User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Re: Hedvig Malina

If you look at Talk:Hedvig_Malina/Archive_1#Requested_move, there have been more people, not just one, arguing for the use of her official name instead of the one preferred by the Hungarian media. That is also my view, based on the statistics cited on the article's talk page. As you can see from the history of the page, I was not part of that lengthy edit war and I will be happy to change my opinion if more convincing evidence for the Hungarian name is provided. By the way, I would appreciate your opinion at User_talk:Ricky81682#Bratislava_topics. Tankred (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Slovak name is used by the Slovak media, is that any way better? The Hungarian version is supported by an official letter from the US Congress. There is no more credible English language source using the Slovak name. Also because of the case being sensitive, I don't think the Slovak version would help future stability of the article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your answer to User_talk:Ricky81682#Bratislava_topics would be welcome more than ever. Despite all the possible NPA warnings that an editor can get, User:Nmate resorted to personal attacks again. In an edit summary, he/she said " jeden: naničhodník; dva: nepotrebný; tri: Sweetovid". This Slovak sentence can be translated as "one: a rogue, two: unneeded, three: Sweetovid", clearly referring to another editor (User:Svetovid).[1] Given the record of personal attacks and hate speech by User:Nmate, I would expect Wikipedia's administrators to react at least as firmly as they did in the case of Svetovid's edit warring. I am sorry to ask you personally for help in this issue, but you seem to be around. Tankred (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(sorry to jump in) No comment to the comment below me. Now I think it's high time for administrators to do something about this. Yes, I believe he/they try to throw red herrings to distract from his actions, and especially from the examples of hate speech. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky! Do not believe Tankréd's message. What I wrote does not mean it in Slovak.I commented Svetoid's writings simply:1, useless 2,trivia 3, Sweetovid.Is Sweetovid a serious personal attack? I had to respond that the Slovaks do not allow it that let me write into the Slovak topics. If i would write my opinion of Tankréd behaviour sincere I could get blocking for it really.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can verify my translation of Nmate's words by checking an online dictionary. Moreover, Nmate has just attacked again.[2] Perhaps it is supposed to be funny, but I did not join Wikipedia 7,400 edits ago to laugh at jokes about myself. I could go to a comedy show instead. I joined this project to write articles. Tankred (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Nmate also called me a good-for-nothing fink in a recent edit.
But I probably shouldn't complain, because Ricky already blocked me for complaining.
This is getting funnier by the minute.--Svetovid (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: same edit mentioned above by Tankred in detail. I would also like to know if someone edited from IPs in an abusive way with a number of brutal edit summaries or not. Squash Racket (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article still in dispute? Or has it been resolved? I'm not seeing any activity on the article or talkpage for a week. --Elonka 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Petržalka

Can someone please explain what the dispute is, at this article? Why is there an edit war? There's nothing at the talkpage, but editors have been pulling the article back and forth for a long time. What is going on? --Elonka 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my reply at the talkpage. To the other points, sorry, but I don't think I'm too aggressive; I just want to keep the accepted status quo (ante bellum), not some creepy propaganda, if I got to tell it this way. Unfortunately, I believe their sins aren't exposed much yet; how come a comment suggesting that someone is a Nazi follower could go unpunished? (I've seen it somewhere) Why, why, and again, why? I'm asking thrice to emphasize. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see it is warring about whether there should or should not be included Hungarian and German name of Petržalka in the first sentence. Namely whether it should sound "Petržalka (Hungarian (Pozsony)ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." or "Petržalka is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:UE#Include alternatives, the common practice is to include other versions of names by which the article subject is commonly known. --Elonka 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think key issue is that both Engerau and Ligetfalu are historic names, but probably are not used anymore, perhaps except German and Hungarian sources. I have never seen Poszonyligetfalu however. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the key issue is rather the fact that due to poisonous attack messages some now see even minor disputes as "war" and want to protect the "status quo (ante bellum)" (as things were before the war). Hobartimus (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there edit warring over the sentence? Yes. I have just given the description of situation and try to explain to uninvolved Elonka probable reasons why the edit war has emerged. Personally, I would rather prefer inclusion of both names in the article per WP:UE#Include alternatives. I have also checked the good example of Basel that is internationally known Swiss town quite far from Italy, nevertheless, its preamble lists also Italian name that is most probably not used in any except Italian sources. So in my view the sentence should look "Petržalka (Hungarian Ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruziklan: it's spelled Pozsony (zs is pronounced like the g in the French name of Geneva), since it's meaningless if spelled like Poszony (where sz is pronounced like s in English).
Besides I don't know any native German speaker in person, so I don't know whether it's used. However I know many Hungarians who do use the term (usually not the rural people, but most of the original inhabitants of Bratislava do). Therefore I don't think that it's a historical name. Especially since it's still used in present-day Hungarian newspapers. BTW I've encapsulated the word Pozsony in parentheses because of the fact that it's Bratislava's name in Hungarian (where many village names near a bigger city have been created by adding the city's name as a prefix, like Budakeszi, Budaörs near Budapest, and the same naming convention has been followed throughout the whole Kingdom of Hungary, hence the Pozsony- prefix), but it's only formally called Pozsonyligetfalu. Informally it's called Ligetfalu/Liget. CoolKoon 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for the misspelling. The term historical name I have used in a sense that Petržalka probably was referred to using these names widely in the past, probably even as official names, both Engerau and (Pozsony)ligetfalu. Currently these names are used almost exclusively only in original languages. Many similar examples exist worldwide. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with you again. Take for example Geneva. It's German name is Genf, the Italian one is Ginevra. Does this mean that these are "unofficial"? No. And even if in English the French form is used, Hungarian for instance prefers the German form. Which means that all the three names can be used simultaniously. Another example is the German name of the villages/cities in South Tirol. Or the Catalan names of the cities in Catalonia, which is actually part of Spain. CoolKoon (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand with what you disagree. Have I written that Engerau or (Pozsony)ligetfalu cannot be used? No. The question could be however, whether these names actually are used in languages other than German and Hungarian. Probably we do not know, or do you?
And finally, I just want to restate that I prefer including these names in the artcile preamble as per above. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't seen your latest comment above. But this still doesn't mean that Svetovid and the "Anonymous coward" (viva el Reg) whose IP address begins with 78.99..... will stop the revert war. CoolKoon (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I hold my position that in this case, a double is completely redundant. If anything, keeping 'em separated prevents the lead clutter, regardless whether there are 2 or 10 alternatives. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like some people don't want Petržalka's Hungarian and German name to appear at the headline. I don't know the reason of that since I'm on the opposite side :P CoolKoon 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From here: "has been declared on October 28 in Prague, the leaders of Bratislava (where the majority of the population are Germans or Hungarians, see below) want to prevent Bratislava from becoming part of Czecho-Slovakia and declare the town a free town and rename it Wilsonovo mesto (Wilson City) after US-president Woodrow Wilson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembaoud (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And your point is ... ? I think nobody denies that both Bratislava and Petržalka have had different names in the past than they have today. (By the way, I do not think Petržalka was a part of Bratislava in 1918.) --Ruziklan (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat:History of Bratislava and Cat:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia

I think the category of the Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia belongs into the category of Hungary's history inevitable because all these churches important parts of the medieval Hungarian culture. St. Martin's Cathedral was the scene of the Hungarian kings' coronation.

Bratislava was parts of Hungary for 1000 years and Bratislava was the Hungarian capital city for 300 years so it belongs to the History of Hungary Category.Nmate (talk • contribs)

You still don't understand the basics and mistake Kingdom of Hungary, the multinational and multilingual kingdom, with today's Republic of Hungary.--Svetovid (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like most of the edit-warring on Category:History of Bratislava was from an anon. I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks, so that anons cannot edit it. Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia I have left alone for now. But again, I must point out that there was edit-warring going on, without corresponding discussion at the talkpage. Please, if another back and forth revert war happens again, even if you are sure that you are in the right, please start a thread at the talkpage to explain why you think you are right. This is not necessary for cases of blatant vandalism, but for these kinds of content disputes, talkpage explanation is essential. --Elonka 09:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Well, if you want to be fair, you should put a restriction notice also to Hobartimus' talk. He has been edit warring against several non-Hungarian editors for months and he reverted several articles to Nmate's version without any explanation. Tankred (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything specific instead of unsupported blanket statements, bring it up on that page for disputes so others can comment on it. You could also explain your statements relating to "dealing with" Hungarian editors. Hobartimus (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing or very recent edit warring at Hedvig Malina, List of Slovaks, Petržalka‎, Trenčín‎, Banská Bystrica‎, University of Trnava‎, Černová tragedy‎, Category:History of Bratislava‎, Peace of Pressburg‎, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia‎, Zilina‎, Gömör-Kishont‎, Bars county‎, Liptó (county)‎, Sáros county‎, Hont‎, Komárom county‎, Category:Castles in Slovakia‎, and many other Slovakia-related articles. Isn't it enough? Tankred (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I already knew that I was on your "hit list" of named editors as descirbed of an earlier version of your user page, but it still amazes me that you would attempt such things that you attempt. Let's see listed first, Hedvig Malina, my edits to the talk page number at "62" my last edit to the article, more than two weeks ago(not that recent), and operating at the article was a three times blocked editor [3] with all blocks relating to Hedvig Malina who insisted on deleting 8 reliable references at the same time while putting up a refimprove tag [4]. Or List of Slovaks where I had 21 edits to the talk page a good part of them recently while you were satisfied with simply reverting me without meaningful contribution to the latest debate there so I sse that you list your own reverts of me above as well. Shall I continue and address the list of edits where you were stalking me to articles about Historical Hungarian counties reverting my edits 6 at a time? Including Gömör-Kishont to which your very first edit ever is one reverting me? I guess constantly making false claims to defame others is part of "dealing with" Hungarian editors? Hobartimus (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
At Trenčín‎, you have been edit warring against Markussep, Svetovid, 78.99.121.251, and me from April 14 to April 16. After Nmate changed the official name of University of Trnava on April 6 and was reverted by me, you appeared there and reverted my edit without any explanation.[5] You did not provide any explanation at Talk:Petržalka despite the fact you joined in an ongoing revert war (btw, I have never participated in that one). At List of Slovaks, you have blindly reverted to Rembaoud's version in broken English without any explanation on the talk page. When you changed the dates of formation of Czechoslovakia from 1918 to 1920 en masse in a number of articles (with a deceptive summary :fix"), you did not discuss it with anyone. And you kept warring until Markussep found a compromise solution. You are clearly involved in this case. I welcome the dispute resolution process initiated by Elonka, but I think all the participants of the previous large scale edit war should be put under surveillance until the process brings results. Although I refrain from any editing of mainspace since I got Elonka's notice, Hobartimus is still edit warring against other users.[6] Tankred (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you feel the need to attack me since I made a report about you to ANI but there is no need to constantly resort to blatant lies. At University of Trnava the only edit on the talk page to date is from me, I did not change the official name but the "native name" which is quite natural if the infobox includes "the old" university since in this case the period since 1992 is a very small fraction of total existence. Anyway you present a single revert as "edit war". Also the fact that you gathered numerous blocks for edit warring and disruption before is a good indicator of your general "discussion as a last resort" attitude. You even encouraged others not to discuss but revert in a few seconds, remember? Just re-read the whole thread here [7]. Presenting your own stalking and harassment of others as if they were involved in a content dispute will not fool anyone after your great speeches about "dealing with" Hungarian editors. Also let's not confuse the issue here you should not be banned because of a few edit wars you participated in, you should be banned for relentless promotion of conflict and ethnic hatred between groups of editors maintaining attack pages etc. Hobartimus (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess, these speak for themselves:[8], [9]. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other recent Hobartimus' unexplained reverts with obvious bias: [10] and [11]--Svetovid (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ID

