User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2021/October

Silvestras Žukauskas

What sources do you expect? In the article you have clearly mentioned that he said to Kasprzycki that "he considers himself Polish and that he took the lead of Lithuanian Army only to bring about an agreement with Poland"; he was dismissed from his position because he was considered Polish by Lithuanian officers, he also was trying to join Polish army at some point. He was either Lithuanian of Polish origins or Polish-Lithuanian; calling him simply Lithuanian is false Marcelus (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If your claims that he is Polish or something along those lines are true, then you should surely have an easy time collecting direct references and quotes from books saying that Silvestras Žukauskas was of the Polish ethnicity or e.g. a Polish General of the Lithuanian Army. Is that the case? Not at all.

Moreover, the "he considers himself Polish and that he took the lead of Lithuanian Army only to bring about an agreement with Poland" is really far-fetched, especially because it is practically just hear-say (from a meeting in Kaunas with major Tadeusz Kasprzycki). His actions frankly deny such claims, as it was under his overall command that the Lithuanian Army indeed fought the Polish Army in 1920.

"he was dismissed from his position because he was considered Polish by Lithuanian officers" - nowhere is that said in the article. He was dismissed because of disease on 24 December 1918, because of the people involved in the Polish coup d'état attempt (even if his involvement is doubtful considering Žukauskas was most likely was not aware of the plot) in 1919, and in 1921 due to his political involvement. His "Polish-ness" is debatable, considering Žukauskas supported the coup d'état of December 1926 that brought President Antanas Smetona to power. The government overthrown and removed was pro-Polish and Žukauskas supporting Lithuanian nationalists is a pretty firm indication of who he was as a person.

"he also was trying to join Polish army at some point" - nonsense. That was just rumours - There were rumours that he was offered a high-ranking post in the Polish Army.

"He was either Lithuanian of Polish origins or Polish-Lithuanian; calling him simply Lithuanian is false" - as your premises are shaky at best and ahistorical at worst, such a conclusion is undeniably incorrect. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not claiming that he was Polish, all I am saying that he had Polish origins; almost everybody involved in the Pol-Lit conflict had a mixed background, on both sides. And he was considered by many younger Lithuanian officers as Polish "spy" of sort. In the article you clearly have stated that <Gira supposedly called him a "Polish adherent who cannot be trusted">; going forward "in August 1919 [Žukauskas] published an article in the bilingual newspaper Suvienytoji Lietuva / Zjednoczona Litwa advocating for a union between Lithuania and Poland.[33] This stirred controversy among Lithuanian soldiers and deepened their suspicions that Žukauskas was a Polish sympathizer." You can read this article (p. 86-87) to learn more about that, the author Kęstutis Kilinskas has no doubt why Žukauskas was dismissed in 1919. As I said Silvestras brother Teofil was a colonel in Polish army, his descendants live in Poland and Scotland, the descendants of third brother Andrzej live in Lithuania and Poland today. You can read about it here and here. Marcelus (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Such claims of Polish origins are just speculation based on Žukauskas' warm feelings (at least sometimes) with regards to Poland. One can only determine the origins by looking at his family tree or something similar, but not their political ideas, regardless of the context. There might have been very pro-Polish people in Mińsk Litewski who had not a drop of Polish blood but supported the Poles because of their Catholicism and vice versa - fully Polish Bolsheviks who were anti-Poland, like those in the Western Rifle Division. "almost everybody involved in the Pol-Lit conflict had a mixed background, on both sides" is a verifiably false statement, considering that many people on the Lithuanian side were definite Lithuanians with no Polish origin - and they were the majority. A few names of the top of my head - Maironis, Antanas Smetona, and the absolute majority of Signatories of the Act of Independence of Lithuania (though not all, most notably Stanisław Narutowicz) and many, many more.

With regards to Žukauskas' sympathy for Poland, cases of it are already made clear in the article.

As for his brother Teofil, I agree that it is a very interesting addition to the article and would be welcome. As for one of them going to Poland and another going to Lithuania, that indicates nothing about them coming from a mixed family.

