User talk:Gugutis

Welcome!

Hello, Gugutis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Tacit removal of interwikis, restoration of the unwikified version of the page may be classified as vandalism and lead to brief blocks. Please take care. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galindians

Hello. You edits on this article to some editors raised questions and to avoid unnecessary tension and reverts I suggest you to reference your edits properly and add explanations on talk, if some editors ask for such clarification. M.K. 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my edits are aimed at bringing the article to conform to WP:MOS (this is called wikification). Secondly, you should be aware that we don't own articles here (see WP:OWN). Thirdly, you should provide academic references for your assertions. Please state clearly what doesn't suit you in the current version of the article, so we know where to start. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Gediminas, etc

Please do not introduce some unreliable and amteurish theories not supported by any modern published sources. I can give you references in at least five different books that say Gediminids dynasty started ca. 1285. None of the sources support your thesis that Skomantas/Gomantas was father of Gediminas. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information that is published and is accepted by academic community and not to introduce alternative theories not supported by serious research. Renata 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you want to say Vladimir Pashuto, Stephen C. Rowell, Tomas Baranauskas and others aren't serious researchers?.. tesis about Gediminids dynasty start in 1285 is only a hypothesis, exactly an obsolete hypothesis. Gugutis 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a hypothesis. But this version is the one widely cited in textbooks, encyclopedias and other reference works. Rowell does not call Skomantas "father-in-law" and even in his genealogical table shows Skomantas as grandfather. Rowell also does not claim that Skomantas of Gediminids is the same person as Skomantas of Sudovia. He simply makes a suggestion ("It might be that Skolomend is no other than Skumantas" and "A marriage between Gediminas' family and the powerful clan of Skumantas is not entirely fanciful" - English edition, pages 53-54). Renata 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the table mentioned by you is "according to Nikžentaitis", and not "according to Rowell" -- Gug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.77.192 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irgi, mat, istorikė atsirado... Gugutis 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istorike neapsimetineju ir net nepretenduoju tokia tapti. Renata 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neįsižeisk dėl mano kiek pagiežingo tono, bet Rowell'as vis dėlto rašo, kad "galimas daiktas", [...] "Gediminaičiai – jo [t. y. Skalmanto, -- mano pastaba] palikuonys iš motinos pusės"... /t. y. iš [pirmųjų] Gediminaičių motinos pusės, -- angliško leid. dabar po ranka neturiu, todėl puslapio nenurodysiu/ kitaip sakant, Rouvelas daro prielaidą, kad Andriejaus Algirdaičio (Gedimino anūko pagal vyriškąją liniją) prosenelis "Skolomendas" galėjo būti ne paties Gedimino, o Gedimino žmonos tėvas, -- būtent taip mano pacituotą Rouvelo frazę skaito bei supranta ir Tomas Baranauskas, ir Jūsų nuolankus tarnas, ir kt. Lietuvoje gyvenantys istorikai //tarp kita ko, toli gražu ne visi Rouvelo teiginiai, prielaidos, svarstymai ir spėjimai yra sudėti į jo Lithuania Ascending//

o tamstos įtaigojimas, kad Vikipedijoje esą toleruotinos tik "akademinės bendruomenės (gal didesnės jos dalies?) pripažintos" istorinių realijų interpretacijos ir nutylėtinos susilaukusios menkesnio pritarimo ar tiesiog mažiau žinomos istorinės koncepcijos bei hipotezės, man, prisipažinsiu, sukėlė nediduką šoką —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.77.192 (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet esme, kad Rowell'as neteigia "Skomantas nebuvo senelis, bet buvo zmonos tevas ir visi kitaip manantys yra neteisus ir reikia visus istorijos vadovelius atitinkamai pakeisti." Jis tiesiog sako, kad taip galejo buti ir tai yra tik viena is daugelio teoriju. Tad nera jokio pagrindo sia teorija kelti i prieki kaip teisingiausia is tiesu. As niekad nesakiau, kad maziau zinomos teorijos turetu buti nutyletos. As tik sakau, kad nereikia ju iskelti i prieki. Pirmiausia reikia ivardinti vadovelinius teiginius, o tik po to leistis i nagrinejimus, alternatyvas ir kt spekuliacijas (aisku, cituojant saltinius). Taip sakant, viskas is eiles, o pirmoj vietoj - mokyklinio vadovelio teiginiai.

P.S. siulau perskaityti 10 tips - pades isvegti populiariausiu klaidu. Renata 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying my confusion. Gugutis 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]