Second, I would like to address a much thornier issue, that of a conflict between some Lithuanian and Polish editors, a conflict that has started few months ago and seems no sign of dissipaiting. I believe that it will not dissipate unless we sit down together and discuss it; and unlike some I believe that public discussions are much better then some secret private emails (which take forever and achieve little, IMHO). In other words, I'd would suggest the creation of a local equivalent of round table negotiations. And going further, I would like from suggestion to the actuall talk, right now, right here.

The issue, as I see it (and I am certainly not unbiased), is that for the period of past few months (so it is a relativly new phenomena), two things have happend; one good and one bad. The good one is that we (finally) got a significant influx of active contributors from Lithuania, something that I, Halibutt, Renata, and certainly many other users where waiting for (incidentally it seems there are more active users from Lithuania then from Poland, at least to me). The bad one (and this, again, is my own interpetation, which you are welcome to disagree with and contest) is that those new users seem to forget how Wikipedia works: especially about Wikipedia:Consensus (Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (First: a Lithuanian POV is no better or worse then Polish POV, and second: everybody has a POV, so each article needs to be negotiated upon to eliminate both the Lithuanian and Polish POVs), Wikipedia:Assume good faith (to my knowledge, there is nobody involved with Polish noticeboard who displays any kind of anti-Lithuanian behaviour, there are however some editors who think that not having a Lithuanian POV equals to that) as well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks (some users persist with accusation that others are 'anti-Lithuanian', their edits have some underlying bad faith motive, or are just generaly impolite (violation of WP:CIV)).

That said, there is much truth in the proverb: it takes two to tango. I am sure some Polish editors have on occasion behaved uncivil or otherwise broke some wiki regulations, and a few weeks ago one was banned for (in part) such behaviour (I am all sure we know who it was, and let me use the opportunity here to wave a stick and remind some that it should serve as a warning).

Now, I would go back to the root of our problem. Most of it seems (again, in my opinion) revolve around several people: User:Halibutt (22793 edits, joined 2003/11/27, the 222-most active editor, a person who wrote a good part of several Featured Articles) on one side, usually supported by me (28220 edits, joined on 2004/04/10, the 150-most active editor), and User:M.K (1696 edits, 2006/04/18), User:Lokyz (3738 edits, 2005/07/06), User:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude (934 edits, 2006/02/24), User:Juraune (737 edits, 2006/05/04) on the other side (feel free to add anybody I forgot, I honestly have no idea which side if any User:Dr. Dan supports, but I am sure he will say something about this). Now, I am not saying that quantity is always quality, and I am not saying one group is completly at fault and the other is blameless, but I want to point out that both me and Halibutt have more experience with this project then his (our?) critics, so please, please assume good faith, and that I am trying to help us all here.

Halibutt contribution to Wikipedia in the terms of content creation are undisputable much greater then any of his critics, and many of his contributions are relevant to Lithuania; if not for him the entire Lithuanian section of English Wikipedia would be much poorer. He (nor I) may not use Lithuanian spelling, and obviously we write from Polish POV and not Lithuanian, but one can hardly require that one does so. We respect Lithuanian POV, but we expect that Lithuanian editors will show the same respect for our views and that we meet in the middle. We are not Lithuanian, so we simply cannot understand some things that are obvious to you, and by no fault of our own we may occasionally say something or write something that offends you. Yet because of that some people are assuming bad faith, and by repeating this again and again, and offending Halibutt (and me and some other Polish editors to the lesser extent). Further I am seeing that such an ongoing avalanche of accusations may slowly be turning into reality (per WP:CABAL, especially There is only a cabal if you want there to be one part). After several months of hearing how 'anti-Lithuanian' one is, I see Halibutt starting to loose patience and becoming less civil (although not as uncivil as some of the people who are constantly provoking him). Please realize that everybody has their own POV, and pro-Lithuanian is just as visible and 'bad' as pro-Polish; we always must strive for consensus and a middle ground. When one of us errs and sais something that irks the other side, please assume good faith, and point out to him (perhaps on talk?) that he has erred or hurt your feelings, instead of assuming one is a rampant anti-something. And especially when you are dealing with an editor who has done much more to this project then you, and has been here much longer, seen many more conflicts (and helped resolve them), please, please, be a little less self-righteous and consider that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle, and (gasp) that perhaps the more experienced editor may actually be more experienced with things like what is NPOV and what is not.

Last but not least, let me apologize here for having written anything that you may find offensive. I want to say here that I respect Lithuania, respect Lithuanian people, respect millenium-old history of Lithuania, and I hope that we can work together, in the spirit of our common ancestors, to build something together and teach the world about our respective history, instead of repeating the mistakes of the past.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

