At first I thought it was a Belarusian nationalist thing, trying to turn Novgorodok into some kind of medieval predecessor to Belarus (though I thought Polotsk had that function), but then there is the Polonization of eastern Slavic and Lithuanian Baltic names happening in the article too. So if you could shed some light on it I'd be grateful. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will investigate. From my own areas of knowledge, Scotland and Ireland, such genealogical material is more often than not wrong or misleading (based on late material or fantastical lists compiled by 18th century hacks), and birthdates are almost always based on no evidence. Problem for the Rus stuff is that to say something is wrong requires access to very extensive resources and (even with those resources) more eastern European linguitic skill than I have. I occasionally copy prince lists from Russian websites (these are easy to read), but my hunch is that these are more often than not inaccurate or misleading, so there's a lot of unease (but we need them nonetheless as it encourages writing and can be corrected incrementally). The other day I was gonna use this to translitterate a Prince of Novgorodok article, but just glancing at Rowell's book it was clear this list was inaccurate. I do know enough and have sufficient resources to know that the Black Ruthenia article was muchly fantasy. I will look around now however, depolonize his lists, change Ruthenia to Rus, remove suspect genealogical material, and anything else I see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of interwar population by ethnicity

Do you know if there is an equivalent to Image:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png for Lithuania? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian settlements template map

I think this needs to be corrected - details here. Any ideas? Cheers.--Lokyz (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it seems it is fixed now. Thanks.--Lokyz (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Since User:Renata has reappeared it may be worth thinking about changeing your sig.Geni 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)