User talk:Novickas/Archive 3

Little Ice Age

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Little Ice Age, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 16:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peace of Riga

I wanted to commend to for your recent contributions to the Peace of Riga article as well as your copy edits there. The article had some issues that needed to be dealt with. Needs a few more tweaks. In particular, I thought this [1] was quite a good addition by you. I made a small adjustment [2] but I thought this addition of yours[3] to be a little overkill or more simply put, TMI for the lead. I'd be happy to go over it with you when you have time. I'm prompted to write to you as the result of an uncalled for accusation of anti-Polish bias concerning the matter at my talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for keeping eye on my talk page and rescuing from deletion articles which suffered from editing by non-experienced editors. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for all of your hard work. Best wishes. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I loved your retaliatory-homemade-flower-template, it made me laugh. (I am not gay BTW, not that their is anything wrong with that) Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Steps:

1. Go to history tab
2. Click on the date of the revision that you wan to restore (in this case click on "08:03, 27 November 2009"). It will show this warning on top of the article: This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Full-date unlinking bot (talk | contribs | block) at 08:03, 27 November 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
3. Click edit. It will show this warning: You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed.
4. Enter edit summary
5. Click save

Done :) Renata (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Romualdas Marcinkus

On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romualdas Marcinkus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Golar spirit.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Golar spirit.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Lithuania to Russia

Hi Novickas, I am currently in the process of doing up stub-articles for the redlinks at User:Russavia/Ambassadors, in order to get it out into mainspace sometime this millenium. I have created Category:Ambassadors of Lithuania to Russia and two articles within it, but I was hoping that you might be able to help me in finding a list of past .lt ambassadors to .ru, dates of appointment, dates of presentation of credentials, dates of end of mission, etc. as I would also like to create Ambassador of Lithuania to Russia sometime this millenium also. Any help appreciated. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Main article

Hi, for some time I thinking improving Lithuania article, as it is rather huge job more editors needed. I ask Renata to help, so far no response. In any case, would you be willing to help? M.K. (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course if you preoccupied with upcoming Easter we can wait a bit. No problem. Take your time.M.K. (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial etc WW2

You seem to be the only sane person in the ongoing Afd discussion re above. You might have noticed there's a Rescue flag on the current Afd. How about taking it onboard? Communicat (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick response, contents noted. Your comments at Afd discussion page are helpful, I'll bear them in mind when re-working edit. Best regards. Communicat (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Novickas. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministries

Yes, the break was very nice. No worries about the ministries -- that's why WP is collaborative project. I might finish them off, but I have a few things already lined up. My next big project -- Battle of Grunwald as its 600th anniversary is coming up pretty soon. Renata (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Poland and Turkey

Hello there! I was just wondering about a contribution[[4]] that you made some time ago.

The reaction of France and Britain to the Soviet invasion and annexation of Eastern Poland was muted, since neither country wanted to start a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that time. Both countries were strongly interested in maintaining relationships with Turkey, which voiced some approval of the invasion's creation of a buffer zone between itself and Germany. Under the terms of the Polish-British Common Defence Pact of 25 August 1939, the British had promised assistance if a European power attacked Poland.

I was just wondering if you could clarify this for me. Why would Turkey care about the way in which Poland was partitioned? And why would either the Germans or the Soviets care what they thought? Unfortunately, Google Books does not allow me to preview the cited page. If you have the book, would you mind quoting the cited passage? Or just the gist of it if you don't have the book to hand :) BillMasen (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Novickas (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note that I moved your post here because it was not in the right place in the threaded discussion (it was creating a misleading impression that you replied to the thread first). No content was changed (it was a purely technical edit). Feel free to revert my change if you disagree with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Novickas (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Grunwald

Here is a Lithuanian (?) shashlik for your Memorial Day =)