One thing. Discussion is posible only when one of the sides, does not treat other side as some sort of village idiots who can not differentiate between seeking of true compromise and POV pushing masked as a discussion (examples can be provided on request, but I hope that will not be necessary). However well derogative attitude will be masked, I can assure you, that it will not go unnoticed. And PLEASE don't be just writers, be the readers too. AND don't take it so personal Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Certainly both sides have to assume good faith for the discussion. I hope we are doing this, so I will simply nod in agreement with you and add something to my previous post (which I had to actually cut short due to RL issues). I have no time and will to dig through history and see what started this, and who is more at fault. Pointing fingers is rarely a good strategy, and I think it's rather irrelevant if it was Halibutt who snapped at somebody first or one of his opponents that jumped the gun, misinterpreted his edit and accused him of bad faith, or both in some combination. What done is done, and we can either continue the vicious circle or break it. For breaking it, I have the following recommendation. The accusations that Halibutt (and me, and some others) are anti-Lithuanian must stop. All parties involved (I named some users above, feel free to add them) should 'reach out' and apologize, as I did, to sooth the feeling and so we mid midway and on the same ground, dividing the blame. Then, with the past behind us, I would like to suggest we run a joint project on some topic related to Poland and Lithuania so we can learn to work together. From my personal experience I find out that nothing help to bring the editors together like a common, good faithed effort to improve an article (long story short, in my early days I was involved in a conflict over an article, but through collaborative effort not only did I an my erstwhile opponent ended up improving that article to FA status, but we bacame good wikifriends and I got nominated for an admin for my behaviour (the other user was an admin already)). Therefore I suggest that after the round of apologizes and burying the hatchet (a WP:TEA is a good place for that) we chose an article and collaborativly, as a joint venture of WikiProject Lithuania and WikiProject Poland (to be formalized), raise an article to FA status. Nomination for which article we should work on are welcomed, but for a start I would recommend something that is uncontroversial and that both of our nations can take an undisputed pride in. Warsaw Confederation (1573) perhaps? Battle of Grunwald? One of the kings?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Good that you brought up the matter Piotrus. Thank you for giving me some distiction in this matter, as to where my sympathies lie in this mess too. Somehow I got branded by Molobo and SylwiaS as being anti-Polish which I'm not. Some of the most happiest times of my life were spent in Poland, and I have travelled the length and breadth of Poland over and over again. My admiration for the Polish people is genuine, and I know their hearts. On the other hand I went to communist Poland with an open mind and would have acknowledged its "superiority" to another form of government, if it deserved such acknowledgement. It does not, and I have opposed any weasleing pretending that this is not the case. This has probably clouded my edits and participation lately. Now to the Lithuanian issue. I have made Lithuania a part of my academic life and travels too. Poland 75%, Lithuania 25%. But I understand the Lithuanian people's valiant stand against persecution and oppression, and admire it too. I understand their history and culture as well. I resent it being bullied and patronized. It was my perception early on in my dealings in Wikipedia, that there was "Super-Editing" going on by Polish contributors and editors in matters regarding Lithuania. I have not changed that opinion. A most simple example would be naming a small Lithuania city (one that had little historical association with Poland), in the the lead of the article in the Polish language. And then arguing about it because the town was mentioned in a children's book written in the 19th century in the Polish language. I could go on and on. My solution in solving the problem is different that your suggestion, Prokonsul, (the cooperation on a mutual article). It's too far past that. Too much damage has been done already. My solution is this. First, read meta:How to deal with Poles and apply that to your dealings with Lithuanians. Second, a moratorium on these "Super Editors" needing to meddle in the nascent and budding Lithuanian contributions to Wikipedia would be a good idea. This I'm sure would be the hardest thing for them to do. But why should it be? Should I stir up the pot and suggest that they write about and edit matters about Zulus or Portugal? Obviously the issue is too emotionally charged for the matter to be resolved other than by this moratorium. So unless there is some blatantly false and insulting attack on Poland or claim against it's integrity, I say leave it be, and leave them alone, and after sometime we can assess the entire situation differently. Here's an Olive branch being offered as a viable solution (I think others have been offered and rejected), to the cuurent problem. These are now two seperate countries that are neighbors, and seem to get along better on the international scene than they do on Wikipedia. I say "Let My People Go" , a metaphor, an old Negro spiritual. Dr. Dan 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am afraid your solution is not possible: there are too many common subjects for any kind of separation to be possible, besides, it runs contrary to various Wikipedia policies, especially ones related to NPOV. We have survived the Gdansk Vote and we have a rather good relation with German noticboard. We were able to work with our eastern neihgbours and have FAs on some quite controversial subjects. This, believe it or not, is just one of many problems I have seen in my years here, and nothing to alarming. Working together will help, trying to split into two camps will not work and will further create some nasty 'us and them' divisions.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Excluding anyone is neither welcomed nor necessary. I would be against it. It is not an option. But revert wars are waste of time and it would be nice if they could be avoided. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude

Edit wars are controllable and already almost nonexistent. IMO much more time (and emotionally) wasting are these "circular" discussions, as someone (be it Lithuanian, or Pole) tries to bash his own POV over others (never mind how many of them), (pretending?) not to hear any arguments form other side. That’s why I have told earlier, that I will not participate at any of the votes in Wikipedia until things do change.

As for this issue - for certain amount of time personally I was trying to avoid Halibutt as much as possible (even stopped my work on certain historical articles and persons) to avoid clashes. I don't know maybe that's bad chemistry, or bad temper of both of us. Although after few times being shut up, and told that I'm ignorant by few abrupt "rewordings", I felt like I was bullied ad lost my temper. Now Piotrus says that there were more of people who behave the same way. Doesn't this show that there is a problem with certain persons? I do not want to blame anyone or say someone is such or that – just sometimes it does not work. Maybe it is spoiled by bad beginning? I still do try to avoid few other editors (and in this I do succeed much more). So much of emotions.

As for suggestions - there is strong urge to establish some firm procedures, which can help avoid such misunderstandings and clashes in the future. But for that we have to choose what we're doing - encyclopedia or some fictional literature composed of someone beliefs (sometimes even insulting).

One of my emotional and intellectual anointment is this outrageous usage of Google books as I do have master degree in History, during my studies I had to learn one basic thing: there are reliable and non reliable sources. To trust any source you need to read the whole book (document, article, whatever) and evaluate it. Any citations out of context are an absolute no no. Any quantitive evaluations are rather disputable. Any research based on original documents, rather than synthetic work (i.e. compilation) is much more reliable. Any "contemporary" documents and terms are to be treated in contemporary context. And so on.

And one more thing, quite common sin amongst non professionals dealing in history - evaluating different things in nowadays context (for example most common mistake is - wast majority of Ruthenians in GDL, and small minority of Lithuanians - without having any contemporary data, and a conclusion - Rutehnians were predominant. This one conclusion is quite easy to deny, suggesting to take a look at the map of 16th century cities infrastructure in GDL and density of population).

And here (I mean Wikipedia) I did came to a different world, where everything is based on POV's, beliefs and open hearted and emotional "argumentation" "ad hominem", and again google books and what annoys me even more - google hits and google fights serves to all logical arguments be dismissed as irrelevant.. And this is emotionally tiring, demotivating and absolutely unproductive. If these are the rules of the game to stay, I'll think about finding another activity to spend my spare time (sometimes I feel, like someone is aiming for that).