1)I have no other accounts on english Wikipedia, or none I remember, but edited as an IP for about half a year now, similar things on Slovak wikipedia mainly. If you want, you can check my IPs whenever and as many times as you like. I registered to be able to follow my edits, and to be treated more seriously. IPs are not treated equally, but rather as some kind of subhumans. It was not once, that I experienced the "be grateful that I am even allowed to read Wikipedia" attitude towards me, and "IPs are stupid little cratures whom are a true pain in the ass and should be banned for life". It was even linked to me that there are discussions about forbidding IPs to edit. 16hrs online losers playing God, decide wich source is "POV" and "NPOV" is, and who can edit and who can't, who are "worthy" and similar things. Your weight is mesaured in contribution numbers. The more you're hanging on wikipedia, the less you know, and the less intrest you have in particular things, this is my experience. If I coud, I would introduce a system, where the more you contribute, the less your words worth. And even worse, most of them are underage, or in high school, or being an IT guy, majoring in IT. And they are editing political articles, science articles and such.

2) Through reading I educate myself. I know its a bit old fashioned, but after you adviced, I learned the method and even wrote a WP:RCU and a WP:RSS. Is it that suprising that tutorial and help are (somewhat) useful? Or someone actually clicks on what you linked in? Is it really that uncommon? It was pretty obvious for me, that when I got harrased, I gone to find an admin, but instead I found WP:ANI. Links are everywhere, but I guess, you are the same as 99% percent of all users here: link WP:RCU and WP:RSS (WP:CIV, WP:NPA) from reflex, than wonder and ask how was I able to find it and even, how did I managed to edit it or read it (how can I be aware of them), because "everybody must be dumb who did not edited Wikipedia at least for a decade". Sorry to say but this mentality is also common. I see now that this is not only true to IPs but to new users also.

3) This whole experiment-debate is pretty pointless, Elonka, and I do not see if you will ever reach anything, while such lame things are and can be discussed endlessly like referring to Bratislava as "Bratislava" is good/right or not in pre-1919 context, and hardly or non checkable or not standard things can be, like "widely accepted historical english name", basis of a dispute or a starting point. If "A" was born in Rhodesia, than "A" was born there, and not in "present day Zimbabwe (then under English rule)", because this is a true Zimbabwean POV phrasing. "Born in Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe)" is more NPOV, but the true thing was, that "A" was "born in Rhodesia". I hope, you see and feel the differences between these.

WP:NCGN (linked by Tankred since his first undoing, this is how I found it) is only good for speading the Slovak far right's views, that Slovakia was always Slovak, and the Slovak nation existed since Greater Moravia and everything was Slovak before the magyars and etc. etc. (Moravians (ethnic group) are still exist and they identify themselves as Moravians or Czechs, not Slovaks, but this is just one point where SNS [and its fans] fail to met reality, and why is nonsense that Greater Moravia is showed up as Slovakia's predecessor). Any Hungarian or Hungarian-user-inserted citation is automaticly "POV" and "chauvinist propaganda", as you see, if you read these articles talkpages, you linked on your experiment page. There are years old disputes about this, and they are asking the same questions again and again, but carefully avoiding clear trolling. Sorry Elonka, but I do not see, that you'll reach anything but a cuple of more bans, than they would get, if not monitored such carefully. Tankred, MarkBA, Svetovid are attacking and deleting whatever Hungarian they see, then try tp play the role of victim. And seemingly everybody eats it.

4)Btw WP:ANI is good for nothing, except for the box on top the top of it, wich helped a lot to familiarize with english wikipedia methods. I reported uncivility and misleading edit summaries on it, but nobody reacted or reacted in an "intresting" way, resulting in a warning, if anything. And everything is exported to other pages, like WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Long term abuse, etc. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

5) I hope I do not have to explain how did I become aware of this or that in the future. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Which IP did you edit as, and what are your accounts on the Slovak Wikipedia? --Elonka 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent you in (an) e-mail. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Dear Elonka, I really hoped your experiment would bring some kind of dispute resolution and I am voluntarily obeying the editing restrictions you have placed upon me. But dispute resolution makes sense only if the other side also play by the rules. Rembaoud keeps changing geographic names in articles about Slovakia despite the ongoing discussion at the page you have created.[12] And I do not understand why I should be freely called "clearly a highly disruptive and agressive user" on this attack page against four participants of your discussion. I thought revert wars and personal attacks are no go under the editing restrictions. Or weren't they meant to create some kind of a truce, so we can sit and discuss our conflict on the page you have created for us? Tankred (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, attack page...Quote from one of the many Checkuser requests by Tankred: Hobartimus is a purely disruptive account. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you mining quotes from May 2007? Very relevant... Well, at that time Hobartimus has made only a handful of edits and I considered them disruptive (such as deletion of the same parts of an article that a previously banned user has deleted before his ban). Since then, Hobartimus has settled down. Good luck with mining more quotes from 2007, 2006, and 2005. Tankred (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.........Looks like being a superuser/moderator/op/administrator at any place is pretty much the same. The only difference between being an OP on DC++ hubs and being an admin over here are the differing ideologies. Aside from that both of the "jobs" involve dealing with nutcases on a daily basis.
As for you, Elonka (BTW that name spelled with I instead of E and pronounced [iloŋkɑ] is a nickname derived from the Hungarian name for Helena or Ilona), I actually adore the work you do here. I definitely wouldn't want to do it for two reasons:
1. I'd be pretty much biased in similar discussions (especially the ones involving Hungarians....)
2. It's more than enough for me to being frowned upon in my hometown of Bratislava for speaking Hungarian