One should not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions without firm evidence and reliable sources.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"that indicates nothing about them coming from a mixed family" - and that's exactly what I have in mind, that Žukauskas was coming from a Polish-Lithuanian family, hence he was either "Polish-Lithuanian" or "Lithuanian of Polish origins" Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources stating that Žukauskas was Polish-Lithuanian or Lithuanian of Polish origins. Ergo, such claims are, in all likelihood, incorrect. Of course, with the only caveat that something spectacularly new and groundbreaking was discovered. As that is not the case and most likely won't be the case in the future, existing evidence points to Silvestras Žukauskas being Lithuanian, and there is no debate to be had. Also, claims of ethnicity based on political views are highly WP:OR.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know what kind of source you expect. His whole family was Polish, he was speaking Polish he even had a Polish surname. He wanted to join a Polish army, he was surrounded by Polish Lithuanians; in my opinion it's more than enough to justify calling him Polish-Lithuanian, or Lithuanian of Polish origins Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

His family was not at all Polish, because you haven't shown anything that supports such a claim. Taking the Polish language, a regional lingua franca, as a determinant of nationality is unreasonable, as such a view is NEVER applied when evaluating a person's ethnicity in other cases e.g. speaking Latin or French language most of the time doesn't make a person part of the Roman people or French people. There are many Ukrainians who speak Russian at home - does that make them Russians? Of course not! Žukauskas' last name was not at all Polish, and in fact is Lithuanian. As explained here (in Lithuanian), Žukauskas is a Polonized version of the last name Žukas, which just means bug in Lithuanian, according to this. If Silvestras Žukauskas wanted to join the Polish Army, as you claim, why did he fight against it? He could have very easily went over to the other side, the Polish Army would have congratulated and exalted him (most likely). Him not doing it firmly suggests that he did not want to join the Polish Army. Being surrounded by Polonized Lithuanians doesn't make one have Polish origins. Your opinion is not grounded in facts and as such your judgement to call him "Polish-Lithuanian, or Lithuanian of Polish origins" is wrong and ahistorical.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

His family was Polish, his brother Teofil was living in Poland, and was an officer. Teofil's son Zygmunt was send to Siberia, his descendants are now living in Poland. Their other brother Andrzej was living in Vilnius region, some of his descendants are still living there and speak Polish, other were send to Sibera and now live in Poland. Their sister Maria, was living in Kyiv and died early. Silvestras adopted her daughter Apolonia Kożuchowska, who later married Polish officer Stanisław Kowalski and lived in Poland. The original name of Žukauskas was "Żukowski", as you can see in his Russian files. Żukowski is a Polish noble name, that's derived from Polish word "żuk" meaning "bug". Check this Wikipage that explains it properly: Žukauskas. Marcelus (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

His family wasn't Polish. To state whether he was or wasn't, it is possible only by looking at his genealogical tree. One does not determine someone's ethnicity by looking at their offspring, one finds it by looking at their ancestors.

So what if Teofil served in the Polish Army? Service in the Polish Army doesn't make someone immediately Polish, e.g. Israfil Israfilov. He served in the Polish Army, does that make him Polish? No. So, if not everyone in the Polish Army is Polish, then service in the Polish Army does not mean the person is suddenly of a certain ethnicity. Many Ukrainians and Belarusians served in the Polish Army, especially on the eve of World War II, which does not suddenly make them Polish or even loyal to the Polish state. It might indicate that the person had a degree of sympathy if they joined the army voluntarily but joining an army does not entail just one factor of "national loyalty", but also many other things can come into play - it is not unheard of that people defect to the other side if they feel like it is the future winner or for monetary compensation. It is a really personal decision. And to reduce it to "Someone in the family was in the Polish Army, must mean that the family was Polish" is undeniably false, just like it would be to claim that "Someone in the family voluntarily joined the Russian Army, must mean the family was Russian".

Neither does speaking a certain language make someone part of the ethnicity. Someone may speak English all day, but not be part of the English people. Someone may speak French all day, but not be of the French people. Someone may speak Polish all day, but not be at all a Pole.

Also, just checked and found that there is a certain Stanisław Kowalski who was the commander of the Naugardukas' Rifle Regiment, so even then, the "Polish" officer might be less Polish than one might suspect at first glance.

The original name of Žukauskas was not "Żukowski", and you claiming that on the basis of that document in Cyrillic is very misleading. It is written Жуковский. It is more reasonable to claim on the basis of the document that it was Zhukovsky (Zhukovsky (surname)) instead of Zukowski. There is no way to write "w" in Russian, you are distorting what is written. Moreover, one should not forget that Russianization is also at play, just like its counterpart, Polonization.