And the last thing - I'm strongly against baning, excluding or otherwise exiling anyone. This would not solve anything, and to some extent would even make it worse. Just simple change of tone and a little bit more patience by some editors would be sincerely welcome.-- Lokyz 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You raise an interesting point with Google Print. Indeed, it encourages some sloppy citations - but on the other hand, who can prove that the referencing editor has not red the entir ebook and is now providing a proper reference? All things considered, I view Google Print as a great tool for researchers. On another issue, I do agree that avoiding editors - and subjects - one finds problematic is often a good strategy.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so my very difficult proposition of a moratorium is not missunderstood, a self imposed moratorium would cool things down. That would be better than the kind of "moratorium" Molobo is going through. And like Lokyz, I'm against such censorship. Yes, let me go on record, much as I personally had lots of issues with Molobo, He should not have been banned! Maybe a 30 day moratorium could be tried instead of a longer period. The strife is, and has become a very thorny issue, as P.P. has called it. A larger type of "cooldown" is needed before there is a real "meltdown" here. Think about it. As for there being some uniqueness in Lithuania's and Poland's shared history, requiring some "super editting" or the requirement of a "modus vivendi" between them on WK, that's way overblown. Some of the Polish editors could spend time repairing similarily poor relations with Russian and German and other editors, along a similar vein during the proposed hiatus. Dr. Dan 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

For me moratorium on certain tones and poses in Talk pages (rather on all edits) is enough. If it is possible to avoid it, that's great and we can sorting things out, if it is not posible, then I don't think any moratorium would change this. I have no hard feelings towrads any of editors. As a warm up we could use Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, and move step by step from smaller problems towards more complicated issues Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

While discussion and finding the solution is much welcome, but coming here and indirectly accusing some editors of cabal behavior, praising Halibutt`s and Piotrus deeds and even indirectly suggesting to shut up, because they “are” how “good” they; sorry but I cant believe about good faith from this. And let remind you: this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania not the Wikipedia:WikiProject Halibutt nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Piotrus, try to find suitable location in different place. M.K. 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty certain that Piotrus' comments were in good faith. For sure some blaiming, some praising on semantical level can be sensed, but we can go past that. Maybe straight forward "cut the crap, let's find solution" aproach, would more welcomed, than lines like this "The accusations that (blah blah) are anti-**** must stop. All parties involved (yada yada) should 'reach out' and apologize" (no one apologizes then even truce is not established, Piotrus). But it's not important at all. Important thing is - where do we go from here.

P.S. M.K. I find your different place thingie quite original and amusing (I'm into good sarcasm myself). It might have been handy some time ago, but now it is not apropriate. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I will write a bit clearer, what I have in mind first – all these “round table” negotiations should be conducted in other place not here, because this talk severs for different proposes. Solution is simple – pick up someday`s talk page and conduct discussion there or even open new sandbox for this purpose M.K. 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

M.K, please stop this. You're behaving. This is not your private space and not cabal hunting squad, this is a place where every contribution from everyone is welcome, under certain conditions - like no stones hidden under your clothes will be ever allowed. IMO you should be more patient to hear others, (and also to improve your image).-- Lokyz 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

stop what? M.K. 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Back to business. If my moratoriun proposal is not acceptable, then I agree to Prokonsul Piotrus' (or P.P. for short) proposal to work on something else together. I also agree with user:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude's (E.E.D. for short) suggestion to do it on the Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania for starters. It would be a good place to find a "modus vivendi", and test the sincerity of P.P.'s proposal. Personally, I have never had a problem with P.P., or Balcer, or Lysy, and usually mediate my related concerns through them. Sure, we've "had it out", once in awhile, but we smooth things out amongst ourselves. It's others, IMHO, that will need to look at this "thorny issue" from a different perspective. Dr. Dan 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not sure if Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania is such a good place for that. I have no dealth with this subject before, but I am afraid it may be controversial; I'd suggest we chose a less controversial article for this endeavour.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

So it must be said, that the things are not working out like it should. Ocupations, diacritics, ideology of expulsion isn't a great start. The Airing of Grievances continues everythere, but it's right place ↓. So if we can't even try to edit old articles, because they straight away become too controversial, so maybe fresh start would help - we can try to create new article from zero. Any sugestions? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

What about one of our kings? I think most of them were not controversial, they are rather important, yet there are still ones that are stubs, for Wikipe-tan's sake :) PS. Links of relevance: List_of_Lithuanian_rulers, List of Polish monarchs. 15 nice candidates from 1440 to 1795...--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Barbara Radziwiłł would be more close to Lithuanian national psyche. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not sure if I understand why, but Barbara is a pretty good choice. So, who would like to join us in improving this article?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Barbara is too easy. Actually it isn't, because I removed a bogus insinuation that she died of venereal disease from Polish Wiki last December (if memory serves me right, around the 14th). Minutes ago, I removed an absurd contribution of P.P.s, regarding "modern research" (original research, maybe?), that her death was the result of uterine cancer. Obviously my medical backround will not allow me to stand for such poop. So even here, we are at an impasse. No, let's stick with a difficult topic like the Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, and straighten out a "real" problem issue between all of the parties, rather than beating around the bush and "solving" a recipe or some such matter. Dr. Dan 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, Dan, blame my interests, but I find Barbara much more interesting than ECoCL, plain and simply.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that, if you want to kill thorn, you shouldn’t start from small sticks, but instead start form it’s roots. M.K. 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

...and speaking about roots... I really do appreaciate, Piotrus, your efforts and I now it takes some guts to come here and offer peace, but... you are not the problem (sorry to disappoint you :P). The troublemaker is Halibutt, plain and simple. And unless he comes down here and apologizes the way you did (recognizing that there are no saints among us) I don't see this going anywhere. Renata 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I know that Renata, but let me add that Halibutt is not the only troublemaker. M.K.'s behaviour is quite shameful, and E.E.D. seems to be as able to lose temper just as Halibutt can (a restraining order on both may be in order :>). I suggested above that everybody should apologize, and didn't want to name particular names, but if you think only a selected handful should do so, that's fine with me - but please note that it is not the 'one side's fault' only issue. I am sure Halibutt would be willing to aplogozie - but not alone, nor should he.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

