Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia page.
Archives: 1
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovakia/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Banner

We need to add this banner {{WikiProject Slovakia}} to as many talk pages related to Slovakia as possible. It will bring participants interested in the topic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Already in progress; I'm cruising around town articles, fixing them as necessary, and adding banners. I've also thought if adding "rating" feature could be done, though it isn't necessary right now I suppose as most would be still Start or stubs. Or is it? MarkBA t/c/@ 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice, I already added this feature request on WikiProject Czech Republic, because I don't know how to do it properly. If you can, please add it. Rating and priority. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've imported code from the WP:BANGLADESH project (sorry!) with two parameters, class and importance. I've done mini-testing on my sandbox and one short real, and it looks like it works properly, though I'd like to hear your opinion about it and to tell me if anything else (e.g. another parameter) is needed, though I think for a start this is enough.MarkBA t/c/@ 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As I got no reply, I assume you agree with the way how I done it, so I may start when two things will be settled: to create assessment page and categories and to define importance criteria. My opinion is: Top should be reserved for Slovakia, language and linking articles (... of/in Slovakia) + Bratislava, High for important topics (Great Moravia, KoH, Czechoslovakia etc., regions, bigger cities (regional, 50.000 or 30.000?), notable natural features, some biographies (e.g. Štefánik, Štúr, Prime ministers, presidents etc.), Mid for less important topics (all other towns, districts, other biographies of some importance, maybe few castles for example, some other natural features) and Low for everything else. It's not everything but these are few areas that I think should be defined. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for outlining these clear and sensible guidelines. I would perhaps move the World Heritage objects to the High importance category. What do you think? Tankred (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it is sensible. So the World Heritage sites will be exception to this rule if used (e.g. Vlkolínec or Banská Štavnica would be High instead of low or medium.) Should be caves in the Slovak Karst included or only the Slovak Karst article? Other should be solved as well: should be objects around Spiš Castle itself be included in the exception and what about the primeval forests of the East Carpathians? And I don't know what should be general limit for including towns in the High importance (provisionally 50,000, Germany for example gives 100,000, what I would "translate" here to around 30,000). Of course the criteria may change over time, but if we'll sort out these issues I may re-work assessment table to reflect results). MarkBA t/c/@ 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and we should decide how many articles should be in the Top category. I would say 25, max. 30 should be enough. Though, I will probably have bit harder time when I'll come across structure articles (e.g. a different category is for, say, New Bridge or St. Martin's Cathedral than to some local church or maybe stadium). MarkBA t/c/@ 13:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Giving it a second thought, I think only Banska Stiavnica is important enough to be in the High category and the rest of the World Heritage sites probably should be in the Mid category. Only the articles specifically describing a World Heritage site should be included. I think it is Vihorlat in the case of primeval forests. I am not sure about the caves because only some of them (not the whole national park) is on the list. We should check Unesco's website. I like your criteria for the top category, but I would perhaps make them slightly more precise: Slovakia, Slovaks, Slovak language, Bratislava and comprehensive articles "... of/in Slovakia" (e.g. Politics of Slovakia, but not Flag of Slovakia or Skiing in Slovakia). I would put all the state symbols (flag, anthem, etc.) into the High category. I think the threshold of 50,000 inhabitants (i.e. all the "cities") is a reasonable criterion for cities and towns ranked as of High priority. But I would also add Banska Stiavnica (because of its historical importance) and Piestany (because of the size combined with their status of the most important spa town). I think we should make the article about the current prime minister a High priority article (because it is the most important position in Slovakia's political system), but we should decrease it automatically to Mid after he is out of the office and then give the High priority to the new prime minister. I would do the same with the current president, but this time moving from Mid to Low. Constitution of Slovakia, National Council of the Slovak Republic, and perhaps also Slovak koruna should be of High priority too. I think it is a good idea to give the Mid priority to articles about the most important buildings (e.g. Bojnice Castle, St. Martin Concathedral). Any comments? Tankred (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably WP:Germany assessment page can give us some help. For Banská Štiavnica and Piešťany, they are too famous to be in Mid so I think they should be High (and as such are two exceptions to the 50,000 rule). For famous structures as you mentioned plus other which I think should be considered case by case, should be Mid, other Low. For the politics matter, I see your logic that current prime ministers and presidents should have one rating higher, but for president I'd keep mid, rather than low. If we'll ever start writing about ministers (I've seen some), these should be Low. And I'm coming to another question, what about parties? I think: current coalition and opposition mid, other low (and so could do with leaders). Yes, we could discuss these "trivial" topics over and over, but best to agree now than to have dispute later. For UNESCO sites, after all, it's sensible to keep in mid, except for B. Štiavnica.