CoolKoon (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to spam your talk page, but there is a new violation of editing restrictions, this time by Nmate[13][14] less than 24 hours since the "last warning"[15] you gave him. He introduced a controversial change of Slovakia without proposing it at Talk:Slovakia or at your experimental page. After being reverted by an new anonymous user (they are mushrooming these days) to the previous status quo, Nmate reverted the page again to his version. Now the change is being discussed, but it initiated another outburst of reverting. Tankred (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is being discussed at the latest thread here[16]. Hobartimus (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Nmate is public enemy no 1. for Tankred & co. :) As you see, (multiple) daily attempts are made to manage Nmate blocked. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(response to CoolKoon) You're exactly right about my name. I was named after my maternal grandmother Ilona Pazman, though with an Americanized spelling. She was born in Croatia, though I understand that she had Hungarian heritage. I also have many other slavs in my family tree, the whole stretch of eastern Europe. My father was born in Warszawa, but was orphaned by the events of September 1939. I have never been to Hungary or Slovakia, and neither do I speak either language, but I can definitely recognize a few words here and there.  :) More info about my background is at my userpage and website, if you are interested. I am especially looking for assistance in identifying some Polish paintings.[17] --Elonka 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Then your maternal grandmother must have been a member of one of the oldest Hungarian noble families. Although the name is spelled Pázmány in Hungarian, it appears that one of her male ancestors must've moved to Croatia (then part of Austria-Hungary), and had his name Croatized.
Anyway one of the most famous members of the Pázmány family was Péter Pázmány, a notable counter-reformator in Hungary. Although he considered himself to be Hungarian and wrote numerous dialogues regarding Christianity and protestantism in Hungarian, Tankred, Svetovid & co. will stone me for saying this, since some Slovaks consider him to be one of the most famous Slovaks (?) and they spell his name according to the Slovak ortography (like Peter Pázmaň). Obviously they don't seem to be disturbed by the fact that he was born in Erdély (now Romania) and that he was a major supporter of the Hungarian language. I'm sorry if I sound nationalistic again but it angers me when I see some street labels wher ehe has his name spelled like that.
As for the picture, I'm not a historian, and besides of striving for some objectivity in Hungarian-related articles I only read about it. However looks like you a family full of Central European noblemen, which is quite impressive ;) CoolKoon (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) And yes, my elder relatives told me with great certainty that I was related to Peter Pazmany, though I have been unable to research the exact link since I do not speak Hungarian. The furthest back that I have with any certainty is my great-grandfather Pazman, born in a Hungarian town called Amfu (sp?)[18] in 1853. If you would like to help research any further back, I have a family tree here:[19] Or contact me off-wiki (elonka@aol.com) and I can share some other genealogy info with you. :) --Elonka 14:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No stoning, CoolKoon:-) I always believed that Hungarians and Slovaks share a lot of their common history and I persistently oppose attempts to exclude one nation or the other from it. Péter Pázmány is revered both in Hungary and Slovakia. He contributed to the development and use of both the Hungarian and Slovak vernaculars because he found them useful in his struggle against the Protestant Reformation. Your family, Elonka, is one of the oldest aristocratic families in Central Europe. Pity you cannot read Slovak. According to some new fascinating research, your family was part of the Great Moravian aristocracy already in the 9th century. Congratulations. My own Croatian roots (oh, yes, I am not an "ethnic" Slovak despite my interest her in Wikipedia) cannot be traced that far:-) Tankred (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the articles should be moved to Hont family, Pázmány family and Hont-Pázmány family respectively, for now I'm adding the sources to make it more NPOV. The term Slovak itself is meaningless before the 15th century and these families came to Hungary in the 10th(!) century. Squash Racket (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Answered on my talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I modified the sentence based on Tankred's comment though I don't completely agree with it. Normally I wouldn't ask for that, but if this really is your own family, perhaps you have a better chance to find some reliable, English language sources on the topic if you will have a little time for that in the future. Squash Racket (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In my copious free time, eh?  :) Though even if I had time, it would still be A Bad Idea for me to edit articles that might be related to my own family. In terms of this Poznan family article, I know very little about it, and it's probably best if it stays that way, so I maintain my "uninvolved" status.  :) --Elonka 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that I do not feel bound by your editing restrictions any longer after Nmate made this revert[20]. It happened despite your "last warning"[21] to that user and despite other incidents reported here. I will use reverts scarcely in order not to undermine our discussion on your experimental page. I will try to justify all my edits on the corresponding talk pages. I will not resort to any personal attacks. I still believe your efforts will result in some large-scale dispute resolution. But I do not feel obliged to comply with any excessive restrictions if the other side is systematically breaking them. I will be happy to respect the editing restrictions again when all other users involved in this dispute are ready to make the same commitment. I fully understand you can block me for my decision. Cheers. Tankred (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Markussep's edit summary before Svetovid's intervention:

restored Hungarian and German alternative names, and link to others (a separate names section would also be nice IMO)

Earlier we agreed that we wouldn't remove alternative names from the lead unless there was a separate names section. Svetovid generated the edit war by removing the alternative names from the article, Nmate simply restored the original version, although neither of them used the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please link me to the earlier discussion? --Elonka 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We were referring to this guideline (see point 2. from "Alternatively...") many times [22], and mostly Tankred was pushing for this, so I don't understand why he is upset as I can see no separate Names or Etymology section in the article. Squash Racket (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ján

Search google for "311 400" Bentley Ján. Money, Bentley za 2,6 milióna+Chorvátsku luxusnej vile (Chorvátsku=Croat), extra. "brutale Hungarianization"+[23], despite being in "offline media". You gonna understand the key words, or these, I wrote here, and if you have some croat knowledge, probably more. Also see Ján Slota now. --Rembaoud (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, however I am not concerned that I'll edit anymore, except this and some other talkpages, since these well known things can and (I'm sure) will be always attacked by someone, who plays on that fact, that this is only known in the region or i Slovakia/Hungary only - and you're not in it, so not aware of these things --> resulting in a warning, block, etc. against me. The firt of such is on my talkpage, placed by you. I think this will be the (my) future. Newer and "newer" users will come from nowhere, like Ruziklan, and I'll always be accused of being a "chauvinist" thisorthat, and a "sockpuppet" of Hobartimus or Tankred or whoever ever edited the artilce they edited. When I saw Ruziklan I had that silly idea, that this is another sockpuppet of somebody. Than I realized, that I'm becoming paranoid, and starting to see all new or never before seen users as being the same person's "sockpuppets", as MarkBA does with Hungarian users, expressed by himself on his talkpage, deducted from the simple fact, that they ("we") are all Hungarians. Then there was (are) Tankred's and MarBA's farewell notices. If you look at them carefully, you'll see how "paranoid" they are. Both accusing all Hungarian users as "spreading propaganda", "extremist" "chauvinist" and so on. While looking at the length and colors of those "notices", and the contribution lists they have, you suddenly realize, that these users are true "fanatics", and as seen in MarkBA's "sock case", they would "fight" with whatever possible tools available to spread their beliefs and "personal NPOVs" on Wikipedia. And I'm pretty sure, they will fight "till death" to manage them stay in the articles, daily reporting every users as vandal, POV-pusher, etc., whom are changing them with mainstream views, like they do with Nmate, clearly playing on the law of large numbers. And they can not be punished for doing that.

This leads to nowhere, I do not want to participate in such "ethnic wars", where people are always a sockpuppet of someone, because they once both referred to themselves as "I". This is the true paranoia. And unforunately? fortunately? I see this at these two-three (Tankred, MarkBA, Svetovid) users. Sorry, this is my experience with the English wikipedia, and my personal beliefs about this "situation" what we're in. Sorry for being so off :) --Rembaoud (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being discouraged. The situation that you describe is one of the reasons that we have Wikipedia is not a battleground. What you might want to do, is to withdraw not from Wikipedia, but just from this topic area for awhile. Go work on something non-controversial. Just click on "Random article" in the lefthand toolbox a few times, and usually within a minute or so you'll find something that needs fixing.  :) It can be very refreshing to make a positive change to an article and not have to worry about edit wars. Even if you're just bolding a title or adding a section header, small edits can be very therapeutic. I find that I enjoy spending time at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. I'll pick something easy, make some fixes, and it's very calming.  :) --Elonka 07:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thought :) lest see how long will my edits last a the List of Slovaks. Very confusing the inclusion criteria on it, since it seemingly considers everybody Slovak, who was born there or where now Slovakia lies... --Rembaoud (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but remember, make your arguments at the talkpage too, not just in edit summaries.  :) --Elonka 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you found a new "friend" :) Well, I think I found a bit older one:[24]. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Slovaks

List of Slovaks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This thread has been archived, and copied over to Talk:List of Slovaks#Inclusion criteria. Please continue discussions there, thanks. --Elonka 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need sources for that article. I also agree we need some time to add sources for so many entries. By the way, the lack of references is a problem of most if not all similar lists. The thread is archived as no one raised objections against Elonka's proposal. But User:Rembaoud has removed even sourced entries today without proposing changes at the talk page.[25] I am sorry, but this is unacceptable to me. If Rembaoud keeps making undiscussed controversial changes despite his editing restrictions and remains unchecked by the administrator, I will have to take liberty to revert him. He is revert warring too.[26] I do not see any reason why I should respect my editing restrictions while Rembaoud does not. Tankred (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the "vandalized the list" and "spread ethnic political propaganda on Slota page" phrases out. Hope this was jut a one time inadvertence :) --Rembaoud (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovak National Party

I have protected this page for 24 hours. And again, I see that it has been the subject of ongoing edit wars, but without any attempt to discuss things at talk. Can someone please explain what the dispute is on this one? Thanks, Elonka 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly. I had a look at it and it seems one side is constantly adding the image and the other removing it. Image in question is quite controversial in multiple senses.
Firstly, its copyright was questioned.
Secondly, the image appeared recently in the press and it was apparently taken from internet forum of Slovak National Party. It is said to promote national hate against Hungarians by showing the area of current Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria.
Generally, I think the inclusion of the map on the Slovak National Party does not serve encyclopedic purpose as unfortunate mostly anti-Hungarian agenda of Slovak National Party is well documented by many other means.--Ruziklan (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User Rembaoud has posted on talk page the explanation for adding the image combining Slovak and English language. The explanation (besides evaluating qualities Slovak National Party and it internet forum maintenance process, as well as citing some further stuff) confirms my words above regarding the content of picture in question. It also proposes mentioning this case in the Slovak National Party article as controversy. In my view, knowing the extent of other controversies of Slovak National Party in the past and the impact of this current controversy in the press, one properly sourced encyclopedic sentence would be just fine. The would also avoid copyright issues of the image. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It can be claimed as fair use or can be simply redrawn(as illustration of the original) or even described in text as the concept is simple the Danube is used as border. Copyright issues (which do exist) can be resolved in a number of different ways here. The sources brought on the talk page show the significance of the controversy and some newspapers even chose to include the map itself. It's understandable that if you want to report on something comment on it then as a service to the reader the picture itself should be provided if possible. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Significance of controversy is just like that of any scandal of the Slovak National Party - and there were quite a few in the past as you surely know. It stays in press for a few days and is again submersed by new scandals, in other words it has mayflies' life expectancy. The character of Slovak National Party seems to be reflected enough, giving disproportionate amount of space to current issues does not seem to be preferable approach. One sentence should be enough. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any proposals for such a sentence? Hobartimus (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would consider new section Controversies, where sourced controveries may be placed, some from the past may be even more notable than this one and therefore worth adding. Sentence for this one might sound: In April 2008 a map of Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria was discovered on the forum on the webpage of the party, then promptly removed and the party has denied responsibility, referring to forum free access policy.[1] --Ruziklan (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How does this sound, "For several months a map of Europe with EU and NATO member Hungary completely erased was available on the SNS party website. After the map, depicting Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria, gained wide media attention the party promptly removed it while stating that it was in section freely editable by readers (forum)." [2] Hobartimus (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It sounds excessively. If someone is interested in Slovak National Party, most probably he is well aware of the fact that Hungary is member of EU and NATO, thereby providing disproportionate place to only one controversy of many, as per above. Further, Hungary was not erased, that is technically impossible, just divided. The only new part sounding reasonable is "For several months ...". Better not pushing wording too far. :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Erased as in erased from the map, let's give it another try, incorporate several months then into your version, also mentioning forum once instead of twice and let's see how will that look. Hobartimus (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about it and was unable to make sentence mentioning the forum only once as the key points are: the map was on forum for months and after media attention it was removed with forum access mentioned as excuse. What about: "For several months a map of Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria was available on the forum of the party website, then in April 2008 after receving media attention it was promptly removed and the party has denied responsibility, referring to forum free access policy. (+ref)" --Ruziklan (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand what information value a picture posted by someone on a discussion forum would add to an article about a political party. Are we going to list all the controversial youtube videos in the article about this service? But if there is a consensus to retain that useless picture, I will support Ruziklan's version with the word "forum" replaced by "discussion forum". Tankred (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, do you want to put it into the article then? Or let others comment on it first? Hobartimus (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

small issue at Slovakia

Addition of a short passage about the Benes Decrees was inserted and removed, I'm opening this thread to discuss if something to this effect should be included or not. The addition, which was sourced looked like this (small modification by me)