EED and M.K are here and talking, and trying to figure something out. What's Hali doing? Renata 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As I have shown above with some statistics, and as any cursory check of his contribs can show, Halibutt is busy writing content and engaging in meaningful discussions with contributors, running a bot or uploading pictures, in other words, doing constructive things as usual. And if everything you can come up is 'Hali must apologize and everything is his fault', then I am afraid my attempt at mediation has failed, and we should follow with formal mediation, as per WP:DR.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Mediation when one of the parties is not present? Renata 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

That, of course, needs to be changed.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest that he's too busy writing defenses for sockpuppets, but that would get me into trouble, so I won't. Seriously, now is the time to finish this one way or another with everyone laying their cards out on the table. If my style is too blunt, too bad. Moratorium is going to be a real option real soon, if we don't. It's maybe the best restraining order, possible under the circumstances. Dr. Dan 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, Dr.Dan, personal attacks like above can certainly get you into trouble. I wonder if you would like to apologize for your unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry above? Let me state here that your contributions to this and similar issues are too often violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and similar policies, so please, think twice before you do so again. Flaming is not helpful.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The absurdity of it all, is the need for "collaboration" on articles concerning Lithuania by Lithuanians and Poles. This "need" for some editors to stick their noses into these subjects habitually (and very biasedly, I might add), is the problem. That's the thornier issue, and the sooner that is acknowledged the better. Is there some specific issue that is Polish, that is constantly messed with by the Lithuanian editors? I still say, "Let these people go"! And M.K., now under attack, is right. Let's deal with the "root" of the problem, the nitty gritty, not who had the best recipe for ogórek kiszony (see talk on these pickles). Dr. Dan 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, there are, for example, the current messed name of Wladislaw Jagiello, or the the attempts to portray Armia Krajowa as an anti-Lithuanian genocidal organization...every coin has two sides, Dr.Dan, but I have to agree with Halibutt that some people persistent in seeing only one side of it. And Dan, if you want to deal with root of the problem, I'd seriously considered starting with always so outspoken, yet not so encyclopedia-content creation M.K, instead of a prolific editor like Halibutt...--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

And now you have just insulted M.K. What so "not so encyclopedia-content creation" about Vilnius Castle Complex or Trakai Castle? Renata 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting that M.K. encyclopedic contributions are anywhere near Halibutt's? I am comparing them. Of course that does not mean I value M.K. individual encyclopedic contributions less - just that there are much, much fewer of those then of Halibutt's.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow. Please show me, where anyone said that Armia Krajowa is genocidal organization?

On the other hand, somewhat defense of organization, that did committed war crimes (nobody is saying it was it's agenda) by putting unreferenced accusations, that Vilnija, which is accusing "someone who is not guilty", is de facto "nationalistic" does not seem to be the best way to understanding each other. Is everyone who points to Polish crimes a nationalist and Polonophobe? I do doubt that. Because I do admit, that my countrymen are guilty, without trying to find any excuses. and only by knowing and recognizing that, such things can be avoided in the future. That's what i did have in mind when speaking about stone under someone's clothes.

Dear unsigned person. Lithuanian General Prosecutor Office in 1999 established that "partisan units of AK, not recognising the return of Vilnius region in 1939, were performing genocide of the population of Lithuania - an assertion from a journal XXI amžius stands in that article, even though the person who added it admited in talk that it is a journal not konwn for its quality. We have later a Lithuanian historian who admits that any accusations of genocide are politicaly motivated and untrue, but nonetheless the above 'fact' stands (if anybody can find an official press realase it would be much appreciated). Vilnija nationalism and extremism is discussed in talk, perhaps I will add references to it being called nationalist, extremist and similar, if you see the need.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

And this accusation serpent: "They killed because they killed because they killed because they killed " as in case Glitiškės-Dubingiai leads to an uncontrollable rage, which can be stopped only by saying that both sides are equal guilty. And trying to dismiss accusations on killing as a revenge it is nor productive nor right (any judge in any country would tell you that).

And one more thing - Piotrus, please stop frightening anyone with sanctions. This is not a way to reach compromise.-- Lokyz 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, its time for you to take a look at what you are adding to the flame wars. In the first place there was no accusation of sockpuppetry being made any place above, and therefore no need for me to make an apology. My reference is to a discussion pertaining to Jogaila:talk by Halibutt (unanswered) in the most recently archived talkpage (# 8, I think). Will there be an apology from you forthcoming? Doubt it! Because I see your refereeing to be rather lopsided. You once told me that the longest journey begins with the first step, agreed. So the argument of a prolific editor like Halibutt vs. a prolific editor like Ghirlandajo, means very little to me (they are entitled to contribute like anybody else). If someone is starting off, I am not going to "wave a stick at them", unless I'm going to wave a stick at every party involved. This why when Renata, mentioned Halibutt, you're unable to be neutral enough to address his sins without having to drag "both sides of the coin" immediately into your response. A new contributor has the same rights in my mind (but evidentally not in yours) as a "prolific" editor that is now being shown to be very biased, and therefore detrimental to the WK project. He remains quiet. Good. Dr. Dan 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr.Dan, it is an estabilished practice that if you are making a reference to some other talk, link it in your comment. Otherwise your comment, like that above, looks like you are accusing Halibutt of sockpuppetry out of thin air. I never claimed I was neutral, but it appears everybody else considers themself so. In such an environment I see little hope for any compromise (unless I assume your defintion of the 'compromise' which means you are 100% right and others are 100% wrong...). I am increasingly not suprised that Halibutt, who has much more experience in dealing with you and some other involved editors choses to remain silent; nonetheless I still hope that my impression is wrong and some sort of middle ground can be found (note: middle does not mean yours! it means 'in between').--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gosh, I'll better be late to work than miss this one. If I don't reply here soon it would turn out that I'm a defendant here, and not just one of the guys involved... Anyway, I'm pretty busy these days and I was forced to limit my wiki activities to the very minimum (sadly, not more than 2 hours a day or so), which is why I could not reply sooner (besides, nobody let me know on my talk page). Renata, that's the same reason why you're still waiting for my lengthy letter to arrive, for which I'm sorry. No hidden intentions, Renata, just simple problems with my real life and making my bread. Really.