Also, "Check this Wikipage that explains it properly: Žukauskas." You must be joking - a page with not a single source is considered by you to be a proper page! Anyone could have typed up whatever they wanted, provided no reference, and you would say "all fine" if it aligned with your view. Very improper behaviour. Moreover, to say that "žukas/zhuk/żuk" and all other variations are all arising from Polish is insanity. That would be like claiming that John Smith is German, because Germans have the word Schmidt (Schmidt (surname)), ignoring that there are the Dutch Smits or Smit and Swedish Smeds.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim he was Polish but that he had Polish origins or mixed Polish-Lithuanian identity, which isn't unheard of, literally all his family members had strong ties to Poland, including him. Even his wife's mother was Walentyna Kozłowska. "There is no way to write "w" in Russian, you are distorting what is written" - what you mean by that? в and Polish w are the same. Russian Жуковский and Polish Żukowski are the same names, used in Poland, Ukraine and Russia and as Žukauskas in Lithuania, Žukauskas is a Lithuanisation of a Slavic name. BTW what exactly makes you think that St. Kowalski wasn't exactly Polish because he served in the 80pp? Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's actually interesting what gen. Vincas Grigaliūnas-Glovackis said about him p. 18: "Generolas majoras Silvestras Žukauskas, mūsų pirmasis krašto apsaugos ministras, rusų kariuomenės divizijos vadas, siekdamas karjeros, iš kataliko virtęs kalvinistu, vedęs vokietę protestantę, pats lenkiškos kultūros būdamas, visad linko prie lenkų, o lietuvius laikė mužikais, bernais, tinkamais tik būti ponų vergais. Ir tai mūsų pirmasis krašto apsaugos ministras! Gobšus, didelis mergų ir kortų mėgėjas tikėjosi, kad Lietuvoje per Smetoną ir Voldemarą gausiąs pyragus. Išvydęs, kad Lietuvoje ne tik pyragų, bet ir duonos trūksta, išskubėjo į Varšuvą pyragų ieškoti. Krašto apsaugos ministerija, Apsaugos štabas ir mes kiti likome „našlaičiai“. Lenkuose tuo tarpu buvo gadynė veterinarų, pasidariusių pulkininkais. Na, tai ir ten mūsų generolas nepritapo, bet vis dėlto liko ten ir toliau bastytis ir į Lietuvą grįžo tik 1919 m. balandžio mėn., kai Valstybės Taryba pirmuoju Lietuvos prezidentu išrinko p. Antaną Smetoną. Vėl sugebėjo prisilaižyti ir buvo paskirtas Lietuvos kariuomenės vadu." Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You can also check the page no 243, apparentely his adoptive son Jouzas/Józef was also a Polish officer Marcelus (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that no one states the "he had Polish origins or mixed Polish-Lithuanian identity" in any source, regardless of what either of us thinks of it. Inclinations towards Poland, sure, no doubt, well-recorded and already included in the article. But anything more (with regards to his identity etc.)? Not a solid case and no sources clearly telling that word for word (as I have said many times before).

literally all his family members had strong ties to Poland Sure, so did an important part of Lithuanian nobility, still doesn't make them Polish. As for Walentyna Kozłowska, it could have very easily been a Polonized name - in fact, Kazlauskas is one of the most popular names in Lithuania and the word Kazlas (the root of the surname) also has multiple meanings. what you mean by that? Saying that The original name of Žukauskas was "Żukowski" is misleading because the document would actually be translated into English as "Zhukovsky". Plus, there are both "w" and "v" in the English language. Żukowski is indeed the Polish translation of the Russian Жуковский, I never denied that. The thing is, the word "Żukowski" was not explicitly spelt out in such letters in the documents.

Žukauskas is a Lithuanisation of a Slavic name. - you just touched upon a really complex topic. As professor Zigmas Zinkevičius writes, the "Slavic" names in Lithuania, no matter how distorted, in fact have Lithuanian roots, as the way these "Slavic" names arose was through the people writing the surnames down doing a really poor job - there was no uniformity, and sometimes the last names were purposefully changed into another language, while others weren't and remained as they should. E.g. in the baptism records of his two older sons, Jonas Šepetys has the identical surname, Szepiecia, but in with his third son - he is suddenly Szepetowicza. Another example is when from a family, where the sister is baptised as Kotryna Miliutė on 15 October 1758, but the brother on 6 July 1777 is written down as Kochański. Apparently, the writer thought that the last name Milius came from the Lithuanian “mylėti”, which in Polish is kochac! And there are many, many, many cases of obvious distortion of surnames and the cases I gave are in no way marginal or exceptional.