I think I am finished re-writing the article. Would you be so kind to work your copy-editing magic? Please let me know if you think something needs additional citations -- after working on it for a week I am not seeing anything any longer... I am thinking of nominating it for GA, once I get a couple maps done for it... Renata (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you! :) Renata (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Fauna Barnstar
		You are most welcome. Please accept this as a more permanent token of respect and admiration for your good work on Annelida and Draconem. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I missed those, apparently. Should be fixed now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Melba1/Mindaugas_Piecaitis

Dear Novickas, thanks so much for yr offer of help - I'd be delighted if you would improve my article! Perhaps you could help me insert some pictures of the subject which he emailed to me. I'll send them as soon as I can. Melba1 (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Belated Reply

Hi... you put a note with a question on my talk page about a month ago, which I hadn't responded to until now. My apologies for that - I haven't been around for a while. If it's helpful / relevant still, I'm around now, fyi. EdChem (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^babble 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Damelis

Jonas Damelis is a today, Lithuanized form of the name of a person, who probably didn't know to be Jonas Damelis. He might have been using his name in German, Rusian and Polish forms, but there is no reason to use the Lithuanian form in the English Wikipedia and especially as the main one.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I have discussed. Please answer my arguments.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Would you be so kind to point which of the 21 UNESCO pages informs about "Damelis"? Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is better done at the article talk page. Will reply there. Novickas (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification

As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyvio issues

Thanks for catching that, I guess 5-6 years ago when I just started my wiki adventure, I was still not very clear on close paraphrasing. I'll be more than happy to fix other such instances, but I don't think there should be many left; years ago I tried to revisit my older contribs and fix those that I realized where too close to the original. But if you have time, you are more then welcome do double check them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that there are more than few sentences / paragraphs in some of my oldest articles. I always rewrited content, in some old cases - not sufficiently, indeed. I don't believe there is a need to waste other's time trying to find those few sentences, particularly since most of them have been corrected already, either intentionally by me or by others, as old content from 2004-2005 has often been rewritten anyway. I am currently double checking my old entries of Weber, now that you reminded me of the source I might have used, but most of them seem fine anyway (at least, from cv issues). If you think that the problem may be significant, and you think that there is indeed a need to review tens of thousands edits of mine from that period, I'd strongly suggest to see what Moonriddengirl thinks, before we waste time of other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Novickas. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vilnius

OK. Wandycz describes aftermath of clashes in Vilnius - gathering probably took place further in Kaunas (the former border city of Congress Poland and Russian Empire) Mathiasrex (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Clashes in Vilnius in August 1861 are well sourced even in Lithuanian historiography. So Wandycz describes them and it should be in art about Vilnius. Mathiasrex (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You dont cite correctly. I wrote 'In August 1861, manifestations in Vilnius resulted in clashes with the Russian army.' vs the book's 'In August, 1861, manifestations in Wilno resulted in clashes with army.' Mathiasrex (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I did. Mathiasrex (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alma Vilnensis

Pay attention on very suspicious section about alma mater vilnensis.

The first rector of the Academy was Piotr Skarga. He invited many scientists from various parts of Europe and expanded the library, with the sponsorship of many notable persons: Sigismund II Augustus, Bishop Walerian Protasewicz, and the Marshal of the Crown, Kazimierz Lew Sapieha. Lithuanians at the time comprised about one third of the students (in 1568 there were circa 700 students), others were Germans, Poles, Swedes, and even Hungarians. (Zinkevičius, Zigmas (1988). Lietuvų kalbos istorija (Senųjų raštų kalba). Vilnius: Mintis. pp. 159. ISBN 5-420-00102-0.)