But let's move on and allow me to reply in points, it'd be easier for me.

1. Piotrus, kudos for bringing it here. A hand was extended and it was shaken, as we say here, which is how the things should work in the wiki. As to an article we might work on together, Barbara is a nice choice. Another one might be Casimir IV Jagiellon, a guy I have lots of books on (and whom I personally consider one of the worst monarchs we had, BTW). Finally, if you want to start with something easier, I've been working on a lengthy article on Władysław II ( User:Halibutt/Jagiello). It's almost ready and you could simply drop in and add facts and sources. The more we have, the better :)
2. Renata, if I am responsible for some offences, then I'm truly sorry. I assure you that never in my wiki life did I offend anyone on purpose. If I got carried away from time to time (diffs and links, as always, are welcome), it is not because I have any personal vendetta against anyone. Life's too short for that. Anyway, take note that in many cases what you perceive as offensive (yet do not mention that at all), is not offensive at all to others. I'm going to get stoned for mentioning that, but what the heck: in one of your letters you mentioned that seeing Polish names of Lithuanian cities is offensive to some of your fellow countrymen. Until you wrote that I never even thought that a toponym might be an offence. I admit using Polish names here and there, but this is not because I wanted to offend anyone, but because I found them important and notable. Whether I'm right on that one is a different matter, but the very intention behind mentioning Polish names where I found fit was not to enrage or offend anyone. I hope that's clear to you - both from my comment here and from our mail.
3. Dan, as to your idea of a moratorium, like almost all people above I'm sure it's a bad idea. The basic problem is that I can't recall any problems concerning clear-cut issues. The problems with trigger-happy Poles and Lithuanians arise in the case of articles covering the areas of our common history or personalities that are neither clearly Polish nor Lithuanian. If we declared not to touch those issues, there would be no articles on them at all. After all there's barely anyone in wikipedia interested in Polish-Lithuanian history besides Poles and Lithuanians themselves (and especially so after most of our Belarussian friends have left the wiki). As to other things, I guess your busy writing defences for sockpuppets remark does not merit my comment, does it. I would appreciate it if you were less trigger-happy when casting such accusations in the future - or presented diffs and links.
4. Dude, I must say I'm astonished by the friendly and sober comments. I must admit that, following your comments on various talk pages, I mistook you for a person you're apparently not. I'm sorry for that and I'm happy to announce that I could sign every single word of what you wrote above with my own name. Except perhaps for the proposal to work on Ethnic composition..., which is not a good idea for one reason: it seems to me that all problems you raise at the talk page could be solved with a single move. We should just find a better name that you would find acceptable and that's it.
5. M.K., I agree with the rest of the folks that what we have to say here is more important than where we say it. This place is just as good as any, if you feel the title is a problem I encourage you to move this discussion to, say, Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Conflict resolution. I'm sure nobody would've problem with that.

Did I miss any issues? // Halibu tt 10:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

So it looks like, there is a chance that things can be sorted out. Good. Sorry for my aproach in some talk pages - my goal was to adress the problems, not to offend. I must admit my aproach was offensive sometimes. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't want to be late for work either, so I'll be brief. Let's start with a simple matter, Halibutt. In the history of various articles, pertaining to Lithuanian geography, you more than others, have relentlessly put the Polish name of these cities, and towns, and even villages in the leads of the articles (many that were stubs) over and over again. So let's not fluff this off with an "oh well". Your rationale of adding Polish toponyms is because they are important and notable. Let's analyze this further. Halibutt? Anyone else? And was it Lysy or you who once "added" a Polish toponym, because it was mentioned in a 19th century children's book (and that after the addition was originally challenged by me). Dr. Dan 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Let me state the obvious, Dr.Dan: those villages, towns, cities, and other geographical landmarks were for centuries part of PLC, whose official language was Polish. Polish (polonized, i.e. Polish-speaking) people lived there for centuries. Polish literature which forms the bulk of literature on that subject (because of size, it's logical) uses Polish names. Much of English literature, again influenced by Polish numbers, uses Polish names ( suprised?). Thus the Polish names are notable and should be mentioned in lead, just as German names are mentioned in articles of places in Regained Territories. For that reason Suwałki mentions Suwalkai in the lead, and I have yet to meet a Polish editor who would have a problem with this (or with Lithuanian names in similar relevant places). Now please explain to me why for our Lithuanian collegues having a Polish name is such an anathema?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