As for my suggestions (I am not asserting them as fact) with regards to Stanisław Kowalski, my reasoning was as follows: knowing that the Interwar Polish Army's regiments tried fostering a regional identity (as far as I understand, correct me if I am wrong), and Naugardukas being a territory deeply intertwined with Lithuania for numerous reasons, such as Lithuanians ruling Naugardukas for half a millennia, Naugardukas being an integral part of the Lithuanian state, and being in constant contact with ethnic Lithuanians from Lithuania proper and being inhabited by them, there is a possibility that Kowalski would not have been as "Polish" like someone from Lesser Poland. These are just inferences, and I might be wrong, perhaps Stanisław Kowalski was from Cracow or Łódź.

I indeed agree that this excerpt from gen. Vincas Grigaliūnas-Glovackis is really interesting. Vincas Grigaliūnas-Glovackis is really against Žukauskas, even saying in his fascinating memoirs "Žukauskas buvo 100 procentų juodašimtis, buvo ištikimas savo (rusų) tėvynei ir tikybai." Glovackis is saying "Žukauskas was 100% Black Hundred, loyal to his (Russian) Fatherland and faith." Pretty strong statements, (I laughed, because I never expected this and just looks so absurd). As an act of reciprocity, I can also point you to an interesting quote, namely this from Lucjan Żeligowski.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The name Kazlauskas is a Lithuanian cognate of a Polish surname Kozłowski, which is derived from the town Kozłowo, which in turn is named after "kozioł" - "a goat". In the same vein Žukauskas > Żukowski > Żukowo > Żuk = "beetle". Or Landsbergis > Landsberg = "country mountain". And why you need to "translate" Жуковский to English? Жуковский is a Russian transcription of Polish "Żukowski", it certainly isn't "Žukauskas" which would be Жука́ускас. You have weird definition of national identity. Just because Nowogródek was a part of Lithuania in middle ages it doesn't mean that everybody there are "actually" Lithuanian. Sure they can be if that's their identity, but that's all. And Pole from Nowogródek is as Polish as Pole from Cracow. There were Polish people in Novogrudok, Cracow, Warsaw, Kaunas or Vilnius and all of them are equally Polish, even if their ethnic background is different. Also I doubt that Grigaliūnas-Glovackis calls Žukauskas a member or supporter of Black Hundreds, because a sentence before he calls Kandratovich "a much brighter person" Marcelus (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though you ignore Polonization as a possibility. If you had read the article "Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian surnames", you would not be making such crude assumptions about surnames in Lithuania - things that might seem to be Polish are not always Polish. And why you need to "translate" Жуковский to English? Why should one translate it to Polish? We only know how it was written in Russian by some administrators. Žukauskas probably would not even have had the ability to change anything in the papers, even if he wanted. it certainly isn't "Žukauskas" which would be Жука́ускас. Are you assuming that Russian officials would not Russianize them? E.g. Jonas Basanavičius was made into Ivan Basanovich (according to this article by the PhD Kazimieras Garšva). Also I doubt that Grigaliūnas-Glovackis... well, there is a direct quote of him clearly accusing Žukauskas. There is the possibility Glovackis mixed up the names, which is a very human mistake. As for Kandratovich, Glovackis said he was "a much brighter person" compared to Žukauskas, because Kandratovich was more straightforward about his ideas in his actions, if I understood correctly. I searched CTRL+F in the book and the only other appearance of Black Hundreds is on page 18 "Jis sakėsi esąs baltgudys, bet iš tikrųjų buvo šimtą nuošimčių juodašimtis kacapas." (He [Gen. Kandratovich] said he was Belarussian, but was actually a 100% Black Hundred Katsap.) As for national identities and ethnicities, it is self-evident by now that we both see it differently and discussing it will yield nothing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Why should one translate it to Polish?" Because we know that Žukauskas wasn't Russian but Polish-Lithuanian, and his native tongue was Polish. Jonas Basanavičius isn't the best example for your case because he himself used initially solely and later often his Polish name "Jan Basanowicz", it wasn't forciebly Russianized, as you suggest. I don't know why your refuse to talk about national identities, because it's seems that your idea is very "biological".Marcelus (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that is circular reasoning. You say that we know that he is x because his name is y and simultaneously you say we know his name is y because he was x. That is illogical. "native tongue was Polish" aside from whether this is true, even if it were true, it is incorrect to determine one's identity on the basis of a regional lingua franca. Most 18th-century nobility spoke French way better than their native language, does that mean that Russian nobles of this era are suddenly French? Of course not. As for Jonas Basanavičius, you missed the point. The distortion of his name ("Ivan") was an example of Russianization, while him writing initially in Polish is only a natural result of Polonization. What matters more is the content and not the form. Only shallow people look just at the outward appearance.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep ignoring historical sources, witnesses account that describes general as being of "Polish culture", "Polish" and so on. For now on your attempts to remove such information from his article I will consider as vandalism Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"You keep ignoring historical sources" That's a description of your actions, considering this whole thing started because there was a lack of sources stating that he was of Polish origins.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note - ANI