Is this reliable source? How King Sigismund (died in 1572) could sponsor academy founded in 1579? Kazimierz Lew Sapieha was not a Marshal of the Crown but Court Marshal of Lithuania. Lithuanians at the time comprised about one third of the students (in 1568 there were circa 700 students), others were Germans, Poles, Swedes, and even Hungarians. Its not true - Lithuanians at the time comprised about one third because Poles comprised two-thirds... Mathiasrex (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the Vilnius University article? If so, I think any future discussions should take place there. Novickas (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

notification

I've changed my username for a reason and i was perfectly within my rights to do so. I expect you to respect it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I see from this thread [5] that two admins, both of whom have, I think, participated in Eastern European issues, are aware of the name change. Neither seems to have requested that you publicly connect the old and new accounts. I defer to their judgment. Novickas (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would appreciate it if you've found something else to do other than wiki stalk my edits, as you seem to be doing over at Holodomor. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as Wikihounding, rather as responding to an RFC on an article I've been interested in. It's been on my watchlist since my edits in early 2009 [6]. Then a noticeable recent uptick in participation and an RFC. There is a repeated assertion at Talk:Holodomor#Move_notice to the effect that the term gets 3000+ book results. Using the first-page counts is an error I'm acquainted with and I felt it needed correction.

We've both aired our points of view about the hounding issue now. I'd like to see solicitation of outside opinions as the next step. Wikiquette alerts might be a place to start. Novickas (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shale oil extraction

Hi, Novickas. I hope you are doing fine. It has been quite a long time since we last time discussed the FAC nomination of the Shale oil extraction article. Since then the article has been stable without any major changes. Therefore I think that this time it will be ready for the nomination. I would like to ask you to take a look and say your opinion about this. If there is any unsolved issues, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I will nominate it after few days. I also hope you will be around to keep your eye on the nomination process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Novickas. The FAC procedure is still going on and it seems that there is still a long way to go. Unfortunately, due to very personal issues in the real life I will be not able to edit Wikipedia for a week or so. Regarding the FAC procedure, this is a very inconvenient timing but there is nothing I can do about this. I hope you will be around to keep your eye on the FAC procedure and will react if anything needs to be fixed. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding to Casliber's comments. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations on helping to improve Shale oil extraction up to a Featured Article. H Padleckas (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations also from my side. Without your assistance this probably could not happened. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Novickas, I was hoping you could clarify some comments you made on the the AfD for Controversial command_decisions, World_War II. Communicat believes that Tony Judt himself praised his wikipedia efforts, which is not at all what it seems you wrote. His statement on User talk:Georgewilliamherbert reads

The negative reaction that you refer to is certainly not unanimous. It is confined essentially to just three editors: Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321. Other editors have been far less reactionary, and they include among others the late Tony Judt who described my work as "valuable" and another senior editor Novickas who in the same discussion described my work as "referenced and well written". I would suggest that the opinion of Tony Judt in particular carries more weight than that of all the milhist editors together.

A clarifying comment would be appreciated, as he seems not to understand. --Habap (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apparently was not clear in what I thought Communicat did not understand. He attributes the comment that his work is valuable to Tony Judt, while it appears in your psot that it is your comment and not a comment from Professor Judt. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but then you don't need me for that - you can post relevant parts of the Afd. Sorry, I don't want to get involved in the dispute resolution. Novickas (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since Communicat often misunderstands what I write, I thought you could tell him exactly what you wrote. He believes the late professor complimented him because he read your post incorrectly. --Habap (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Again...sorry...I know dispute resolution is painful and extra eyes/comments help...but the discussion is taking place at an admin's talk page - I'm confident that he, along with other participants and page watchers, can evaluate the evidence. Novickas (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. It's not particularly important. Sorry to have bothered you. --Habap (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For your dedicated work on assisting bringing up to FA already second oil-shale related article. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

GA for revolt

Hi, long time no see! :) Yes, I suppose the article could become GA. I am personally not too happy about it. There is something missing for my complete satisfaction, but I know my personal quality standards a way higher than Wikipedia's. Could you sprinkle your magic with copyedits? :) Renata (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that I only replied to you in my head... Yeah, sounds good - please do the copyedit & nomination. Just note that I won't be around much until April 15 due to the dreary tax season. I hope you are handling the winter ok. Renata (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Gorge casino