And how about Augustavas, Seinai, Baltstogė, Gardinas - these were for centuries GDL cities, until 19th century. :Anyway this discusion reminds me the one happening in Laurynas Gucevičius or happened befor on River Nemanas page - someone just cannot agree, that Lithuana can have it's own way. BTW not denying our common past Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages. Lithuanians do not smash ewerything that is written in other language, (like in Recovered teritories). If you want to play PLC card, the ok, why do we not use names Varšuva, Krokuva, Liublinas. And let's state that all nobility in PLC was Polish-Lithuanian (and let's determine what that that term means - for example in 16th century or 19th century). The primitive example is that at the battle of Kircholm Swedish general calls army "Lithuanians", and term PLC army is absurd - because Duchy and Crown had separate armies. It is very complicated issue, and it cannot be solved it he middle o nowhere.-- Lokyz 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Lokyz, for somebody claiming a professional academic background you can sometimes be suprisingly like some undergards I teach. The answer is, simply, that during the times of PLC the Lithuanian language, such as it was, was much less popular and used then Polish, thus while it was common for cities in GDL to be named in Polish, reffered in Polish and other language books by their Polish names and to have Polish-speaking inhabitants who used the Polish name, the reverse was not true (maybe it was true in villages and such, as Lithuanian language was more popular there, if you want to go into details). There is no denying that GDL and its Lithuanian inhabitants were an important part of the PLC, but it's most educated and notable part, the szlachta class, was quite polonized, thus making modern Polish names and language much more applicable for descriptions of names and people of that period then modern Lithuanian names. Even so, please note, that I am not proposing we use solely Polish names, no Polish editors have objections to have (modern) Lithuanian names used for places that have had signiciant Lithuanian speakers in the past. Augustów notes Augustavas, Sejny notes Sejny, Hrodna (in Belarus, not Poland) notes both Polish Grodno and Lithuanian Gardinas. One would however expect that if a city was called with a Polish name for several centuries, and Lithuanian for only last one or two, we would note that in the article. Yet in vain one can look for a mention of Wilno in Vilnius, Troki in Trakai, or Kowno in Kaunas, even through the Polish names are commonly used in English texts about history of that region ( [1], and especially compare [2] vs [3]). I have to admit to M.K. that he was not selective: he removed not only Polish, but also Belarusian and German and other names from articles of Lithuanian cities ( [4], [5], and was helped in this process by others, like (I was suprised here) Lokyz ( [6]). No edit summaries, no explanation - just removal from the article any mention that it used to have a Polish (or other names). I believe that those examples speak for themselves which party is more 'guilty' of POV pushing. PS. Nor do I see Polish editor deliberatly offending others by suggesting that their nation has the habit of smashing everything not in their language. An apology would be in order, perhaps?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Patronizing me is not the way you might convince me Piotrus, because we do have quite different information about the same things. And I can see that here you make an obvious mistake - those Lithuanian names are older than Polish names and by any means are not modern.Any phonologist would say you that most of Lithuanian names are Baltic and not slavic.

As for Suvalkai, Augustavas and Baltstogė - you should know, that up until 19th century it was a part of GDL, and was historicaly considered to be part of Lithuania.

And by the way, maybe you know what percentage of people was "educated" in let's say 17th century, and i 16th century? How many could even read? what language poetry and literature was written? how much of the literature did exist? (these questions are related to the context of what we do speak about, and gives an oportunity to detect if we're not projecting nowadys reality into the past). After rethinking this, you'll understand that Polish language was not that popular and dominant. As for your statement about polonization and only peasants could speak Lithuanian I suggest reading some modern research. I think It would help you to have a clearer image, that is far from utterly polonized "for several centuries".-- Lokyz 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not accuse anyone. This is a simple remembering of another chain of discussions, where i did feel at least a possibility to find modus vivendi with Polish editors. It was talking with Lysy. As for cities names - you're right . Polonised Lithuanian toponyms are still in use worldwide. Without a doubt this is one of the greatest Polish cultural achievements modernising barbarian Lithuanian language.-- Lokyz 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Some sort of The Airing of Grievances talk page might be useful I think. Few Ghosts of Past Edits are still around. So let all Grievances out and Festivus miracle might come upon us. Those who not wish to involve in nondenominational practices for religious reasons, might want to try some Serenity now! stuff.

The Airing of Grievances should be adressed here ↓ and not here ↑ Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps the following may shed some light on part of our problem: " In Lithuania, there is a tradition of demonizing the Poles", plus some very negative stereotypes about Poles trying to destroy Lithuanian culture. I wonder if some of our discutants here are not affected by this stereotype?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd rather say, that someone simply does not want to admit obvious facts of our common history (especially, if they're from Lithuanian academic research). Any demonizing here has nothing to do. Simple change in attitude would solve all problems at once.(including that one about demonizing).-- Lokyz 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow, I hadn't wait too long:) A proof of what i've been talking about: "PS. The fact that this Lithuanian book is very hard to verify by others does not add to your argument.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)" This one is taken by taken by my homemade wooden photo camera out of a hat. You know, all of Lithuanian academics still write with a goose feather - you may dismiss it as it probably never happened : (source - [7]). It's especial fun, because the same Bubnys was 'your' main argument against mass killings by AK. Sorry, you've just gained "A Biased" grade. -- Lokyz 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

My source is online. The source I am criticizing is not. That's one major difference. Second, majority of my sources are English academic ones, as I try to avoid using Polish ones (as I admit they may be biased, but I yet to have a see somebody admit Lithuanians may be so, too) and I am afraid Legionas didn't use any non-Lithuanian source; therefore I feel I can criticizie Lithuanian sources just as I criticize Polish ones. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV speak for itself, and you've just gained "Don't know Wiki policies" grade ;p --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI - most of modern academic research cannot be found on internet, only in books. That's the way researchers earn money for living. And do you really think, that Piotrowski's book is "English"?-- Lokyz 09:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Increasing amount of books and academic jounrnals can be found online, be it in Google Print of databases like JSTOR. There are studies that clearly show that publications which are not online have diminishing impact (as people, including increasing number of scholars, prefer online sources for their ease of use), and besides, scholars whose main priority is profit from publications, instead of spreading knowledge, are to me a perversion of true ideals of science (plus we should distinguish publishing models of books and journals, with scholars profiting from books, but very, very rarely from journals). As for Tadeusz Piotrowski, I think living most of his life abroad in English speaking countries (B.A., St. Francis College, 1963; M.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1969; Ph.D., ibid., 1972, now at University of New Hampshire) makes him a much more neutral researcher then those left in Poland or Lithuania.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

"Neutrality" of Piotrowski can be clearly seen by his ornamented language. And it is not the best way for an academic history researcher to declare that he was an eyewitness of the facts he's describing. And Pioturs you once again stated that Lithuanian academic people are "few guys" [ [8] this begins to seem as a planed provocation of insult attacks.-- Lokyz 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, living abroad also makes you very far from primal sources - like documents, eyewitnesses and so on. But this is rather kitchen of history science.-- Lokyz 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Not that it would be a problem to any serious historian nowadays. Living in Warsaw I once wrote a piece on the history of Fuerstheim Glatz (modern Kłodzko). And you know what? I simply bought a railway ticket and went there. I guess Norman Davies did not have a problem with living far away from Warsaw when writing his Rising '44. Not to mention Venclova who lives in the US (AFAIK). // Halibu tt 10:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, I am sick and tired of the same s^%t repeating again, again, and again in many different forms:

1. Naming: e.g. Jogaila and Gucevicius
2. Nationalities: e.g. Baranauskas and Gucevicius
3. Ethnic composition: e.g. ECoCL and History of Lithuania
4. Town names
5. Massacres
6. Occupation of Vilnius by Poles and/or Lithuanians
7. This "mediation"
8. I am pretty sure I forgot something
9. AAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

See a problem? Renata 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

So do I. How do you propose we deal with it?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

By having a Moratorium! Dr. Dan 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

A temporary one! Dr. Dan 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

On what?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Go back and re-read all of the above, that's what. Dr. Dan 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Once you start writing in a more clear and concise form, I will do so. For now, I can't make out heads or tails of your proposal - that is, I get the gist, but not the specifics.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

And that's what I'm proposing, the gist of a possible resolution to the problem. If the temporary proposition of mine is acceptable, we would all have to work out the specifics. Others might want to ram their propositions down everyone else's throat, I would prefer to work it out together. Dr. Dan 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As far as I understand it, Dan proposed that Polish and Lithuanian editors withdrew from writing articles on Polish-Lithuanian matters for some time. No contributions to articles on Vilnius, Władysław II of Poland, not a single word added to this very discussion, not to mention others. This seems a bad idea to me, but it might be a nice idea to him, as he's neither Polish nor Lithuanian. // Halibu tt 06:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

How about a bit different approach instead ? How about a little more mutual empathy in the spirit of Polish-Lithuanian collaboration project instead of wasting time and nerves on POV pushing ? -- Lysy ^talk 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As a sidenote: on Friday I've attended a concert for Polish-Lithuanian collaboration organised in Vilnius on 15th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relationships between the countries. It seems that on the diplomatic level the relationships between the countries are very friendly and promising. The concert was transmitted live on Lithuanian TV2. -- Lysy ^talk 07:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Lysy, I'm sure it was a fine concert. And as I've said before, I'm glad that relations between Poland and Lithuania are good. Too bad that's not the way they are on WK. Halibutt, you don't completly understand it (my proposition). "Not a single word added" is not what I meant, nor would it be right, let alone feasible. Your remark about my origins are irrelevant, and unecessarily contentious. And what do you consider yourself to be, BTW? Dr. Dan 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Then perhaps you could try to elaborate on the proposal? So far you did not explain it, which apparently leads to misunderstanding. // Halibu tt 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Fine, and since you brought up the E-word (ethnicity), can you answer my question to you? What do you consider yourself to be? Dr. Dan 13:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Check my user page, all is there. // Halibu tt 10:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Self-moderation within community

May I add my two cents? Piotrus, we've discussed that and I would like to repeat that interethnic bad blood would be best avoided if the problem users are restrained by their compatriots. That requires, of course, the compatriots to put aside the considerations that certain behaviors, while not necessarily nice, is better than nothing because it advances the right POV. So, let it go a little and maybe more. You remember I've been telling you once that not blocking Molobo by yourself was the major lapse in your admin judgement. He was instead used as a battering ram in contentious Polish-X articles (where X= Russian, Germany, Lithuania, etc) and dealing with his activity was a major headache for all the neighbors. (I am not saying he is a bad guy, he just has strong views and convictions that he has to advance them). Please note, that Russian and Ukrainian editors, that sometimes guilty of the excesses are often moderated by their compatriots. For comparison, I suggest checking the block log of Nixer (actually, also a nice guy) for who was blocking/unblocking him with the same log of Molobo.

Now, of course, we all understand who everyone is talking about here as it was prophesied with humor and wisdom by our common friend. Our friend is no Molobo. He does not ever need to be blocked. But you, as the most active Polish editor, should try moderating your friend when he steps over the line before others jump in. I am not that familiar with the Lithuanian community yet. But I guess among them there are also more passionate and more moderate editors. If we all try making sure our friends do not cross the lines, we will all be better off.

One more example, if Zvin ever shows up, I hope Lithuanian community will curb him before Piotrus and Halibutt.

Isn't it a reasonable suggestion? -- Irpen 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Not only reasonable, but IMHO, the heart of the matter. Dr. Dan 13:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Dan! -- Irpen 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Irpen: I explained above that IMHO the problem is not (primarily) Halibutt, but other users (like M.K). If the Lithuanian editors would show at least some sign of being able to compromise and work on their 'trouble' editors, I am sure Halibutt would back down, too. But as long as he is constantly provoked and subject to personal attacks and bad faith assumptions on talk, I am not suprised he may loose his cool from time to time.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

This is very good example about Piotrus "arguemnts", no need to hide Piotus, no need... M.K. 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Here we go, round and round, Polish editor are beyond the sin, others are bad, now the bad guy is M.K. Piotrus, you are a good advocate for your friend, but you can't be a judge of Lithuanian editors then. I agree with Irpen fully, only you can stop the extreems of your friends. Juraune 08:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As I said above: if you think it's Halibutt who is mostly at fault, then we obviously have a basic disagreement and are in need of a formal mediation.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

P.P., I've discussed my impression that you are not an unbiased referee before. You have admitted as much in this recent dicussion (that you are not unbiased). So why do you continually act as Halibutt's mouthpiece in these matters. Can't he speak for himself without the ventriloquist act? I've also told you that you should have gotten more involved with the Molobo matter, because whereas Halibutt can handle himself, Molobo would have profited from your help. Hope this is not offensive. Dr. Dan 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I support Irpen's position on the benefits of self-moderation within community. However comparing Halibutt (even without mentioning his name) to Zivinbudas seems on the extreme side. -- Lysy ^talk 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If that would make anyone's life easier I could admit that I'm the main problem here and that the entire wiki is as it is because of me. Which however would not place us any closer to some agreeable solution. If I admitted that, the Lithuanian users (and Irpen, let's not forget Irpen here) would still be removing Polish names from any article they find. So perhaps it's not entirely my fault that people remove the names? // Halibu tt 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

To close an agreement (by Linas Lituanus)

Nobody can solve all the questions at the same time. I think, the problem of alternative geographical names was very actual for Lithuanian side for long time. We all know that users from Polish side tried to put names in Polish language to articles from the category of towns and cities of Lithuania. They'd said their argumentation, why they did this way. But some Lithuanian users protested this, considering such information irrelevant. I considered it irrelevant in many cases too. Just imagine many stubs of towns with the only information: the town was Polish. If information of such kind were put, everybody would consider it irrelevant, but putting alternative names in Polish are almost equivalent to that in many cases. Some cases were not so bad, when the article is longer and Polish alternative appears not the only information about the town or when town really has the majority of Poles . But we have to avoid irrelevances. It's not only in the name of Lithuanian self-respect (we can forget about it if a need is evident, and we often are forced to do that), but in the name of objectivness of information, that we present to readers, that very often deal nothing with Polish - Lithuanian relations and just want to know something.