Hi, just a quick note that I mentioned you in this thread on ANI. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Hi, thank you for telling me that. It's really unfortunate that something that should have been a neutral military-themed article from the start is somehow controversial. Best --Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting all my edits

Phrases like "vast and powerful" aren't neutral, they are examples of puffery. Marcelus (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Not an example of MOS:PUFFERY, because it imparts and plainly summarizes verifiable information. Moreover, facts prove the validity of those words. It is a neutral statement to say them, as the article of Alexander the Great has the words: By the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India. or Augustus with Augustus dramatically enlarged the Empire.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? These aren't neutral statements. We are talking about the article about Coats of Arms and you are comparing it with biographies. Plus it's not even accurate. Yes, Lithuania was vast and powerful in 14-15th century and for some time later, but hardly before that and today. Marcelus (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I fixed your problem here, by adding a simple adjective. And yes, it was accurate, why are you in denial? Are you saying that weak states somehow conquer from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea? Lithuania managed that which Poland never did. The only other state that comparably repeated the Lithuanian success was the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Lithuania is better than Poland in every aspect. I don't really care. The thing is that it's still puffery, and a bit pathetic on a personal note. Marcelus (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, it is not Puffery, because it is well verifiable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This aren't hussar wings, because there was no hussars in early 15th century, and they certainly didn't have wings. That's WP:ORMarcelus (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Did you notice, that I removed all mentions to hussars? Already before you sent this message?--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Massive production of biograms of Lithuanised names

I see what you are doing there. It's a bad faith action. Especially in the light of the ongoing discussion in Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis Marcelus (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So creating articles is a bad faith action? That demonstrates your bad faith, which you project on others. As for the "ongoing discussion", it has been already four days since I wrote anything there, so not really "ongoing". You made a very disappointing comment.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because you clearly made them just to change the names. This is a bad faith and it's actually purposefully misleading because these people weren't called that as you name them. As it was proved in the discussion naming customs of the Lithuanian language aren't conclusive. And the discussion is ongoing because it didn't end. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

These articles only existed on the Lithuanian Wikipedia. No other Wikipedia had them, not the Polish one or any other. Instead of thanking me for putting effort into bettering the coverage of the January Uprising and those involved in it, you call me bad faith because they are not named in the Polish language which you so clearly want. As for the Lithuanian language customs, you are clearly illogical. Following your (lack of) logic, there should be no articles named in the Lithuanian language, because "naming customs of the Lithuanian language aren't inconclusive". You are the misleading one as you are diverting time and energy that should be used in creating and improving articles (as I just started, to get past the never-ending talk on the talk pages), instead you drag me into your non-sense, which contradicts Wikipedia policy. Your actions are the bad faith ones, and that is not good for Wikipedia or anyone, really.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't drag you to anything, you started it with an attempt to destroy the content I placed in Mackiewicz's article. Stop pretending you don't know what I am talking about. All historical sources call these people that way. It was a Bolesław Kołyszko, that was his birth name, you cannot change that. Marcelus (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you drag me into your non-stop talks. I did not start anything, if anything, YOU are following ME. E.g. Mackevičius' article. Looking at your "contributions" and considering the Talk:Silvestras Žukauskas, it is clear that you decided to edit the article on Mackevičius after YOU saw ME editing it extensively, on October 3. You claiming that I seek to "destroy" the content you placed is nonsense. Did I remove anything from what you included? Did I mass remove content? No, judging by YOUR OWN standards, that is what YOU did on the Coat of Arms of Lithuania, right here in these edits 1, 2 and 3. You are inconsistent and your actions do not align with what you say. I will conclude on the fact that translating/creating articles on Wikipedia is not bad faith, by any standard, but you claiming that it is bad faith on my part, is actually bad faith on your part.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The article about CoA was overloaded with information. Nothing I removed was essential. You are Lithuanising names of people against historical sources. That's what I call destroying. You can see that I was editing Mackiewicz's article a year ago. And that I am also author of majority content in the article about him on Polish Wikipedia Marcelus (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So, according to you, removing thousands of bytes of information is not destruction, but not using Polish-language names is destruction? A very twisted view. There is no denying that you edited Mackevičius' article a year ago, but put two and two together, and it is clear that seeing me editing led to you also editing the article. It does not matter that you are the author of most of the content on the article in pl.wiki, because we are talking about the English Wikipedia. Even worse is that are denying obvious Lithuanians as Poles, like in this edit. It is clear that you have confused the two wikipedia's, because you keep pushing the Polish language and Polonization where it does not belong, namely in the articles on Lithuanians, as I have repeated myself so many times.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

All of them were Lithuanians, but also undoubtedly in some way Polish. As I said a million times before. These aren't "Polish" names, these are names they were using. Szlagier for example was publishing as Vincentas Šliogeris, but Kuszłejko was publishing as Kuszłejko. This are actual proves what names they were using Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You are constantly escalating and creating problems where none existed prior. Just stop it. Your constant renaming, inciting endless discussions that lead nowhere are not helpful to Wikipedia.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about talking about articles Marcelus (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about talking about articles, but what is wrong is YOU coming to a neutral sphere which was the Lithuanian military articles and turning them into WP:BATTLEGROUND and starting WP:EDITWAR. All the blame is on you.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's non-sense, I didn't turn anything into war or anything like that. I am just trying to stop your constant attempts to Lithuanize name of historical persons. It's not only historically inaccurate but also morally wrong. Name is very personal thing, you cannot change someone's name because it fits your narrative. Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not non-sense as Marcelus claims. I will present the facts so one can make up their opinion.

One can clearly see from my contributions, that I was consistently editing and translating/creating military-themed articles (mostly about Lithuania, but not only) from when I started editing Wikipedia. Then Marcelus made an unsourced edit on September 12 and there has been some sort of unceasing talk-page grumbling, WP:BATTLEGROUND and never-ending edit-wars, that are practically ongoing, as Marcelus likes to emphasise. The reasons I gave were following Wikipedia guidelines, like WP:UE, while Marcelus' reasons actions are based on WP:OR and searching for proofs outside WP:RS about what name is the "actual name", which is typically the Polish-language name. Everything was peaceful until Marcelus came.

Moreover, Marcelus has a penchant for controversially renaming articles without discussion, e.g. Boleslovas Dluskis -> Bolesław Roman Dłuski, without discussion (the name was present for 11 years, until Marcelus came along), Romualdas Giedraitis -> Romuald Giedroyć, without discussion and Tomas Kušleika -> Tomasz Kuszłejko, without discussion.

Marcelus not only Polonizes names of articles that I did not create, but he is obviously against Lithuanian language names in general. He simply has an adverse reaction to them. This can be seen from the enforced Polonization of names of Lithuanian figures, as was the case with Adomas Bitė and Vincentas Šliogeris. In this edit, it is clear that Marcelus just assumes the Polish-language version of the name is the correct one - evidenced in the edit summary of "Not a single personal name here is distorted, that's how they were called". Really? The Polish language would have naturally used the Polish-language version of their names, as can be clearly seen in these two concrete cases. And this was just scratching the surface. Marcelus has no high ground to stand on, be it moral, historical, or any other. Considering all of this, Name is very personal thing, you cannot change someone's name because it fits your narrative. should be a statement that Marcelus should think about before accusing others of doing it.

This neverending writing between Marcelus and me has to cease or be stopped. It must stop, one way or another. I suggest Marcelus and me just both refrain from renaming articles for the coming month or so and all of this stops. More productive things need to be done for the building of this encyclopedia.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Tomasz Kuszłejko

What's your problem now? Here you have a proof that he was publishing under that name, which mean that it was his actual name. It's not a Polonization, it's writing encyclopedia Marcelus (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You seriously think that using a Polish library is proof of what someone's real name is? Nonsense. It's not a Polonization, it's writing encyclopedia So far, over the past month, you have been creating intense WP:EDITWAR and disputes where none was prior, which is easily visible from you initiating the text-walls in the talk pages of various people. Your only positive major contributions over the same period were some text in Antanas Mackevičius (at the start of the month) and making some sfn (shortened footnotes) in the article Coat of arms of Lithuania, but this does negate that your behaviour is impeding the writing of encyclopedia. Actually, it is I who is translating/writing more encyclopedic material than you (creating articles that were missing), but your initial and instinctive reaction was only negative and denial, showing your real face. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, because you diverted so much attention and time from building it. If anything, your actions are destructive in making attention go into pointless directions.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Fellows, maybe text message or e-mail each other also?

How on earth do you expect others to join the debate? Please, for the 10th time, handle disputes on the relevant talk page for reference/record-keeping. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I made Coat of Arms article much more readable, removed some crazy theories, added a lot of facts, it's not easy to write an article on such complex subject if actually use sources. I think I did a good work there. I linke to a leaflet written by Kuszłejko and signed by him with that name. GizzyCatBella yes, sorry about that. But in general this is the same discussion we had in case of Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis. We really need to find some general guidelines. Marcelus (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of your work in the Coat of Arms of Lithuania was welcome (like I mentioned, the sfn), but it by far does not match how much time and effort went into talk pages... "it's not easy to write an article on such complex subject if actually use sources" - I agree, but your complaint looks bizarre when I remember that you criticized the Coat of Arms of Lithuania article for too many sources. Your statement does not square well with what you previously said. Sure, there was some good work, but that does not fix anything with regards to the edit-war, battleground, etc. Following wiki guidelines, like WP:UE where it is said German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on, the names should be Lithuanian. While I mention Wikipedia policies, all you propose is just "actual name", which is insufficient for naming an article in a certain way.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The general guidelines are already in WP:UE where it is said German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on, so the names of Lithuanian rebels should be Lithuanian. You just seem to ignore that for one reason or another.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean actual sources, linking as many webpages as possible isn't the same as using actual scientific books. Just look how underused Rimsa is in the article, and he should be the main basis of the article. For Polish souces Zenon Piech is excellent and very recent, but he talks only about Jagiellonians. We aren't talking about Lithuanian people, but Polish-Lithuanians, and January Uprising was started to recreate Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not etnolinguistic Lithuanian state. It's very specific situation that needs a separate approach. And just because the person was using Polish-sounding name doesn't mean he wasn't Lithuanian. There was one Central National Committee (later National Government) in Warsaw for entire Commonwealth, provincional organisations in Lithuania-Belarus and Ruthenia were subjugated to it Marcelus (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages without discussion

@Cukrakalnis - In light of your ethnicity-directed edits, history of disputes with Marcelus about it, and unblock promise (you know which one), moving pages to reflect your preferred language name without any discussion is very problematic.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Please be careful because if that is brought to the administrative attention, I think it will not end up well for you. In your situation I would not move pages anymore, without prior discussion and consensus to do so. This is not a warning but a piece of friendly advice. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis recent edits are problematic. He keep Lithuanising names of Polish-Lithuanian figures, despite the ongoing discussion on this topic in Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis, and now he is moving battles to his preferred names. Name of the battles are quite separate from the names of the locations and has historically established form, for example Battle of Kircholm name shouldn't be changed even if the town is called now Salaspils Marcelus (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus To say that I am purposefully Lithuanising "names of Polish-Lithuanian figures" is distorting the reality because all I did was translate articles under their names in the Lithuanian Wikipedia, which were not present on the Polish wiki or any other. As for battle names, I also changed the names in this template to follow the Polish names, like Poniec, Pułtusk and Poznań, because that is according to the WP:MOSPOL, where it is written Favour the use of Polish spelling and diacritics to ensure accuracy and respect for the subject. So, from how I see it, these edits were all fine, WP:NPOV and unproblematic. As for Battle of Kircholm, that is because that is the widespread established usage in English literature, so the name should remain. However, the norm is that lesser-known battles without established usage in English have the modern place names in them.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Pofka (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)