Hi Novickas-- Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Gorge casino, you may want to see this discussion on the article's talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, could you look into Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Municipalities of Lithuania/archive1? for some reason I am not able to address the issues raised :( Renata (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that's one article where I am out of ideas what to do... I don't I was ever this stuck. I completely defer to your judgment. Renata (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullying in academia

Nice work. --Penbat (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Too bad so much is behind paywalls...Novickas (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your awesome work rescuing Bullying in academia Penbat (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

yes the possibility of student-on-staff bullying really ought to be mentioned. Incidentally i am working on the related User:Penbat/bullying in teaching (with the emphasis on schools) and that article explains that there can be complicated dynamics going on with different people involved. Feel free to add to User:Penbat/bullying in teaching if you can.--Penbat (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite...can't promise anything, always torn in several directions. It looks like a reasonable start. On a brighter note, that TA's name came back to me, I googled it, and he has 41 book mentions, several agency directorships. So he thrived anyway :) Later, Novickas (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance. "TA" is what ? Incidentally School_bullying#Complex_dynamics_of_a_school_bullying_culture and the associated book by Parsons gives quite a good analysis of the complexity of school bullying but I want to keep bullying in academia distinct from school bullying. incidentally you dont have to ping me i have your page on watch. --Penbat (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry- TA is an acronym for teaching assistant, in this case a graduate student at a university. I agree that bullying in schools (i.e. preschool, primary, and secondary) ought to be kept separate from that in academia. Novickas (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

just worked it out half a minute ago by refreshing my memory of what you wrote on my talk page. The distinction between school v academia is clearer in the UK where school students are called pupils but more confusing in the US where they are all called students.--Penbat (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Thanks for the heads up, will investigate if I gave more free time. M.K. (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Novickas, thank you for your time and efforts working on this [7]. Unfortunately I'm unable to participate anymore but I know that you guys will work something out and the naming disputes will be just a bad memory. All the best and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are more optimistic than I am. A happy quality. Best of luck to you too, Novickas (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To Jacurek - I don't see why you couldn't participate there. The discussion is about the general nature of naming guidelines. Just don't mention anything related to Eastern Europe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I will ask for clarification and permission...I think you are right Volunteer Marek. Anyway... Novickas be optimistic as well :) with a little bit of a good fate and open minded approach an agreement can be reached, I'm sure about that. --Jacurek (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

taiwan teas

Great job on Taiwan teas, please check it for errors thanks icetea8 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Can we use a Chinese wiki ref? for the taiwan teas? [8], if you do a search for 台灣十大名茶, you can find many, the problem with tea terminology is there is not that much (in English). icetea8 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy

Oh my goodness, this is so sweet! Thank you very much. Renata (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix needed in Polish-Lithuanian (adjective)

Since you did not like me being bold and removing unverified content last time, this time I am asking you - could you fix the Thomas Lane ref? It's need a page (and PA link to page in Google Books would be nice, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is currently missing a ref for Mickiewicz, I think. Usage of quotes is a good idea there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It already has a ref for Mick and an accompanying quote from Anatol Lieven: "The understanding of 'Lithuania' with which Milosz grew up was close to that of Mickiewicz and Pilsudski, both of whom came from similar backgrounds in the Polish-Lithuanian gentry." Novickas (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed that one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P-L (adj) DYK?

I think it may be eligible. I hope you find the DYK acceptable ([9]), but please feel free to propose an alt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

K. I also added a cite request for a claim you added (familiar identification). I think you are correct, but this is an important point that needs to be cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Polish-Lithuanian (adjective)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Names, again

So I thought that the compromise for the naming thing was that non-Lithuanian names could go into a separate section rather than the lede. Which is what I did here [10]. But now we've got User:Vycius 2, a new account, dedicated to, again, just removing Polish names everywhere [11], created shortly after the AE report where Lokyz, Jacurek and Dr. Dan got topic banned, undoing even these kinds of compromise changes. Can you please restore the names section and explain to the user, in case he is not aware already, what the policy and the practice in these situations is? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you understand why this request is off-putting? Your edit summary ('contributions list might help here, as it might look familiar' [12]) is a strong hint that the LT editors you mention above are sockpuppeting as Vycius 2. Edit summaries can't be redacted, but you could in effect do it here. I truly dislike hints and allegations, particularly when they are posted at user talk pages, and I think you've been here long enough to know how to file formal sockpuppet investigations. Have you considered posting to Vycius 2's talk page yourself? - that is the first step in WP:Dispute resolution - "Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page." Wikipedians do often leave off this step in cases where they see a pattern of edits very close to those of already sanctioned sockpuppeteers, but that doesn't apply to either Dr Dan or Lokyz. Novickas (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're inferring something that I didn't imply. Anyway, feel free to ignore that aspect and concentrate on the content/name issue - that's what the request is about. There are two reasons why I'm asking you 1) you are the main person behind the whole "separate section but not the lede" idea and 2) I'm not sure if Vycius speaks English since he is posting to talk pages and his own user page exclusively in Lithuanian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You implied it rather more directly at another editor's talk page some days ago: "You might want to take a look at User:Vycius 2 [13]. Fresh brand new account, created right after Lokyz and Dr.Dan got topic banned, doing the exact same thing, and judging by his talk page, here to do battle over naming." [14]. I urge you again, please follow the standard DR process and try to engage them in dialogue first. It's the courteous thing to do, apart from being enshrined in Wikipedia policy. If that doesn't work out, send a message to the usual admins who've overseen these conflicts, like Sandstein, T. Canens, Future Perfect. I'd be willing to talk to V if your dialogue fails and if there's a good chance that these people will be keeping an eye on the discussions and edits. Novickas (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As for now i did not see any courage neither courtesy on these matters. I'm enraged but sadly not surprised. Just to make you sure - i did not use any sockpuppets, nor ever intend to do so. No Gentleman would do so:)--Lokyz (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that assurance :) I wouldn't have thought it of you, but then I only know you from the Internet. As for the Virtues you mention, they aren't Wikipedia's highest-ranked ones. V.G., Novickas (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Good day Novickas,

You might recall posting a brief comment in the Arbcom World War II case about six months ago. I don't know whether the brevity of your participation qualifies you as "involved", but I'm inviting you anyway, if you can spare a moment, to comment in my current request proceedings at Arbcom for clarification regarding Arbcom's decision in the World War II case. Sorry to bother you. Communikat (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AKAICR, my involvement was limited to comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. I do agree with you and the other editors who would like to see more minority, or non-Western, call them what you will, perspectives on WP and wish you the best with that. (And do still want to see a stand-alone CCD of WWII article). But I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting unless I'd read and digested the tremendous amount of material at the ArbCom case and the appeal. May I again suggest that you work on articles/article additions in userspace, solicit commentary - if established editors are comfortable with it, they can post it. That's permissible for topic-banned editors, see [15] for an example. I must also say that this site is giving me the creeps lately...a disincentive...and I'm limiting my involvement... :( Maybe later, Novickas (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestion, but actually my problem is a bit more complicated than proxy can solve. I've reached a point where I want nothing whatsoever to do with the articles from which I'm topic banned, not even via proxy. However, what I am seeking from Arbcom is clarification as to the scope of my topic ban, so that I can move forward. Arbcom enforcement decision says I'm topic banned from "editing or discussing articles about World War II and Aftermath of World War II" -- without specifying what "aftermath" means. I'm proposing it means "immediate aftermath" viz., 1948 or thereabouts, others insist it means end of Cold War. Communikat (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise; and thanks for your friendly words (at my user page). Unfortunately, patience is not among my strong points, if any, but I'll try. Communikat (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Lionising

		The Big Cat Barnstar
		Your new section is excellent and so you merit some lionising. Well done. Warden (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! That is most kind :) Novickas (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)