So let's recapitulate criteria for Top: Slovakia, Slovaks, language, "...of/in Slovakia" (but I only partly understand why state symbols should be High, well, never mind...), with only main topics being Top (e.g. that's Tourism in Slovakia but not Skiing, Politics but not Constitution and National Council or Economy but not koruna). And where should be WWII Slovak Republic categorised? I think High or possibly Mid, though, the formulations given in the link should help categorising articles. And lastly for now, natural features; In High, should be given: (possibly) Danube, Váh, maybe Hron, Tatras, High Tatras, Low Tatras, both Fatras (possibly) and Slovenské rudohorie + Gerlachov Peak. Partly notable should be in Mid (that's Tribeč, Little Carpathians or Slanské vrchy + Hornád and Ipeľ plus some other cases what I mean) and everything else Low. So let's hope we'll agree on what should be were and we can begin. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything, but I would perhaps put Slovak Paradise and Slovak Karst to the High category and Slovenske Rudohorie to the Mid one. I am not sure if Slanske vrchy and Tribec are notable enough to be in the Mid category. I think Hron should be in the Mid category (because it is not navigable and much less important economically than Vah) and Danube in the High category. I do not know how to categorize WWII Slovak Republic. I would perhaps put it into the High category together with Slovak National Uprising and Velvet Revolution. But I have no strong feelings about it. What are we going to do with Velvet divorce and Prague Spring? Any thoughts? And what about Alexander Dubcek, Gustav Husak, and Milan Hodza? Tankred (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, looks like I didn't quite hit the mark but basically I agree. From rivers only Danube and Váh should be High (I don't know if Tisza can be considered as well, maybe Mid). Depending on the length and such-like, examples for Mid should be Morava, (maybe) Little Danube, Hron, Ipeľ and Hornád and all everything else Low. For the Republic maybe High, for the events mentioned I'm torn; either High or Mid. Biographies are bit more difficult, only truly notable ones should be high, and for me only Dubček is good enough for High, the other two for mid. Probably we should consider when we'll come across, for example Štúr is good for High but Hurban is not. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So if there's nothing more than this, I think basic rules are more or less drafted, for now. If you have better examples like the ones on the Assessment page, feel free to replace them. MarkBA t/c/@ 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we should setup User:AlexNewArtBot for new articles and User:WP 1.0 bot for assessments and suchlike. It could be useful, but I don't know exactly how to do that. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I am a big fan of bots (if they do not want to sell me anything:-), I would not use them to assess articles. Perhaps only to mark stubs, but nothing else. In some tasks, I rather trust human intelligence. Anyway, I have no idea how to setup bots, so I cannot be of much help here. Tankred (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant for reporting ratings and such, but the second one isn't needed to setup as that User:WP 1.0 bot has already noticed and reports ratings. For the former the instructions are here but I don't understand them completely (mainly the 3rd step). MarkBA t/c/@ 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure with the importance category. There are two ways - first, the articles should be ranked with its real importance (big city = big importance, little city = low importance). Second, the articles should be ranked with its requirements. E.g. I marked Prague as low importance, because it is well written article and long enough, so we don't need to look at it so frequently. Hard to say which one we should choose. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've seen most projects using the former way. For the latter I don't know about any special marking but it's possible to add comments or to mark articles as needing attention, if the required parameter is present. Personally I would use the first one, because I can't well imagine marking Prague as Low and, say, some village with High or Top. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to cross-tabulate the quality and priority scales? I mean, it would be useful to have a list of the top or high importance articles that are just stubs or starts. Tankred (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid I can't help you with this one, I'm sorry.
Slovakia
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1 2
Good article GA 4 4
B 9 20 15 5 49
Start 7 49 148 114 1 319
Stub 1 12 161 495 75 744
Assessed 18 85 325 614 76 1118
Unassessed 1 1 3190 3192
Total 18 86 325 615 3266 4310

I haven't seen that anywhere and so I don't know how to even create a list like that one. All I can do is to have this simple "counter" which however doesn't indicate any articles which need attention. MarkBA t/c/@ 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pity. Anyway, I will at least move the counter to the main page, so we have some idea about how we are doing here. Tankred (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The stats table seems to be out of date. There is only one GA article listed in the table and other numbers are not updated either. Any thoughts how this can be fixed? Tankred (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I've already asked that one and got a reply that User:WP 1.0 bot has had some glitches recently and couldn't update properly. It should get today or soon to ours, as it is under "sh" as I'm writing now. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found we can cross-tabulate the quality and priority scales. Sort of. It is easy to identify top- or high-priority articles that are still stubs or starts using Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Slovakia_articles_by_quality/1. Tankred (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cotini

I read this article and its says: "They were probably identical or constituted a significant part of the archaeological Púchov culture, with the center in Havránok." According to Szabó Miklós, this can't be true. So you should mention that there are other opinions in this matter too. Cotini celts also lived in northern Hungary. Near my hometown (Miskolc) they had a fortificated village (its not decided it can say oppidum-- the place called Nagysánc), and near Sajópetrii they had a forging village. There are cotini findigs, coins in the museum of miskolc (Hermann Otto Museum). As i know, the cotini tribe was located beetween osii and anartii tribes. They probably arriwed here with the boii, around 400BC. After Burepista dacian invasion they was taken dacian cultural elements. They started to give dacian names. Your article is very good, thaks, i was happy when i find it. Sorry for my bad english. user: Derszu 13:38, 31 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derszu (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Tulkolahten wishes Merry Christmas to all participants! :)
Tulkolahten wishes Merry Christmas to all participants! :)

[edit] Lobby (band)

This article on a Slovakian band recently came through AfD with a result of no consensus, as we're not yet able to fully determine if it meets notability guidelines for WP:MUSIC. As there are few sources to be found in English, we can't really be sure. I was able to find a contributor to your project to help interpret the one located source (thank you again, MarkBA), but the article would benefit greatly by contributions from editors who might be able to help solidly determine whether or not it qualifies, including by finding more relevant sourcing. If you'd like to help out, it would be appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Slavic WikiProject

I know in many aspects the different editors from West Slavic nations have not seen eye to eye, and the community has suffered due to childish naming disputes that usually deteriorate into edit wars. That's why, in the interest of common West Slavic participation on Wikipedia I have proposed a West Slavic WikiProject, that would aim and try to bridge the gaps between us and strive for fair representation of West Slavic interests, be they Slovak, Czech, Polish or Sorbian on the English Wikipedia, as well as effective multilateral debates on a multitude of contentious articles. So, just have a look and voice your support if you want. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is really bad

I have just noticed that user Rembaoud has recently put quite a lot of Hungarian names into articles about Slovaks: Hlinka, Fulla, Safarik, Benka, Gasparovic, Husak, Sokol, Stur, Hattala, Kollar... As ocassional editor only I have no experience, time and energy to fight this, but seeing the long time ongoing problems between "Slovak" and "Hungarian" editors I think the situation is already ripe for higher level mediation. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried just leaving him a friendly note? The Dominator (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already pointed him to WP:NCGN, but he either misread this convention or ignored it. I have reverted all his edits against the naming convention, but it would be nice if someone else can talk to him because he has apparently received an e-mail discrediting me as an editor. More generally, if you find any disruptive edit, you can just undo it, reverting to the last version before the edit was made. It is the matter of few seconds. There are only few people with Slovakia-related articles on their watchlists, so every hand is welcome. Have a nice day, both of you. Tankred (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can say from months of this controversy tracking, it is running for a long time on various levels and many pages, usually on Slovak subjects. Friendly words very probably would not help as
1. user Rembaoud was created only on March 29th, 2008
2. he immediately started editing articles on historic Slovak people (see diff of his third edit only) by updating local names not in line with WP:NCGN
3. after reverts he redid edits with adding "WP:IGNORE - anachronisms fixed, deleting this is vandalism" to edit summaries, something e.g. I never dared within my about 3 years as Wikipedian (see this diff)
I believe simple reverting all this is not enough as a solution, you can just run into 3-reverts trouble here in the long term. You know well, Tankred, people who consistently do similar edits, so I would advise seeking higher level of dispute resolution. Of course, you may well end up in the situation that their approach is judged ok, but I believe you apply WP:NCGN well and you should "win" the case. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You are totally correct, but I do not have enough energy to go through a lengthy and often inefficient process of dispute resolution. I am also afraid that in case we win this case, another account with the same behavior will appear a day after the case is closed. Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors, who usually support each other in disputes with non-Hungarian editors. Who wants to deal with them? Tankred (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I suggest taking this one to WP:ANI. Seems like trouble. The Dominator (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it seems like trouble, it goes on for a long time, Tankred could say more as he fights this. He can name users acting like this. See e.g. the changes just made by Hobartimus that are very similar to diffs of user Rembaoud above. Still the same things... does anybody know some admin or should we post to noticeboard after all? --Ruziklan (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, quite a lot what has been written above is correct, if I have to jump in. To the disputes, that's what it is about - if you're going to question or complain about their actions, they will often try to discredit you or dismiss the report. This is ongoing for so long that I believe that without a continuous intervention of admins or whatever this won't be solved. One good example is this: when the former user VinceB was banned a year ago, other accounts emerged within few days to few weeks' time. However it goes, one is sure - it wastes time which could be spent better. Unfortunately I don't have the energy and nerves to deal with this alone, so any helping hand is appreciated. Just my 2¢. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted at WP:AN#Hungarian names. The Dominator (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So we have this diff - total quick revert without any relevant argumentation despite detailed edit summary provided by me. I am off, cannot do more, I have other business to do. Not caring about that anymore. Please, can someone follow-up that to WP:AN or other relevant place? Bye. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - detailed edit summary is here - I have not copied the link right the first time. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens. Unfortunately, little willingness to help has been shown by the rest of the community and communication with some users has turned out to be fruitless. Here is my suggestion: If you come across a disruptive edit in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author of such an edit or in filing reports at WP:ANI if you do not wish so. Even a simple random revert would help protect Wikipedia's content against vandalism. Thank you everyone for your help with Slovakia-related articles and happy editing! Tankred (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but probably you have understood my edits wrongly. They have nothing to do with being good citizen or not. I was trying to improve articles in the good faith and neutral fashion, considering all aspects known to me. But the way the discussion is led (or rather lack of it - charges and warnings from both sides as far as I can judge) has convinced me my time will be spent better somewhere else. In my view the best way forward would be to involve someone not yet involved, yet skilled in Wikipedia manners who could help things move forward. Surely that is not me. --Ruziklan (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I need to make a course correction here. I am extremely concerned by this practice of "just reverting" anything that is disagreed with. Further, I am concerned that editors are reverting, without participating at the article's talkpage. This practice of "no discussion" must stop. In the future, if there are concerns about an article, editors must engage at the article's talkpage. If editors continue reverting without engaging in discussion, you are risking being placed under ArbCom editing sanctions, and possibly having account access blocked. --Elonka 11:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you read my first comment on this thread, Elonka? I tried to talk to that user because a new user might not be familiar with WP:NCGN. But he replied in an anatagonistic way. At the beginning of this thread, I asked other people to talk to him, since I was denigrated by some e-mail that Rembaoud received. Ruziklan used the article's talk page, providing a detailed explanation of his edits. His edits were reverted without any explanation by Hobartimus. Only after that I suggested reverting. Tankred (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you mean "extended discussion" when you say "without any explanation" I'll get what you are saying here. Please do not force me to quote all of my edits that involve discussion with Ruziklan on the topic of List of Slovaks by making further false statements. Hobartimus (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, if anyone is receiving harassing emails, this is a serious matter, and could result in sanctions. Please feel free to forward such emails to me, at elonka@aol.com, so that I can examine them. Or if for some reason you are not comfortable sending the emails to me, there are other avenues available (see WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment). However, since I'm already familiar with the situation and the editors involved (or at least I'm trying to be), I may be the best first choice at the moment. --Elonka 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I am taking a trip to Bratislava in a couple weeks in order to walk the streets my great-grandparents did and wanted to offer my services if anyone has a photo they need for an article. Let me know and I'll be happy to oblige if possible. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are saying the truth, well, we could always use more photos even from locations which have already some but of course, there are some which don't have anything at all. If requested, I'll gladly provide locations which could use something. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That will work. I'm going to be there starting 15 April and I'm going to want to take photos anyways...this will give me a purpose in taking photos. Redfarmer (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Slovaks

List of Slovaks has been moved to List of Slovakians. If you want to correct the name, feel free to move it back. I do not have any energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends. If they want to move Bratislava to Pozsony (as they did in the infobox of Slovakia), I do not care anymore. Apparently it is no vandalism. I have done a lot of work on Slovakia-related articles in the last three years, but I cannot watch over all of them. I cannot care less if they go to Hell. Perhaps it is already time to move on and leave this place. Good luck to all the remaining editors writing about Slovakia. Tankred (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, there's no need to leave the Wiki based on one minor disagreement. If I may however defend myself from your assumptions of bad faith, let me briefly explain my rationale for moving the page: in English, the word "Slovak" refers primarily to an ethnic Slovak,, "Slovakian" on the other hand refers primarily to nationality and/or citizenship (i.e. a Slovakian need not necessarily be an ethnic Slovak.) Given that the list in question includes quite a lot of people of ethnicities other than Slovak (but who are/were, nonetheless, closely connected to Slovakia) I considered that "Slovakian" rather than "Slovak" would simply be a more accurate title, less inclined to possibly mislead, and less likely to cause endless flame wars on the talk page. I assure you I'm not out to subversively retake Slovakia for some sort of Greater Hungary of the cybersphere. I have started a section on the List of Slovak/ians talk page, I am open to opinions from all sides. (I am NOT, however, open to arguments from either side that invoke the ethnicity or nationality of opposing debaters as a relevant point in the discussion. The workings of MY brain are not determined by the haplotypes of my Magyar mitochondria.) K. Lásztocskatalk 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, please don't leave Tankred, we've lost MarkBA and Tulkolahten has expressed dissatisfaction and possible retirement, I wouldn't want to see the Czech and Slovakian community on en Wiki completely fall apart. As for the list, I am nuetral on the naming matter, "List of Slovaks" for the very simple reason that it's shorter, but "List of Slovakians" sounds more English, all in all it's just another dumb title dispute, an argument over one word that appears at the top of the page. The Dominator (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Although my English is not very good, "Slovaks" and "Slovakians" seem to be used interchangeably in English as far as I can tell. Personally, I have never found the nuance in connotation mentioned by K. Lásztocska. But if "Slovakians" refer to a broader category than Slovaks, I support her change by all means. Well, that change without any previous discussion on the talk page was just the last drop. I am seriously considering my retirement mostly because the community is unwilling to prevent User:Nmate from editing in a disruptive way and from attacking other editors and nations. I am also too tired after all those fights with User:Hobartimus, who reverts even simple copyediting if it comes from an editor that he does not like. The environment here is just too hostile and there are only a handful of active editors of Slovakia-related articles, who can help with maintenance. I cannot really write new articles (the activity I enjoy the most here) if I have to revert "uncivilized nomad Slav colonists" in the 14th-century Zilina three times a day. I am sorry, Wikipedia is a voluntary project and we are all motivated by some enjoyment taken from our creative work. For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists. I am not the first one. MarkBA and Jurohi (not to be mistaken for the banned Juro) have left for the exact same reasons. Good luck everyone. Maybe I will stop by from time to time and say hello. Tankred (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry you feel that way and I would still like to urge you to stay, but if you feel that you're not enjoying yourself anymore, there's nothing I can do about that except to say goodbye and wish you the best. The Dominator (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Tankred I know exactly what you mean, I've retired before too. But the thing is there is no need to vocally retire and it is even slightly obnoxious to wave around your retirement in article disputes. Just leave the project alone until such time as you want to contribute again, no one is forcing you to stay (though you will be missed). In regards to this debate: Slovak and Slovakian are totally interchangeable and Slovak is the prevailing term as far as I can tell. I would support any proposed move back to List of Slovaks. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian disputes

To try and get a handle on the wide variety of disputes involving Hungarian and Slovakian editors, I have created a subpage in my userspace to try and centralize discussions. This is an experiment, as it is neither a mediation nor a Request for Comment, nor is it a random chat. I will be moderating the discussion as an administrator, and enforcing rules of civility to minimize disruption. This is an experiment, as part of my participation in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I encourage all interested parties to post any concerns that they have on the talkpage, be they about disputed articles, or the behavior of other editors. You may also wish to simply add the page to your watchlist: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Thanks, Elonka 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľudovít Lehen

Members of the WikiProject are asked to help ascertain the notability of Ľudovít Lehen at this AfD. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new maps of czechoslovakia

I made a couple new maps of Czechoslovakia. They're quite easy to change, so please let me know if you have any suggestions. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First Republic (1928)
First Republic (1928)
Partition of Czechoslovakia
Partition of Czechoslovakia