Talk:Kėdainiai

Polish minority

Perhaps Jacurek can tell the readers on WP what the current Polish population in Kedainiai is. Maybe some one else knows. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To Dan, so he can practice his Polish language skills:): Wedlug statystyk (pobralem z linku artykulu) w rejonie miasta mieszka około 1% Polaków czyli 700 osób.--Jacurek (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To the rest of the readers: According to the statistics (from the link) 700 people or %1 of the population.Jacurek (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(To be clear, It was Dr.Dan who inserted the "tagging text" into my comment above--Jacurek (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

"Dzięki, moje umiejętności są wystarczające w polskich bez twojej pomocy." Dr. Dan (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nie ma za co Doktorze, szkoda ze sam nie wczytales sie w link zamiast pytac, tam jest wszysto napisane, tylko ze po Polsku"--Jacurek (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, for the side show. So Jacurek, 700 hundred people in a city of 30,000 would be justification to put in a Polish "alternate" name? Really? In a city that BTW, wasn't included during the 1920, annexation of Lithuanian territories by Poland? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is justified not because the remaining Polish minority but because the overall history of the city and the region.--Jacurek (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly are you tagging text on the talk page?radek (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to know where you got your statistic from, is that so strange? Next time I'll just ask you. Like now. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I told you in Polish in my comment above where I got it from ("pobralem z linku artykulu") sorry you missed that.--Jacurek (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your explanation in Polish and understood it, didn't miss it. Unfortunately the rest of our readers might not be able to read Polish and I doubt that any one else understood what "(from the link)" meant. No aspersion to your "English language skills." Just be so kind as to provide the information somehow, from somewhere. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K., no problem, I will next time--Jacurek (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To the rest of the readers: Here is the link I was talking about earlier[1] sorry but it is in Polish only.--Jacurek (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you highlight the statistic? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First half of the article: Powszechnie wiadomo, że Polacy są na Wileńszczyźnie. Nie wszystkim natomiast wiadomo, że Polacy zamieszkują również Litwę centralną, Laudę (krainę nad rzeką Lauda, w trójkącie między Kiejdanami, Poniewieżą i Szawlami) - opisaną przez H. Sienkiewicza w "Potopie". Do dziś, mimo braku polskich szkół, Mszy św. w języku polskim, mimo dziesiątków kilometrów między polskimi domami zachowały się tu rodziny polskie. W rejonie kiejdańskim według statystyk mieszka około 1% Polaków (700 osób), ale to, że jest ich mało, problemów zachowania polskości nie pomniejsza, raczej - odwrotnie.--Jacurek (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue of "Alternate Names"

I deliberately chose to use the term, "alternate names," for the discussion here, as this euphemistic term makes no sense when dealing with the big picture on an Encyclopedia. Granted there are definitely examples of alternative names for some cities, but more often than not (probably 90% of the time) we are merely dealing with foreign language variants of geographic toponyms, and not "alternate names" at all. Links to the appropriate article in the other language should be a sufficient way to retrieve such information, if one so desires. Should be simple. Let me ask Gwinndeith who recently added the "Polish alternate name" to this city with the edit summary ..."Alternate names are common feature in city articles in Wikipedia" (sic), to elucidate on his premise. A reasonable answer might change my opinion regarding the matter. Other input is welcome. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Dan, since there are no Lithuanians in the town of Augustow (except for truck drivers going to Warsaw or Berlin), I should expect you to be consistent and insist on deleting the Lithuanian name of this place. Thank you in advance for your efforts. Tymek (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Help yourself, no objections personally. Of course if you visit the cemeteries there, and in Sejny (I have), you might be surprised to read some of the tombstones. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely, there are Lithuanian tombstones in Sejny, but there are thousands more Polish tombstones in villages and towns across Lithuania. And yet a bunch of revert buddies keep on deleting Polish names of these places. So let me state again - Dr Dan, be consistent and talk to these individuals. Explain to them your opinion on tombstones presented here. Thank you in advance, I know I can count on you, since you are a perfect picture of an unbiased editor. Tymek (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tymek, there are probably hundreds of thousands of Polish tombstones in many places in the U.S., it is not a reason to put Nowy Jork in the lead of that article. Incidentally, before we digress too far into the subject of tombstones, I only brought it up because you said..."since there are no Lithuanians in the town of Augustow (sic) (except for truck drivers going to Warsaw or Berlin)", I thought you'd consider the reality of such a claim. I do suspect, however, that you are mistaken about this. Btw, have you ever been to Augustów? It's really quite lovely this time of year. Much nicer there than on Milwaukee or Archer Avenues. Twój Kumpel, Dr. Dan (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was you who mentioned the tombstones first. Anyway, I totally agree with your point, tombstones are not the reason for putting Polish or Lithuanian names in the lead of articles. Therefore, feel free to remove Lithuanian names of towns and cities of northeastern Poland, as apart from some tombstones, there is hardly anything Lithuanian there. As for Augustow, I have been there, I have also been to Suwalki. Nice places, but my part of Poland is way more picturesque. All the best to you, kolego. Tymek (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Przyjacielu, I may have mentioned tombstones first, but it was you who first claimed..."since there are no Lithuanians in the town of Augustow (sic) (except for truck drivers going to Warsaw or Berlin)", I thought you might want to back pedal a little on this very unusual claim. Having travelled to virtually every part of Poland over many years, I'm curious if I know this "picturesque" part from which you hail. I suspect it's not Zabrze, but am guessing somewhere near Bukowina Tatrzańska. Am I right, or at least a little warm? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Zabrze is a really beautiful city, with all these German-built monumental buildings and Silesian Familoks. I have been there many times, and every time I have seen something interesting. Go to Makoszowy and see for yourself these parks and ponds right in the heart of the industrial region of Upper Silesia. Tymek (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I too, know the beauty of the Familoks (spent one delightful Wigilia in one, once), and of Katowice and its environs in general. Perhaps you are familiar with Melanie Safka's ballad that starts out "Some people get put into prison, others put themselves in one, Pittsburgh you're the living proof"? Perhaps we should take this discussion to our respective talk pages, since nothing relevant to the discussion is going to happen here anyway. Besides they're always a hoot. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Houses of Worship

The article states that there is a minaret in the city, yet there is no mention of a mosque existing along with the other houses of worship. Is there an error with one or another aspect, concerning the claim? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it turns out that there is an interesting story behind this. No, there is no mosque associated with it. Here is some info in Polish [2]: Postawiony w latach 1880–1887 przez legendarnego rosyjskiego generała, obrońcę Sewastopola Eduarda Todtlebena, był osobliwym żartem, ale pasującym jakoś do wieloreligijnego oblicza Kiejdan. Bezpośrednio nawiązywał do toczącej się wówczas wojny z Turcją; wedle niektórych źródeł do robót zaangażowano jeńców wojennych.

Translation: "Built in the years 1880-1887 by the legendary Russian general, defender of Sevastopol, Eduard Todleben, it was something of a peculiar joke, although one that fit in well with the multi-religious nature of Kiejdany. It was a direct reference to the ongoing (Russian) war with (Ottoman) Turkey and according to some source prisoners of war were made to build it."

If no one has a problem with the source I think this information might be interesting enough to include. Thoughts?radek (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sort of forgot the part which answers Dan's question: "28-metrowy minaret (minaretas; Dariaus ir Gireno g. 93) nigdy nie należał do żadnego meczetu." - "The 28 meter minaret never belonged to any mosque".radek (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See, sometimes our discussions do lead to fruition. Thanks for the clarification and trouble taken. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Here's to more of those. Cheers!radek (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Niech będzie. Ale rzeczywiście tylko jeseli wskazują na pewne dobrej wierze. Czy nie zgadzasz się, że brakuje po obu stronach monety? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I obviously have my opinions about which side is not acting in good faith, otherwise I wouldn't get in these discussions and content disputes. But a bit more AGF on all sides would be a good thing.radek (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish minority

Is it really encyclopedic to mention that a city has a minority of 2 percent of inhabitants for a length of a half of an article?--Lokyz (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's notable, particularly given the historical context of the town. If you think that the article overall is too short then please expand it, rather than removing useful information.radek (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide any references on how it is notable. Tourism is common in every country. What's so notable that several people from 700 (circa 1 percent according to the published source) city dwellers travel to Poland or Sweden? Just curious about your intentions and one's understanding what's encyclopaededic. I'm sure you'd help the community sharing your thoughts. Thanks in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What's tourism got to do with anything? Again, if you think the article is too short, feel free to expand it.radek (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The local Poles, besides keeping up cultural connection with Poland, also exchange visits with the Polonia of Sweden it's tourism. Should we include into the artcle how many non Poles have visited Sweden and Poland? Think encyclopaedic--Lokyz (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows that the organization is connected to similar organizations in other countries. What's the problem. As far as the "encyclopaedic" page you link (aside from the fact it's not a convention but an opinion), how does it apply here? The info is not off-topic (so not #1), and #2 and #3 are irrelevant. Again, your objection seems to be based simply on I DON'T LIKE IT. A more constructive endeavor would be to expand other parts of the article.radek (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, be so kind and familiarise yourself with WP:UNDUE. Let me cite Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. --Lokyz (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it disputed that this minority exists???radek (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What is going on ???

How it is possible that Lithuanian towns and cities historically connected to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Lenkijos Karalystė ir Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė are being stripped by some editors from anything what is Polish ( names etc.) ?? What is going on here???

Consider signing your edits.--Lokyz (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Qestion

Re your edit summary ce/e, restoring tag, fixing link to Scots people, Please provide a wp policy that would say we should mention cultural tourism in EU?

On ce/e - 17-teent isn't a word. "seventeenth" is. The sentence on the Scottish (not "Scot people") lacks appropriate articles, both definitive and indefinitive, why did you remove these? On - I didn't remove your tag. You just put "((" instead of "{{". Don't blame your own mistakes on me and don't misrepresent my edits. Finally, connections of Kiejdany Polonia with other Polonia organizations is notable. Don't know why you want to misrepresent this as "cultural tourism in EU".radek (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Qestion isn't a word either. "Question" is. Thanks for pointing out the typo. You really need not be giving out grammar or spelling lessons. Sorry. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifyme tag

Could anyone explain, what a term "Polish institutions in Lithuania" mean? Institutions or organizations? That's why the tag was put in place.--Lokyz (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Mikej007, I have no problem with your recent edit. If fact, it's very welcome. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow!--Jacurek (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow? You mean you finally understand the lead policy and undue weight concerning it? Good for you! Dr. Dan (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretations are always fun to read :)--Jacurek (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same concerning a lot of your edits. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that...may I suggest an episode of Seinfeld for example to get some laughter going??:)--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hey Dan, we should remove this conversation from this talk page because it has nothing to do with the article.--Jacurek (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What a difference a month makes (or three weeks)..."(Dear Dan, unfortunately this is how all the other articles are written on English Wikipedia. Thank you for cooperation (sic). All the best.)"- user: Jacurek. Sorry that's not how all the other articles are written on English Wikipedia. Just some. Best back. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, most editors have different opinion, why you insisting on "own way"?? Please can we stop this already? Thanks all the best to you.--Jacurek (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, your most recent edit summary at this article asks..."-were (sic) is the name section?" Didn't you remove it? And please, this is not about "my own way". If you're so hung up on Wikipedia policies, I suggest that you actually read up on more of them and work for a consensus here. That would be more appreciated than your wishing me well. Btw, a "new consensus" (which I offered and was rejected) will require more than your insisting on "your way" either. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kėdainiai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112050429/http://www.jrk.lt/ to http://www.jrk.lt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kėdainiai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002135215/http://web.stat.gov.lt/uploads/docs/Population_by_ethnicity_municipality.xls to http://web.stat.gov.lt/uploads/docs/Population_by_ethnicity_municipality.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)