On 27th September 2007 the Beneš decrees were reconfirmed by the Slovak parliament which legitimized the Hungarians and Germans calumination and deportation from Czechoslovakia after World War II.[3]

, so should we include something similar? (reference in a clickable format [27]. Hobartimus (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus' suggestion does not seem to be good idea. The main reason is that Slovak parliament makes many acts monthly and there is no reason to emphasize this minor act on the overview page of Slovakia. As far as my knowledge of the subject goes, it was just a declaration having no legal power whatsoever. There are other reasons, but this single reason should be enough, otherwise we could demand remark about any single law passed by parliament, not speaking about constitutional laws, as these all are more important. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify it's not my suggestion I just brought it up here for discussion after I saw the edits to Slovakia and also to preserve to cited reference in case it's being removed from the article. One plus I see however for inclusion is that this way the Decrees themsleves are mentioned this way in the article which completely omitted them previously. Hobartimus (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As the suggestion is highly controversial, whether you stand by it or not, I propose to remove the material from the page... uhm, I have just found it was already removed by anonymous editor. Please, do not add it again. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I never added it once so I can not add it again, please watch the indents and what you reply to. It's fine by me that it's removed we are already discussing this, but the IP referencing this discussion as if he were participating looks odd. Hobartimus (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks suspicious.
Terminological explanation: I assume your good faith and I really appreciate the way you discuss issues. I did not say you have added the material in question. It was added by someone else, but if you have added it after removal, writing "added again" makes sense. I am sorry if you feel offended. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, pardon me? I saw you're debating 'bout some ip and all I want to say is: for such overview such controversial recentism doesn't belong there, especially when it's just a declaration with no power like many other, just on controversial topic, not a law. Or do we want to list all acts made since 1918? 91.127.19.182 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, seemingly you 91.127.19.182 and me Ruziklan, we do share the view about the substance of issue (at least partially) and the importance of the issue for the page. However, what is probably not encouraged and may raise suspicion, it is the situation when anonymous IP starts editing out of nowhere AND starts his contribution by simple revert (of otherwise controversial edit) without contributing to appropriate talk page - edit summary is no enough as we have been taught by Elonka. --Ruziklan (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Benes decrees constitutes the Slovak state' legal system foundation so it is very important.I would like to request a semi protection to the Slovakia article.If the Tranava article comprises the Strong Magyarization statement then it is just if the Slovakia article comprises this information also. Nmate (talk • contribs)

Beneš decrees cannot constitute the foundation of Slovak legal system as firstly Slovak consitution is the foundation of Slovak legal system and secondly, virtue of Beneš decrees has ceased by accepting constitutional law No. 23/1991 (Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties) at the latest, if not earlier ([28], [29]). Please, stop making such strong statements, they do not help. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"virtue of Beneš decrees has ceased" can you explain what this means in simple terms for those of us who are not familiar? Hobartimus (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Very roughly said: you cannot apply Beneš decrees anymore. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know that act by the Slovak parliament was a non-binding declaration, not a law. It perhaps belongs to the article on Benes Decrees, but not to the main article about Slovakia. Also, why is Nmate and revert warring there instead of proposing and discussing such controversial changes here? Such incidents undermine our effort here. Tankred (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that a suspicious IP removed it referencing this discussion without contributing here. I honestly don't care if it stays in the article or not for the duration of discussion but I don't think IP-s should be allowed to participate in this dispute resolution or should be regarded as part of the Wikipedia community for this purpose. Anyhow if all of this is true that you cannot apply them any more and all the above, what was the point of the reconfirmation actually? Can anyone check which party proposed it who voted for it or other circumstances? I don't know if it should be this specific act to mention it but I don't think the the decrees should be omitted from the article completely it should be mentioned somewhere in my opinion. Hobartimus (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have found this removal too... the point of declaration? Honestly, I do not understand it, just as I fail to understand many other actions of Slovak politicians. Maybe it was just muscle-showing?
Regarding Beneš decrees, they are mentioned in the article History of Slovakia in one sentence and I also do not believe they deserve special mention on main page Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the material itself OK in your opinion? Sentence structure, formulation, exact phrasing etc? Hobartimus (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are multiple subtle issues involved. The most important points are:
  • Decrees has been issued in the past, shortly after World War II - their application (but often misapplication or lack of proper application) has lead to persecution based of nationality because of collective guilt usage (today understood as wrong, but not understood as such shortly after WWII) - after 1991 constitutional change has made decrees unapplicable, even if they were not repealed explicitly - but any discussions about restitutions of property seized or compensation for persecution after WWII are leading nowehere and are doomed to end in vain ... and here comes this declarative act of Slovak parliament in 2007.
  • To be sure, deportations from Czechoslovakia were not made due to decrees, but were rather made as result of the Potsdam Conference as noted on Slovakia page. Decrees were intra-state pieces of law, not international.--Ruziklan (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Potsdam Conference is not relevant in the case of Hungarians, what I wanted to ask was, do you agree with the formulation of the sentence or do you only object to it being placed in the Slovakia article? If you have another proposal which is better worded or something we could at least have consensus that the sentence is fine and discuss other issues from there. Hobartimus (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Potsdam Conference really seems to be wrongly named here. That's just proof I am no historian :-) and I have no reliable sources by hand, so I cannot assess the quality of your proposal compared to historic evidence. My objection against placing it in Slovakia article was based on my knowledge of the current parliament act legal power (close to zero) and importance of this issue within scope of article. --Ruziklan (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says that a series of expulsions were initiated by the Potsdam conference, which is true. That reference places the whole controversy in a larger picture. Expulsion of Slovak Germans (sanctioned by the conference itself) and Hungarians were part of a large series of forced population transfers in the post-war Europe. Without that reference, it would look like a private revengeful activity of a single country. Tankred (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this almost three weeks ago at the talk page:

The 1945 Potsdam conference approved the Czechoslovak government request for the deportation of the Sudeten German population to Germany but did not approve their plan for the deportation of Hungarians to Hungary. Reference: Section "The Population Exchange between Czechoslovakia and Hungary". Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No answer. So this sentence seems to be partly wrong:

More than 76,000 Hungarians[2] and 32,000 Germans[3] were forced to leave Slovakia, in a series of population transfers initiated by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference. [4]

Squash Racket (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Degrading such an act is very misleading. It should be mentioned everywhere it was included, and that long, as it was mentioned. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, insisting on the inclusion of something we are not sure about would be degradation of encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Further, if we know what happened, proportional inclusion of facts on history pages is recommended and maybe even on the main page is an option. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above: User:91.127.19.182 is just another attempt to play out this page, and revert. I suggest an investigation of this IP also or the blocking of it/protecting the page.

The best would be a voluntary admit that he/she was that IP. That would be the clearest way and the only to prevent a later WP:RCU or WP:RSS, if more are collected/occurs. As well as the only way to avoid any persecution for playing out the "new rules". --Rembaoud (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have cautioned the account. If you think it's MarkBA, you could add a note to the CheckUser. If you think it's someone else, I'd add it to the SSP. --Elonka 10:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not really see the difference between RCU and SSP. Is SSP for - as Thatcher said - "fishing"? I list it on SSP as "new". --Rembaoud (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a subtle difference, and there have actually been some discussions about merging the two. Basically:
  • WP:SSP (Suspected Sockpuppetry) is for community discussion about suspected sockpuppets, and sometimes consensus can be achieved and administrator action taken directly. At SSP, editors look at the publicly-available information about accounts and their editing history. Someone who files an SSP might do it for different reasons. For example, they may have filed a report to say, "This is what I've got so far, is this enough?" Or they may file a report to say, "I think there's suspicious behavior here, has anyone else found anything?" and then other editors can also add their own evidence and observations.
  • WP:RFCU (Request for CheckUser) is a notification to a small group of administrators who have "CheckUser" access, and a request for them to look at IP logs. Sometimes the logs can give clear evidence that one IP address is behind multiple names, and if there is disruption, the CheckUsers will confirm the sockpuppetry. The CheckUsers are also experienced in doing other strange and wonderful things such as checking WHOIS databases and searching for proxies, to determine if there is a link between different IP addresses. They won't give out any private information that they find in these searches, but will simply give short answers such as "Confirmed", "Unrelated" "Inconclusive", etc. Though often they'll just say "Rejected" because they don't think that there's a strong enough case for them even to go digging. They receive many requests, and so have to prioritize which ones that they'll accept.
Another way of looking at it is to say that SSP can be where the community can gather information for a possible CheckUser, and then an RFCU can be filed to confirm the community's suspicions. But again, in really obvious cases, RFCU isn't even required, the SSP evidence may be obvious without requiring CheckUser confirmation.
Does that help? --Elonka 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


I wrote into the Slovakia article again. I think with this content it can be acceptable from the 20th century.Nmate

I am very sorry, Nmate, but I do not share your opinion that these specific issues - especially in the formulation used in two-edit diff - deserve being in the main Slovakia article. While I am not going into details about WWII (e.g. "Slovak holocaust" as you have edited, I let it to others), 2007 action of Slovak article is under discussion here (and editing article during discussion does not help reaching consensus) and finally Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros issue is described very unprecisely (Hungary's territorical integrity was not offended at all as border has not changed, you do not mention related legal case, and you name Gabčíkovo as Bős what is clearly in contradiction with other discussed and almost agreed convention). Therefore I am reverting it, taking into account following edit by IP 88.209.204.27 and I ask Elonka - how to deal with such kind of editing? --Ruziklan (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that edit by IP 88.209.204.27 touched only grammar in your new text, so it was simple revert of 3 last edits. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Without talking about the new edits let's deal with the original sentence. Maybe it would be appropriate for different article(s) in a completely uncontroversial way? I still have no idea if the text itself is disputed or not. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In my view, both post-war period actions and last year's declaration deserve mention somewhere. However as I am unable to come with anything constructive in post-war period case so far as such old history is not my strong point, I have asked a few friends whether they can refer me to some good history book. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruziklan, I am confused by this revert.[30] I haven't reviewed the sources, but it appears to be well-sourced information. The two main differences appear to be that before your revert it said:
After World War II, Czechoslovakia was reconstituted and Jozef Tiso was hanged in 1947 for collaboration with Nazism. Anti-nazi Hungarian nation leader, János Eszterházy was sentenced to death likewise. Although his punishment was changed to life imprisonment later. More than 3000,000 German were forced to leave Czechoslovakia without their property, in a series of population transfers initiated by Edvard Beneš Czechoslovakian president at the Potsdam Conference. [4]
On 27th February in 1946 the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Inhabitants Exchange Agreement was concluded which authorized Czechoslovakia to deportate from their own territory as many Hungarians as Slovaks volunteered to move to Czechoslovakia from Hungary. Further 43000 Hungarians were taken to penal servitude to Sudetenland. Moreover Hungary undertook to receive 75114 person who was sentenced to war-criminal under false pretences by Czechoslovakian people tribunals.Later in Štrbské Lake Agreement (Hungarian:Csorba tói egyezmény) Czechoslovakia obtained the deported Hungarians ' private property as war reparation on 25th July in 1946. This expulsion is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary.[5]
And after your revert it said:
After World War II, Czechoslovakia was reconstituted and Jozef Tiso was hanged in 1947 for collaboration with Nazism. More than 76,000 Hungarians[6] and 32,000 Germans[7] were forced to leave Slovakia, in a series of population transfers initiated by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference. [4] This expulsion is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary.[8]
You also deleted these sections:
Hungary one-sided cancelled Bős-Nagymaros Water-Craft project with Czechoslovakia therefore Czechoslovakia diverted the Danube border-river at Dunacsún in 40 km length to their own area on 25th October in 1992. So the C variant water-craft was constructed but Czechoslovakia offended seriously with this action Hungary's territorical integrity.

On 27th September 2007 the Beneš decrees were reconfirmed by the Slovak parliament which legitimized the Hungarians and Germans calumination and deportation from Czechoslovakia after World War II.[3]
I'm not saying that the previous version was or wasn't correct, but could you please expand on your concerns? Were the sources unreliable or being misinterpreted, or was there an issue of neutrality? Please explain why you feel that the information was problematic enough to be removed immediately? --Elonka 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sure.
The first part is about proportionality. Please, note how long the material added is - and it covers just one action in the history of Slovakia. Sure, it affected lives of Hungarians and some Slovaks, but as such seems to be covered enough in the article by one paragraph. Note e.g. that there is no information in article Slovakia on currency reform in 50ies that affected wealth of all people living in Slovakia. Simply, the material is too long for overview and in Slovakia. It may be a part of main historic article History of Slovakia.
Second part was firstly inproportional again, but also factually wrong (territorial integrity of Hungary was not offended, the border Hungary-Slovakia has not changed at all), misleading (there was legal case before international court and Czechoslovakia, see e.g. development in case) and felt it provocative, if I may say it. The editor has named Slovak settlements now using normal Slovak names by Hungarian names, therefore acting against naming convention discussed above - Dunacsún for Čunovo and Bős for Gabčíkovo - note that even their articles are leaded by Slovak names.
Finally the last part about 2007 Slovak Parliament declaration is just disputed above and disputed material was added in the middle of dispute it was added.
Please, note, that I have made only 3 edits in the Hungarian-Slovak disputed part since the start of this discussion, I am trying to discuss everything in as constructive manner as possible and I hope my above revert will not be treated as disruptive. I have all reasons to believe that Nmate is well aware of everything discussed here and thus I was quite concerned by his edit. That is why I have asked you: how to deal with such kind of editing? --Ruziklan (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of the "experiment"

I've seen some "reverts per Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment" not so long ago. For example:[31], [32], [33]. This "experiment" is starting tu function as a hammer to remove even well cited additions[34], "because there was no debate about its right of incursion" (aka per this page) on that particluar aticle's talk page. Is this allowed? Is really a debate is a must? --Rembaoud (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You quote a few diffs above but I think name editors and IP editors should not be mixed in this case. If a named editor who is party to the dispute resolution, Ruziklan for example thinks that something is controversial then it should be discussed. It should be explained how it is controversial of course but I don't think it matters if it stays in the article or not it's for the duration of the debate. IP editors should not be allowed the same however especially after recent events but that's just my opinion. Hobartimus (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Hobartimus, I would not say that better.
I will not be able to follow this discussion in detail for much longer, you know, real life duties, but I would like to see the rules set. I would not oppose adding material to shapeless articles in the process of creation, but quite well written articles with balanced amount of information from various areas deserve discussion of adding material. Especially now, when there is running important discussion here about basic issues that were haunting the relationships of editors working on Slovakia and Hungary related articles for a long time. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it the right way to work?

I am almost sure Elonka would review Nmate's edits after lifting his block, but I doubt his chosen way of editing articles Nové Zámky, Levice and Komárno is constructive, namely these diffs: [35], [36], [37]. The edit summaries speak for themselves: all three sound like this: "strong Magyarization in Tr(a)nava? All right!"

That leads nowhere as context in Trnava and these 3 cases is completely different. In Trnava article the Magyarization in 19th century is used as a reason for founding Spolok sv. Vojtecha, whereas in 3 changed articles the Slovakization is used out of blue for nothing except proving Nmate's case. I am not going to revert anything for the moment, especially because I do not know numbers, maybe he is even right and precise, but this is becoming really tiring... --Ruziklan (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, and two his edits at Principality of Nitra constitute clear vandalism - principality of Nitra is well documented in history, I wonder why he is editing in this way: [38][39]. There are no sources provided on the page, but that does not mean they do not exist, just no one cared to source this as nobody has challenged it. For me it is too much, some action has to be taken. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Principality of Nitra seems to be created by user:Tankred and second editor is user:Juro indefinitely banned so that should give us a general idea about possible problems with this article. Generally speaking it's usually not a good idea to present fringe theories as fact or put them in categories describing real history. There are lot of these types of articles around, incredibly low traffic, often created and maintained by extremists in need of deletion or serious cleanup and rewrite. Hobartimus (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
While the content of article may be questionable, I am not expert on history, Principality of Nitra is no fairy tale, it is a history, full stop. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the history of the article a little better and the present version is almost exclusively the work of user:Juro with minor changes from other users. Actually Tankred's first version wasn't that bad but it was completely rewritten by Juro ([40]) using the edit summary "correct factual errors, added substance", this is the version that's mostly remained unchanged and functions as the present version of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually, I am fine with anything improving the quality of article even if that would mean returning to some of previous versions, I do not care, can be. The problem of sources persists in any case and anyone interested in keeping the article in specific shape including specific information should try to find the sources veryfing the information.
But the way Nmate has chosen is not the right in my view. That was the point of my report here. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I see why are you concerned, for example the population data seems unsourced, however the year dates are famous census years so it's just very easy to look up the relevant censuses for example Érsekújvár in 1910 had exactly 91.43455755% of Hungarian population rounded up to 91.43% in his edit so that's seems ok I didn't check the rest however. Hobartimus (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I was writing my previous reply with article Principality of Nitra in mind as we two had been discussing that one before my reply. --Ruziklan (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nové Zámky, Levice‎, Komárno‎

Nmate's edits to these articles (Nové Zámky, Levice‎, Komárno, edit summary: "strong Magyarization in Tranava? All right!") seem to be acts of "revenge" for related to the reference to strong Magyarization in 19th century Trnava (see Talk:Trnava). I think that's rather childish, and against the spirit of our experiment, but let's focus on the content. He wrote (this is from the Komárno article, the other two were silimar):

Number of Hungarian people who live in the city has decreased dramatically over the past 63 years from 98% in 1941 to about 60% today. So there is the strong-Slovakization time.

Apart from the not so fluent English, there might be truth in it, but it lacks sources (where does the 1941 number come from, a census?), and the conclusion ("strong-Slovakization time") is not directly supported by the data. A lot has happened since 1941: WW2, Beneš decrees, communism, (economic?) migration etc. etc. And, was the situation in 1941 normal? Was that including the twin town Komárom on the southern bank of the Danube? 1941 is during WW2, after the First Vienna Award, when Komárno was part of Hungary. These 1910 census data show that the population of Komárom (excl. south bank) was 89.2% Hungarian then, and 3.4% Slovak. What happened between 1910 and 1941? The demographic developments of Komárno and other places in Slovakia are certainly interesting, but they must be properly sourced, and without jumping to conclusions. Markussep Talk 11:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Markussep!
Surprising that you are so informed because many Dutchmans do not know that Hungary is exists.I copied these demographic data from the Hungarian wiki.
After the Košice attack, Hungary sent a war message to the Soviet Union(Košice attack was on 26th June, in 1941).The situation was normal before here. North Komárom' population was Hungarian totally in that time.
Very much Jew lived in the North-Slovak city also ( about 89 000).The Jews 'mother language was Hungarian also.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 15:10, April 22
I'm not all that thrilled with Markussep's civility, and would prefer that he strike out words such as "childish" and implications of revenge. But Nmate's response is completely unacceptable, saying such a thing based on Markussep's nationality. Nmate, you've received multiple warnings, and have had more than enough chances to improve. The above comment was the last straw. Account access blocked for 1 week. --Elonka 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I reacted a bit too irritated to his "strong Magyarization in Tranava? All right!", but I could have seen that coming after his reactions on my talk page User talk:Markussep#Reply (he even predicted correctly that his future edit to Nové Zámky would be reverted). He has stated before that he knows the area better than me because I'm not from Slovakia or Hungary, implying that he's right and I'm wrong. I wouldn't call that a racial slur (and by itself not a reason for blocking him), but his remarks about smoking joints, the Netherlands not being a nation and "The Slovaks are the best in the ethnic cleansing" (all before the start of this experiment) were inappropriate.
Back to Nové Zámky, Levice‎ and Komárno‎: I found this article on the internet: [41]. It looks slightly pro-Hungarian (see for instance their description of Magyarization: "a growing number of the Jewish, German and part of the urban Slovak population of these areas demonstrated an increased willingness to associate themselves with the state-forming Hungarian ethnic community"), but the numbers given in the article (ethnic development Slovakia 1880-1991, Hungarian population of South Slovakian towns, and the number of relocated people at various stages in history) could be of help in our discussion. Markussep Talk 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
More recent data (1991 and 2001 census including nationality and 2006 population data by municipality) can be found at the Slovak statistics institute. Markussep Talk 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said above [42] 1941 and 1910 were census years and I already checked Nové Zámky (Érsekújvár) and the data taken was correct in that case. However it seems that with sources or without sources the population data is unacceptable anyway to some editors so we should'nt waste energy looking up data and sources until it's not even agreed that it can even be placed into articles in any form. Hobartimus (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The main point that Tankred was trying to make (I think) was that 1941 was not a normal year. In the article I cited above several events are described that influence the ethnic composition of southern Slovakia:
  • 1880-1910: increasing self-declaration as Hungarians of assimilated Jews, Germans and Slovaks, and of people of mixed descent
  • 1920-1924: Trianon, 88,000 Hungarian civil and military servants and landowners emigrate to Hungary, 72,000 Czech civil and military servants and investors immigrate
  • 1920-1938: many people of mixed descent declare themselves as (Czecho)slovaks, more ethnic categories are created (Jews, Roma) that formerly declared themselves Hungarian, 47,000 Hungarians are categorized as "foreigner"
  • 1938-1945: First Vienna Award, Czech(oslovak) civil and military servants in annexed part of Slovakia replaced by Hungarians, voluntary and forced emigration of 55,000 Slovaks and 31,000 Czechs, immigration of Hungarians, people of mixed descent declare themselves as Hungarians, many Jews and Roma were deported (after 1941?)
  • 1945: expulsion of 31,000 Hungarians, 15,000 more were outlawed and fled to Hungary
  • 1945-1948: 44,000 Hungarians moved to Sudetenland (many moved back in 1949), forced population exchange: 74,000 Hungarians from (Czecho)slovakia to Hungary, 73,273 Slovaks from Hungary to Slovakia
  • 1950s, 1960s: many Hungarians declare themselves as Slovaks
  • 1970s-present: Hungarians increasingly declare themselves as Hungarians, move from the countryside to the larger cities (Bratislava, Košice), assimilation by marriage with Slovaks
Actually, most, if not all of this is already covered in Hungarians in Slovakia, which seems to cover both the Slovak and the Hungarian views on the events. Would it be an idea to add data about the ethnic composition in some key years (1880, 1910, 1930, 1941, 1970, 2001), and refer to Hungarians in Slovakia for an explanation? Markussep Talk 08:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that the "pro-Hungarian" labeled lines are described ewerywhere else in the same way, EVEN in the magyarization article itself :) I think you are "bit" biased. OFF: and btw because (I guess) you are originally from Slovakia btw, at least through parent(s) or has a gf or friends from here or whatever It is irrelevant and not public, so nothing asked about this. OFF END --Rembaoud (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant and not public, don't write it. I don't have any personal relations to Slovakia or Hungary, and I've been on holidays in both countries (and liked both). Markussep Talk 08:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ad hominem arguments and remarks are good for nothing except igniting bad things and therefore are usually frowned upon in civilized discussions. I think they should be absolutely forbidden within scope of this experiment. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I added slightly to my "pro-Hungarian" label above. It doesn't seeem to leave out important events. I stick with "slightly pro-Hungarian", because it tends to euphemise pressure exerted on Slovaks and people of mixed descent to register as Hungarians. Markussep Talk 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruziklan, I agree with you that Rembaoud's comment was not acceptable. However, I think that a certain limited amount of ad hominem is acceptable on this page, as regards editing practices. If an editor is being disruptive, this is the right place to report it. But the way it's being reported is important. For example, "Doodad is causing problems on multiple articles, making uncivil comments, adding unsourced information, and I think he's using sockpuppets," is probably okay. "Doodad is an idiot, and his mama dresses him funny," is not okay.  ;) --Elonka 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, then, sorry. Now move on: why do you accept without doubt that Slovaks had that much pressure? Mr Evil Himself was in office only between 1906-1910. We had funnier[43] four years between 1994-1998 with kidnaps, and a pocket-dictator, and right now we're having another four, with proto-Slovaks, autocratic media "regulation", above 150something meters only governmental sponsoring and help (Hungarians live in the lowlands, almost excusively under the hundredsomething line) and etc. etc. I do not see those things decribed so "tragic" therefore, since I'm just having a worse version, with tons of lame stuff. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This 150 meter law sounds really crazy, is that true? Back to pre-WW1: just imagine you're a Slovak in 1910, and when asked what nationality you are, out of admiration of the Hungarians who organise the state for you, you say you're Hungarian, and you don't mind that there aren't any secondary schools where they teach in your language. Do you believe that? Anyway, we don't have to agree on this, let the facts speak. Do you agree with my proposed solution for the disputed ethnic composition numbers? Markussep Talk 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred

I ask for a block of Tankred based on his recent actions of undiscussed mass canvassing against the spirit of the dispute resolution. The whole basis of dispute resolution is that controversial actions should be discussed and not taken unilaterally. I find his mass canvassing extremely controversial as it includes multiple hand picked users by Tankred out of a user pool of tens of thousands of editors, [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] The message written by Tankred is also questionable warning of a non-existing "precedent" when Wikipedia already is not working based off-of precedent and this dispute resolution was very specific to Slovakian-Hungarian issues as can already be seen by the name of page itself. I think Tankred already got far too many second chances to just simply get away with this. This dispute resolution has slim to zero chance to succeed if flooded with uninvolved canvassed-in users worried about how an imaginary precedent might effect their articles and start mass arguments based on that. In case the involved party's can't be limited to those named in the main page of the experimental page, I suggest closing it as failed now since I don't think anyone has the desire to take part in months long unmoderated discussion involving an unlimited number of canvassed-in users to resolve a minor issue. Hobartimus (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is truly ridiculous. You want to get me blocked because I stimulated free discussion and sought feedback from respected administrators, who have more experience with naming issues than any of us here? Canvassing has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, so do not use this word so lightly. There is nothing in my message that you can call canvassing. And please do not pretend that the rules that are emerging from our discussion will concern only Hungarian and Slovak editors. We all know they will be used as a precedent. This kind of discussion is usually closely watched by editors from other ethnically mixed areas and the result is often applied in other similar cases. Even you have evoked the unrelated Gdansk/Danzig case several times during the Hungarian-Slovak edit warring as a precedent. Should I go ahead and find your own words? Moreover, Hungarians is not the only historically relevant minority in Slovakia. Germans, Poles, and Czechs also should have some say in this. Did you really think that you could decide to adopt a major change in such a sensitive topic just in two days and among only three users? I may be wrong, but I do not believe this is how decisions in Wikipedia are made. Wikipedia is a community, not your private fiefdom, in which a small junta can make important decisions behind curtains and then force it upon other people. (Please note that by the word junta I do not refer to any specific users, but to a general principle of decision-making.) I do not understand your fear. Ten experienced and smart people can come up with better rules than if they were only three, right? Tankred (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the mere fact I am ok with something does not count for much in naming convention area. That is why I have not voted yet in expectation of further changes. The ensuing discussion of proposal after starting the poll have shown there are more subtle points to it that should be clarified. I am quite unhappy that Tankred let himself being blocked as in this area he was bringing good points and now he will not be able to participate for two days. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Intresting. I admit, that I haven't read all the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page, since it was and is too long, so I'm maybe wrong, because of something below this:[49]. I think Tankred is mobilizing meatpuppets ("who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor", aka voters) for his "cause". None of the noticed users are Hungarian, however I saw many in various page histories.(Not IPs.) --Rembaoud (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The content of the message can also be disputed, since it tries to frighten these editors that this "might" be used as a "precedence", and therefore indirectly suggesting them to vote against the proposal. Carefully composed though. This was a nasty move in my opinion. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the following users are somehow my meatpuppets or at least inherently anti-Hungarian? User:Pmanderson, User:Lysy, User:Darwinek, User:Olessi, User:Piotrus, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic, Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania. I must be dreaming... Tankred (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS, some invitations to a small number of users who might reasonably be interested in the discussion, is allowed. I am familiar with most of the users that Tankred invited, and to my knowledge they don't have a history of agreeing with him in disputes (if someone has proof otherwise, please provide it). So I don't see those particular invitations, or their wording, as problematic. What would be a problem is if there were (for example) a Hungarian/Slovakian dispute, and a Slovakian editor went and personally invited several other Slovakian editors that he knew would agree with him. But that doesn't seem to the case in Tankred's actions. --Elonka 10:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the same: "a Slovakian editor went and personally invited several other Slovakian editors that he knew would agree with him.". I do not understand how can be deducted from this that I called anybody "anti-hungarian". Totally illogical. In this particular case, per WP:SOCK, they can be described as "meatpuppets". They come, vote, and go, however it seems that they are way more intelligent than participating in such a dirty game. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Meatpuppets usually happen when people know each other offline and get together to coordinate on-wiki behavior; nothing in this case would make the people who were notified meatpuppets. Notifying some editors neutrally of a dispute and asking for opinions is good sense - since Wikipedia works by consensus, having other viewpoints is a good way to work towards resolving disputes. I also don't see anything wrong with what Tankred did here. Shell babelfish 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Meatpuppet is not applicable here, a bad choice of description but I think the concern is legitimate about sending out undiscussed notifications to hand-picked users. The concern is about the practice itself and maybe the wording of the message in this case. Suppose the practice is completely OK should everyone else participating pick 5 users to notify then from the pool of all users? This experiment seems to be discussion based so I could see how a preapproved, discussed notification message placed on only notice boards would be preferable to unilateral actions if only for dismissing the concerns of other participants. Anyway just my observations, this thread should be closed then as it seems resolved. Hobartimus (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Failure

I am sorry Elonka, but it seems you will have to block me after all because I have to use reverts in a couple of cases:-( The only consequence of me respecting the editing restrictions is that Nmate[50][51] and Rembaoud[52] (both under the same restrictions) will remove all the references to Slovaks in Wikipedia. I cannot tolerate it. They are abusing the fact that Tulkohalten has retired, discouraged by Nmate's animosity and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, MarkBA is blocked, and Svetovid and I are under your editing restrictions. I understand you cannot revert them in order to keep your neutrality. But if no one reverts them, they will be basically rewarded for making undiscussed controversial edits because their versions of articles will remain. I do not give a crap about whether they are blocked or not. But I am deeply concerned with how the articles on my watchlist look like. Well, I have tried to signal to you several times that this situation is unacceptable to me. Now I am going to revert their controversial edits. If they are not repeated, I will refrain from more reverts. If they are repeated, it means that the whole experiment failed to prevent edit warring and we are where we had been before the start of the dispute resolution process. Tankred (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay civil please. Is this OK? Tankred copied a part of your comment out of context into another discussion as if you added it. Squash Racket (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Tankred failed to prevent himself from edit warring, not the "experiment" failed. However this lights another problem: If X starts to revert everything to "his/her version", per this page those edits can not be reverted. I mean X can decide that in exchange for 2 days of block, "his/her verion" can become the one on top and therefore seen and read by the public.

Therefore, to prevent such things, whoever will break the Digwuren rule, his/her reverts should be reverted. I think this would be correct and just, therefore I suggest you to undo Tankreds "rv"-s, please, and everybody else's who fails to keep themselves to these specific Digwuren rules. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A better option would be one or more of the following:
  • Re-add the information in a non-revert way, such as by adding actual sources proving that your changes are verifiable
  • Make a case on each talkpage for why you feel that the revert should be made. If there is a talkpage consensus to make the changes, then someone will make them.
  • Request comments from other editors, such as via the Experiment page
--Elonka 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How? Technically it would be a reversion. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Next to each item that you wish to change, include a source, showing that that is how it is referred to in sources. So if you want to change something to (for example) "Slavic", include a link to a book or newspaper that uses that "Slavic" term in reference to that topic. That's not a revert, that's an article improvement. --Elonka 10:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote on the talkpage of the Principality of Nitra, but Tankred did not responded, but deleted my edits with a bit misleading comment. Is this acceptable? --Rembaoud (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred has been blocked for 48 hours. --Elonka 10:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. If I revert everything I edited, I'll be blocked for 48 hours, but my version will be on top then? Consider your answer carefully, and don't forget the MarkBA case when composing it. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat? :) See WP:GAME and WP:LAME, and be aware that I could simply go and protect all of the articles for a month so no one could make changes to them. I don't care if they say "Slavic" or "Slovak". To repeat: Your best bet is to find sources. Try http://books.google.com or http://scholar.google.com --Elonka 10:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I really like your smile after the first sentence. It reminds me of old saying "Nothing new under Sun". Administration of Wikipedia in your chosen area and on your level of involvement must be very time consuming and sometimes difficult to keep cool, but rewarding in terms of Wikipedia advancement. Great job. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See my attempt at Balaton Principality. Squash Racket (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Squash Racket.  :) Academic sources (especially in English and online) are ideal.[53] --Elonka 11:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to skip playing down this game. Whatever. I'll look up for sources since P of Nitra is unreferenced at all, so in fact the whole article can be considered as a fabrication at all... but thats just gameing with the technical side :) I hope this:[54] is good enough to "give me green light" of reverting Tankred's edit on that particular page. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a grat example how history falsification works:[55]. The Slovaks here are already an "old, civilized nation" in 600 AD (!!!) :) --Rembaoud (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Slovak nation is NOW old and civilized, fortunately. The text cited does not say they were so in 600 AD, it says explicitly only about settling in homeland in the 6th century. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While Slovak Spectator does not mention (in english) Great Moravia as Slovak, but Slavonic, wich is correct: [56]. Jus a bit of research and all the evidence can be linked here to make them the basis of why do "proto-Slovaks" are going to be (getting) deleted. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article: [57], unfortunately in Hungarian, based on the Pravda (=truth) nespaper, decribing, that the "clever history" what the current goverment invented and started to spead is deleting the world Slavs (Szlávok) and replacing them with proto-Slovaks (ősszlovákok or ószlovákok). --Rembaoud (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the point? Just follow the good example of Squash Racket and rewrite (not revert) article using reliable sources and that is it. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

if you do not see, that is not my problem. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[58] Felvidék.ha, [59] bumm.sk, all describing the other falsification of our current government: The Great Moravia (Morva Birodalom) was the state of the "proto-Slovaks". etc, tons of evidence in SLovak and Hungarian as well, including Dusan Kovac, Robert Letz, etc etc, all the researchers of that times, while the "proto-Slovak" historians are all researching something different, usually something very different. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Something else that would really help, would be to have articles on some of these Hungarian and Slovak sources, such as Slovak Spectator. If someone would like to make stubs for the most important redlinks at List of newspapers in Hungary and List of newspapers in Slovakia, that would be wonderful. Thanks, Elonka 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good description of how things work, from a slovak source in english:[60]. Especially the "Ferocious opponents" part. Perfectly decribes how Matica Slovenská, and through that the Slovak history writing and teaching works, as well as everything in Slovakia if governmental. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not make such generalizations: "everything in Slovakia if governmental". While I share your doubts regarding some, maybe many, actions of certain people, organizations and entities (e.g. Matica Slovenská), this is already going too far. We are on the same side, we want to have Wikipedia better. But it will not become better by bianco attacking "everything".
Elonka, I will try to write stub at least on Slovak Spectator as seemingly Rembaoud seems to welcome it as a source and while not academic publication, it is one of best English language sources regarding information on recent developments in Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'll have the time, I'll search them. However these sources are enough to delete "proto-Slovaks" at least from "Greater Moravia" article. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not using "you", "your"

I'll try to implement it thanks for putting in the time to deal with all this, I see that you follow almost all edits made by the involved. I'm just a bit pessimistic/frustrated by the prospect of all the outside users coming in and making a mess of arguments trying to debate from a general viewpoint or treating the naming proposal as if it were to be applied to all articles making dealing with the specific issues near-impossible. A workable compromise seemed pretty close before, with Ruziklan giving his blessing but that was just probably me misunderstanding the situation. Hobartimus (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying. If I'm not posting somewhere, it's not because I'm ignoring it, it's just because there's so much going on that there's more than I can grok all at once. So I'm trying to prioritize a bit, and if that means some stuff gets "let go" for a bit, well, it'll either come up again later or it won't.  :) And on the current debates, take the long view. This project has only been running for a few days! Gdansk/Danzig took years to figure out. I'm optimistic that you'll be able to hammer out a consensus in much less time than that, especially if a few of the more disruptive editors are indef blocked at that point (as a couple of them seem determined to be <sigh>). One recommendation I do have though, is to focus on the sources. If there are some towns that are just never referred to by a Hungarian (or Slovakian) name in any of the sources, it probably wouldn't make sense to have a guideline saying that the Wikipedia articles should refer to them by that name first. So it might be worth trying to rewrite the guideline with some sort of wording like, "Priority should be given per WP:V to refer to locations as they are most commonly-referred to in reliable sources. In the case where reliable sources are divided, then the following guidelines should be followed..." Hope that helps, --Elonka 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My ok is not ok of everyone, in some areas I am more liberal than in others. Even as someone who does not care much about specific form of detailed naming rules I think that some of points brought to discussion are relevant and better have them precised now than disputed later. I suppose I will be ok with anything coming out from that discussion, however. :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

The user page of a banned user has been anonymously changed (block templates blanked).[61] I really hope it is not a sign that User:VinceB is back, but who knows, maybe he has never completely left. Anyway, this was not the first time that user has tried to remove block templates from one of his old user pages, but this time I cannot revert him. Would you mind? Tankred (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's clear vandalism, such as blanking or inserting profanity or something, you're cleared to revert. You may also wish to add the IP to an SSP report (if any are still around), or start a new one. --Elonka 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I already wrote this at the Principality of Nitra talk page but one element of that dispute seems to be that the article originally was written by a banned user, user:Juro. This [62] version written by a banned user, see block log [63] is now used as a "basis of negotiation" or similar which can be the core of the problem. You can compare the version from 2006 may to 2008 april 8. [64] which shows that the changes until recently were mostly cosmetic, and user:Juro-s version remained. Now this user maintained an army of sockpuppets [[65]] with 9 in only the "confirmed" category presumably many more undiscovered or possibly even active currently. The user talk page is deleted so only the user page is available to look at, but there are some pretty disturbing edits there, like [66] where Tankred attempts to hide the evidence of Juro's mass sockpuppetry and replaces the identifying tag with 'HI!' and he repeats the same edit [67], only stopping at intervention of administrator Anetode [68] who places the sock tag again. Considering the above link between Tankred's "clear vandalism, such as blanking"(as per your comment above) and the banned user:Juro the talk page of Juro could be undeleted so further evidence or links to other users of similar pattern can be examined. This could possibly help identifying any current or future sockpuppets of banned user:Juro. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind stopping this personal crusade, Hobartimus? If you want to get me blocked so desperately, just say it and do not dig in the archives trying to find what I did a year ago. To clarify my edit from May 2007 (!), a sockpuppetry tag was placed at User:Juro's user page by a dynamic IP of the range used exclusively by the banned User:VinceB. I reverted it because banned users are not allowed editing Wikipedia. My edit summary was: "Rv. This tag should be placed by an administrator, not by a sockpuppet of a banned user, evading his block by anonymous IPs." When an administrator actually placed a tag on User:Juro two days after, I was happy to stop monitoring that page. This is not the first misleading ("clear vandalism", "hide the evidence of... mass sockpuppetry") "report" of what I did a year ago or earlier put on this talk page by a participant in our present common discussion. I am sorry to say that it is getting pretty disgusting and I really do not have time for this. Have fun Hobartimus, while you are doing more quote mining. Tankred (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this Slovak-Hungarian dispute is far deeper than thought...I looked at Juro's userpage history[69], and found a "sockpuppet" after his ban: User:Koonjo28. So Juro is or was able to trick the banning and register again. As far as deep I got into the SK-HU match, I would not be suprised if it would turn out that one of the actual users are "sockpuppets" of Juro. Juro was last active on Bratislava ans slovak koruna [70]. We might check who continued his (other) disputes and edits and put them on a WP:SSP, but only after recognizing wich users might be Juro, to avoid further resentments. It worked with MarkBA, (who is also a mainly Bratislava article editor btw). --Rembaoud (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like you have enough for an SSP report. --Elonka 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

You fixed this article, but could you also fix History of Slovakia and Pribina? BTW, I told you what would happen and it did ;(.--Svetovid (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jánosik

Hi, this edit is true:[71], Jánosik got promoted as the last act of resining defence minister František Kašický. Souced. It worth a mention. I can not replace it in the article, since it would be a revert. Sources are all along the net[72], unfortunately exclusively in Slovak and Hungarian. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do this:
  • Add the article to the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment page
  • Add a link to the experiment page, from the talkpage of the article that you're talking about
  • Explain at the article talkpage, exactly what it is that you think needs to be changed.
Thanks, Elonka 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit too much of burocracy, isn't it? --Rembaoud (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Add two links, and explain what you want changed. Nope, seems fine to me.  :) Though if it's too much work, then just do the last one, post at the article talkpage. When in doubt, post at the article talkpage first, then the experiment talkpage, then my user talkpage. I'd like to keep my talkpage open for urgent cases, or situations where people haven't been able to get my attention via other means. Which doesn't mean go away!  :) I do still want to hear from you. But one thing I'm trying to encourage everyone to do here, is to get into the habit of posting their concerns at article talkpages, as soon as any kind of disagreement comes up. It's usually the most effective way of dealing with a situation. --Elonka 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a section about this, I wrote there. The other studd is here, and I made a link from there to here, and here is alink from her to there: Talk:Juraj Jánošík. I hope this is enough to check point 3 from the list. I am not clearly understanding what do you want with point number 2 or how (where) --Rembaoud (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looks like point 2 was already covered, as the article appears at the experiment page. I've replied at the article talkpage. --Elonka 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

You earlier requested specific parts of references to be translated, however several references in the highly controversial Great Moravia article appear to be in a similar condition. Another concern with that article that WP:FRINGE views might be presented as legitimate but it's not easy to tell without research into the subject and even then it's not an easy thing to handle. So my question is could you request translations from some of the key sources there in a similar fashion? Hobartimus (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid

[73], [74] --Rembaoud (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The second diff was uncivil, yes, but it was several days ago. What's the problem with the first diff? I'm not seeing it, as it looks like a reasonable edit to me. But if I'm missing something let me know. --Elonka 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[75] & [76]. Plus in bold:[77]. In short:) : editwarring and uncivil. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the edit-warring, but thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on it. --Elonka 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again:[78]. Be aware, that the link is rated m as mat minor :) --Rembaoud (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Add this too:[79]. This is his second "revert", where he rewrites those particular parts (despite that one part of them directly cited with a book), wich he seemingly does not like. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reverts was definitely a violation of sanctions, but it was multiple days ago and he hasn't done the same thing since, so I'm inclined to write it off as a "slip". As for the second one, there seems to be a dispute about whether or not sources are being properly interpreted. If someone has clearly falsified a source, I would not block someone for correcting the information back to accuracy. What would be helpful is if the sourcing on the article could be cleaned up, especially if quotes could be added. I have placed some suggestions on the talkpage. --Elonka 14:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see, what you say. I think that this it is not a "classical dispute", but a sentimental thing. Svetovid simply dislikes the expression "tribal chieftain" and for the 3rd time did he delete now [[80]. Maybe you can still explain it in a different way, but I can't. Svetovid is not constructive. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, partial change of names[81], including deletion of the Hungarian version of the Carpathian Germans, wich is fun, since they lived in the Kingdom of Hungary for a almost century. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid reverts again ([82]) despite being on "no revert" restriction and being told not to do so by yourself numerous times. This is after getting a second chance (see above) he also uses Twinkle and says the edit is minor like when reverting vandalism. The edit summary is very offensive and he repeats the same later that following your advice on the talk page of Petržalka is „provocation" [83]. CoolKoon (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions

Hi Elonka, I would like to ask you whether my editing restrictions allow me removing tags that were added to an article without any explanation at the talk page. User:Galassi has tagged a section of Great Moravia as {{unbalanced}} and {{limited}}. I see no reason why a properly cited section should be tagged as unbalanced and limited if no concrete objections have been raised. Unfortunately, Galassi has not provided any explanation on the talk page despite my request. Although we have different opinions on some of the issues surrounding Great Moravia, both Borsoka and I believe that these tags should be deleted (see Talk:Great_Moravia#Changes). We are both working hard on making this good article as NPOV as possible and tags without any justification are of little help. I will appreciate your opinion. Tankred (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid's request

Please ask him if I can modify the lead of Slovak villages/towns to the version he left there. I would understand his question if he didn't touch the lead of the article, but he did. So he thinks this is an acceptable version?
Then I'll revert the lead to his version at Pilisszentkereszt and we can have the same at Slovak villages (at least with Hungarian majority). He says the lead wasn't correct before (true) and that's an excuse to intentionally modify it to an even worse version (not true).
The most important thing for him was to attack me also after admin Ricky had blocked him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(blink) Um, you want me to ask another editor, whether or not you can modify an article?  :) I feel like a teacher, where one student is asking me to pass a note to another student, heh. My initial reaction is, "edit whatever you want". My next reaction is, "Ask him yourself."  :) --Elonka 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but he always deletes my comments from his talk page.
Elonka, the above question was just rhetorical. I don't actually believe he would answer with yes. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not he deletes comments from his talkpage, is irrelevant. You can be assured that anything deleted, has also been read. --Elonka 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration (wow, it's good to have jugdes with full power who can exterminate anybody they wish)

You know, a friend of mine who's studying history and Hungarian at a university in Bratislava told me that her professors just hate when someone dares to use Wikipedia as a source (especially for history). Looks like I've got a first-hand proof of the reason of their rage against Wikipedia..... CoolKoon (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any college professor would (and should) be wary of students using any encyclopedia article as a source. The nice thing about Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that we encourage/require the use of verifiable, reliable sources. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking for sources and, possibly, get an overview of a situation. The whole point of college is to get students to learn to think for themselves and learn to learn, which you would absolutely fail to do were you to use Wikipedia as a thesis-generating machine. Industry-specific experience and skills are a secondary concern. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm using Wikipedia for learning. Of course my field of study has nothing to do with any kind of history whatsoever. But I keep being amazed that how many things can I learn from wikipedia especially in natural sciences. And if I look for articles regarding electrical engineering, the amount of knowledge contained in Wikipedia is absolutely astonishing.
However my point was (and still it is) that most of the articles regarding history (especially the ones about Central and Southeastern Europe) are heavily biased. And the most unfortunate thing is that trying to be objective creates a wave of complains, arguments, revert wars, flamewars etc. CoolKoon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You might enjoy this essay, Madness, by a professor in Canada who assigned his students a task to create high-quality articles on Wikipedia. If they could get the article to featured status, they got a good grade! They improved several articles, at least two of which got to FA. I would love to see more professors do this, in all fields.  :) --Elonka 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. I think you should invite User:Borsoka to the Hungarian-Slovakian discussion. As I am under editing restrictions, I am not going to revert this edit.[84] But I do not think it is a good idea to blank references. I apologize if you have already invited Borsoka. I somehow cannot find the list of the participants of your experiment. Could you place a link to that list somewhere at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment please? Tankred (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussions are at the talkpage (that you linked). The lists are on the "userpage" of that discussion. Click on the User Page tab at the top of the page. And yes, he was invited a couple days ago, and he has now been added to the Digwuren restrictions. --Elonka 08:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)