User talk:Gvorl

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Armenian Genocide[edit]

I understand you are trying to help, and I encourage any attempt to make this article neutral, however seperate articles will not work as there isnt much to say, the people dispute anything remotely suggesting "no genocide was not the case" or anything. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English[edit]

I sympathise with your difficulty with English. It is a terrible language which is not bound by many concrete grammatical rules, and most of those are not obeyed. It'd be much better if everyone learned Esperanto.

Thanks, I red about Esperanto, it seems to be easy language :-) I am learning English several years already, but it stil make difficulties for me :-) But have you heard about Lithuanian? It is language where are no rules at all, but only a million exceptions from something... I do not know what :-) Simply there is no any concrete structure in sentences. Extermally syntetic language, where Chomsky grammar loses sense. Few years ago I red about lithuanian scientists who already made some automated language recognition systems for KGB on early seventies and worked later on lithuanian language parsing (currently successors of that group produce some automated verbal ordering systems for China) but even that group was unable to make working lithuanian text interpretator :-) --Gvorl 20:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strict counting of decades[edit]

Greetings, Tractor!

As the main recent contributor to "lt", you may be interested in my comment (mostly in English) on the Latin Wikipedia about the fact that is, la, lt, and mi are among the few WPs that have pages for decades, measured strictly from 1 A.D. - la:Vicipaedia:Taberna#Decennium 200 non est "1990s".

Robin Patterson 01:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different traditions of counting:

The first one is scientific which counts decades from 1 A.D., in such tradition there are no nonsenses, like "0 A.D." and after-effects like "2000 is a first year of a new millenium".
The second tradition is maybe journalistic one, where counting is simple and "mathematical", using a major number of a year. This is reason why it is widelly supported. But reality is that such counting is incorrect (it is incorrect to name some period "1950s", because "0s" does not exist).

There is only way to solve this problem: correct all the wikipedias which use "0s" style to use correct scientific style. But this is bit complicated because of the two reasons:

It is really BIG work, who will do that?
Here are lots of people who do not know even basics of arithmetics, so you'll have lots of oponents :-)

The very simple illustration for this problem provided by one of my colleagues: if you have box of beer containing 20 bottles, the 20th bottle wasn't from the second box, it was from the first one. --Gvorl 10:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad Oblast[edit]

Please watch the article Kaliningrad Oblast as there is one person (user:Ghirlandajo) who does various changes without discussions and dismisses many arguements, even most supported ones (if they are against his Russian agenda), without explaining. He would want and did try to remove information about Lithuania Minor and such, and already removed/tried to remove some true information. Please watch the page so that wouldn't happen in future and valuable information would not be deleted from wikipedia.

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks, I greatly appreciate it. Fadix 01:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

BTW, I already came accross your page in question, and guessed somehow what there was in it, even though, I don't know the language. I tried to find words I understand and extrapolated from it. I also hope, that you have anaylsed my progression, from a harsh member(Torque vs me), to an OK member. I think, from the analysis of the cases, you can mae recommendations at the Armenian Genocide entry, for the resolution of the conflict. Regards. Fadix 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, at least you never had been a troll :-) But yes, it is very clear that your position was changed, from being representative of some POV (it does not matter that according to sources we have your POV seems to be right) to being representative of Wikipedia with lots of POVs and now your behavior is more delicate. About that my NPOV page - there are mostly narrations of most interesting and important discussion events and sections with analysis of changes in overall situation. We think that in most cases every discussion can be identified as being in some stage, like "factual analysis", "personal conflicts", "indefinable claims", etc., also, as conflicts, like "conflicts between persons", "conflicts between groups", etc.. Claims of discussion members can be analysed too, like, what was actual content - "facts and refferences", "analysis of other users claims", etc.. According to identified things, discussion often can be pushed to a better level. There are some links related to the same theme on that page, I'll post them here because of them are in English:

[1]
[2]
[3], especially - "Participant Materials", "Module 2" and "Module 6"

So, best wishes to you :-) --Gvorl 19:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one thing... It is only my personal (and unofficial) opinion, not to be used as any argument. I described behaviour (with examples) of that ONE person (you know) to one of my friends, psychiatrist, who of course can not give diagnosis by web, but seems that such behaviour, like pathological (uncontrolled, unstopable, imprudent and finally - fatal) lying, intrigues, manipulations, etc. seems like psychotic behaviour, when user tries to over-control situation with lots of other persons, but finally can not keep all the things in his hands and that control starts falling... One such falling was few months ago, and now another one started. You know this. I think, that person can not live in reality, so please, be patient with him. It's a pitty, but seems that being troll is some kind of illness. --Gvorl 19:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Hi there, I thought you might be interested in leaving a note on my RfA discussion. Unfortunately I don't serve starka at that party, but still it might be worth it to take a look. Halibutt 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I should've replaced the flower with either or even :) Too bad we can't host flavours and tastes on the commons. Halibu tt 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, the German wikipedians are holding a meeting this summer in Usedom on the Baltic Sea. Interested? //Halibu tt 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin status (Tractor)[edit]

Hello. I'm a steward. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus recently. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on ltwiki, where you are a bureaucrat and administrator. Since that wiki does not have its own administrators' rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights.

We stewards will evaluate the responses. If there is no response at all after approximately one month, we will proceed to remove your administrative rights. In cases of doubt, we will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact us on m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Best regards, Rs chen 7754 03:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]