Not to be a chatterer, i suggest to solve this, making some kind of agreement, which i called treaty here (perhaps too formally, but the term isn't the main here). My suggestion is:

The Preamble

1. The lead of an article is intended to give the main information, and information in the lead is considered by readers as the main and significant.
2. Forms of alternative geographical names, that are put in the lead of an article, shouldn't confront with usage of geographical names in English.

The treaty

Sides of the treaty agree, that:

1. Alternative geographic names not always are significant and / or the main for defining the subject of an article. According to this an alternative geographic name may be inserted to the lead only if:
   1. It's used as an official geographic name by de-facto administration of the territory, where the object is (is situated).
   2. It's used by an ethnic minority, whose part in that territory is no lesser than 1/3 (alternative: any other reliable number).
   3. It's used by an ethnic group, applying to an geographical object that was important for that group as it's cultural or political center at some period, that still continues or is ended in the last 100 years (alternative: in the last 50 years).
2. Alternative geographic names must be used in English if in the lead, not in any other language (orthographic system). This point however doesn't include derivation of the title of the article from any other language.
3. Any other information concerning alternative names has to be included to sections of the article, considering the reason, why the information is added:
   1. Information, that concerns names, that are unused in English for current naming of the object, must be put to the section, that describes the history of the object. If an editor wants to make a separate block, he/she may use the form of sub- section with a relevant name.
   2. Information, that concerns names, that are used by local national minorities, must be put to the section, that either describes demography or national minorities (the national minority) . If an editor wants to make a separate block, he/she may use the form of sub- section with a relevant name.
   3. Information that is included to the lead may be repeated in the text, where a further explaining is preferable.
   4. In any list of alternative geographical names some clear hints, what reason is to include each of alternative names, are desired.

Considering possible future discussions in the frame of this treaty, sides of the treaty agree that:

1. A Wikipedia article that applies this treaty is marked with the icon of this treaty (see appendix//to be made//) in the talk page of the article.
2. This treaty doesn't overrun the Wikipedia policy guidelines.
3. Any Wikipedia user may protest an including of an alternative name as discrepant with the treaty until data, that can justify the including, are included to the article. Variants of this are:
   1. If the alternative geographic name is put to the lead, basing on demography data, respective demography data must be included to the article (according the official wikipolicy guidelines) to justify its including.
   2. If the alternative geographical name is put according to the point 1.3, respective cultural or political activities of the relevant ethnic group should be summarized in the article, to justify the inclusion.
   3. Any other information considering alternative geographic names requires reasons, why these names are used, to be put to the article or to the talk page of the article.
4. If a Wikipedia user, who protests including of an alternative name, reverts the included name out, the advocates of the name abstain from a repeated reverting till the including is justified.
5. After the including is justified, opponents of the included name abstain from reverting the name out, questioning the justifying text instead, except the justifying text is put to the talk page only. If the justifying text is put to the talk page only, this treaty leaves the situation to rule according to the existent guidelines.

( Linas Lituanus 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)) reply

Please, don't insert any text to the text of the "treaty" above. Do copyediting or criticizing with a copy of this text, please.( L_L_)

Linas, I appreciate your attempt. I'll not comment it for now, but would like to ask you to take a look at a similar attempt in the meantime (well, not a "treaty" ;-) but a WP guideline) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is still under construction, and its talk page as well. What do you say ? -- Lysy ^talk 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not a fan of very abstract conventions, that try to encompass the whole, but often skip a particular. We deal with a problem here. The problem serves a reason for this agreement.

The problem itself consists of what can be called insufficient information without a clear reason. Say, somebody have put an alternative geographical name in Hindi to the lead and, assume, the name isn't an original invention but is really used. What would a reader think, having found the name , which is written in an alphabet unknown for him? I think his conclusions may be following:

1. Hindi is used by a significant part of people in that region. Or
2. Hindi is or was an official language in the region. Or
3. The name, that is the title of the article, is derived from the word in Hindi.

Or something similar.

Everybody would agree, that it isn't the best way to inform readers. Is it a problem, when such a way is practiced? Surely. Linas Lituanus 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Linas, I also appreciate your effort, but I think that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) is more thought-out (dozens of people have polished it over the number of months). Further, I don't agree - or don't understand - with some of your points. What do you mean by 'Forms of alternative geographical names, that are put in the lead of an article, shouldn't confront with usage of geographical names in English'? Why are we basing the naming on the need for original research (point 1) instead of the use in academic sources (as per WP:V and WP:RS)? And last but not least, what makes Lithuania case different from virtually every other case on Wikipedia? With the exception of capitals, other names are often used, and that includes Lithuanian names in Polish, Belarusian or Latvian cities. See my question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lithuania#Naming_of_towns, which deals not so much with conflict resolution but which asks why Lithuania case differs from all others.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

In the point 2 of the preamble, i mean that no any other writing systems than Latin alphabet should be used in the lead (except when derivation of the title is explained). Many of us often repeat that they defend a right of readers to know alternative names, that might be found in English sources. But they get a result, when ethnic groups use the lead for their self-advertizing. I vote here for English words (including originaly Polish, Lithuanian etc. forms in Latin alphabet, which are accepted in English) against unknown combinations of symbols. My example before is pointed among other to the same, what isn't so unclear. Linas Lituanus 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply