User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Thread

Hi Elonka, There is an ANI thread here that partly deals with some of the issues discussed above. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject templates

(continuation of discussion on where is the listed consensus on which WikiProject template should be placed on an article)

Will try to dig it for you, hope I will remember where exactly. However there were discussion about WikiProject Germany in the Czech cities and villages. There was a hot debate and the result was that it is a not good idea to place WikiProjects of other countries to other countries. Because it brings only a hot blood. For example Berlin can be under WikiProject Germany, Russia, France, Great Britain, USA etc ... Prague under WikiProject Austria, Czech Republic, Germany etc. and hundreds of other cities and places all over the Wikipedia. We discussed that it may be a harmful practice and may discourage editors from editing when you wake up go to Wikipedia and see shiny waving flag of the other country at the talk page of your city. Also it brings POV pushing and territorial ownership tendencies of some editors. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus or Darwinek may confirm that as they were participants in that debate. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it would be the opposite, that adding all applicable WikiProject banners would be more calming than trying to decide which one was most applicable. But I'd be interested in a link to the debate. You might also want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. --Elonka 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is even possible. Try this very simple test, go to the Paris article and put into its talk page {{WikiProject Germany}}. Stand to the corner and wait and see what happens :) Then please report. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. --Elonka 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean it more like a joke, I hope it could be heard from the tone. But the point is same. I will ask Piotrus and Darwinek to join us here. Their opinions will be welcomed. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I don't want my talkpage to become the new debate center for this. I'm just saying, you made several article changes, "per consensus". So could you please point me to that consensus? Thanks, Elonka 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you have raised serious questions that need to be answered. I do not want to be punished for my edit summaries again, so I would like to hear what Piotrus and Darwinek think about that as they were participants in that debate before. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry the participant was not Piotrus, it is more then year old debate but you would read it here [1]. Specifically [2]. However Piotrus and Darwinek's input would be welcomed. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We should continue at my talk page [3]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred

An IP address made a report on WP:AIV about Tankred today (diff). I removed the report as I didn't see clear-cut vandalism. I also saw you're involved, so I'm going to defer this to you. However, I wanted to let you know that whatever's going on as far as edit conflicts and that user, it's gotten under somebody's skin enough that they filed a vandalism report. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that there seem to be a multitude of problems with this user's conduct. I'm new on the scene so am still coming up to speed, but I think he's gotten more than enough second chances at this point, and unless he shapes up, there's probably another block in his future. I am also seeing some evidence of possible sockpuppetry, so if you hear about any other disruption that's related to this user or topic area, please let me know. Thanks, Elonka 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only guess that the anonymous user who filed four complaints in three different fora does not like my removal of a picture from Slovak National Party. The picture is likely to be a copyright violation and the caption wrongly informs that it was published by the Slovak National Party. The license tag of the picture even says that the picture was created by the chairman of that party. In fact, this hoax picture was not published by the Slovak National Party, but appeared in an online discussion forum on the servers of that party and was removed from there after complaints. The anonymous user took the picture from another website without permission and uploaded it to Wikipedia with incorrect statements. I removed it from the article and this is his/her revenge. As to my conduct, I have never ever used any sock puppets and I strongly oppose their use in general. That 78... IP is not mine. In fact, the WHOIS shows that the IP is located far from where I live. You can ask for a CheckUser. I would only welcome such a request to avoid any misunderstandings. As to my user page, it shows my frustration with how Wikipedia is run. I had been using what you now recommend for a very long time. I tried to discuss User:Nmate's edits with him/her. Later, I posted warnings. In fact, Nmate has received more than ten warnings from four or five different editors. He/she has deleted them all. Several of us has asked for help at ANI, but we were told to warn Nmate on his/her talk page. It is nice that you are so concerned about the fact that the diffs posted on my user page might hurt feelings of some users. I am more concerned about the fact that these users can freely attack me and many other editors on talk pages and in edit summaries. I am concerned about the hate speech that Nmate keeps inserting into articles and talk pages. Since no one has cared about it until now, I have voiced my concerns on my user page. If you think it is inappropriate, I will be happy to change it. Could you pinpoint the parts that violate the existing policies and say what parts of these policies they violate? I will fix it. But I would also expect you to be equally vigilant about a user calling other editors "ugly chauvinists", saying that the Dutch nation does not exist, and replacing Magyarisation by industrialization - all in one day, today, despite all the previous warnings. Tankred (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Elonka, thank you for contacting me and thanks for the heads up. Indeed, I should have left a comment on Tankred's talk page regarding my edit on his user page. Guess I forgot so I'll apologize to him. Anyway, seems like he has meanwhile removed much of the intro that could be considered harassment, and that's quite positive. Some leftovers could still be frowned upon though. Only this week I have been informed about these users' ongoing dispute. I have received scarce details about it, but it's apparently a Slovak versus Hungarian name dispute. Could have something to do with southern Slovakia, where a strong Hungarian minority lives. But I'm not sure, I still haven't looked at it in depth. Coincidentally, I'm going to Hungary and Slovakia this weekend. Guess I should invite these folks for a meeting at the border and peace talks. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I think the IP belongs to User:MarkBA. This edit summary rang the bell. He also used the phrase "Capiche?" during a discussion here (and I've never heard this coming from anyone else on Wikipedia). Here he tries to own an article MarkBA created. The IP edited exclusively Slovakia related articles, just like MarkBA. Here making similar edits as MarkBA earlier at the very same article. Here edit warring at a category MarkBA created. More than suspicious. Squash Racket (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is obviously disruptive, could you block this IP? For that it needs to be confirmed by a Checkuser that it is MarkBA's IP? Squash Racket (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there was so much bad blood, and disruptive behavior on the part of multiple users, I'd like to give a general amnesty for some types of actions. I have posted a note on that IP's talkpage, asking him (her?) to join us at this experiment page. If there is future disruption though, then a block is definitely an option. Or do you think that there is some other reason that an immediate block is needed? Do you think that the IP is being used to get around a block of some other account? --Elonka 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You've seen all the edit summaries? MarkBA decided to "retire" two weeks ago, if it's him with "free speech" in the edit summaries, perhaps it would be better to get him back to using his account. Squash Racket (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that account was still active because I saw today's date on his userpage, but I see now that it was an automated datestamp. I have posted an invitation to that account as well. --Elonka 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred's userpage

Some concerns were raised about the banner at User:Tankred. It seems he may have toned it down some, is everyone okay on the information that is there, or do you still find it offensive? Please post here, thanks. --Elonka 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Tankred's and MarkBA s' user pages are injurious equally.Although a name is not mentioned in it They concern me the hate speech, obnoxious chauvinis, mob, crazy political propagandist... statements.If you are with a name, or without a name is irrelevant these words serious defamations.Nmate (talk • contribs)

Nmate, thank you for participating.  :) I took a look at both pages, and I agree that Tankred's statements were not acceptable since they targeted specific editors. I have removed the banner, and told him not to replace it. As for MarkBA's banner, MarkBA (talk · contribs) has not edited Wikipedia since April 12. If he were an active editor, I might ask him to remove the banner, but since it does not target anyone or any ethnicity specifically, and it is on his private userpage, which probably no one else will be visiting (since he is gone), it is probably safe to leave it there for now. If he returns and wants to resume editing, I will ask him to remove or change the banner. Does that help address your concerns? --Elonka 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred's user page is O.K. but it is probably that user 78.99.121.251 is a MarkBA sockpupet.He used the "capiche" word yesterday in his summary in the Petržalka article and MarkBA used this word exclusively here.Their retirements are tricks only, that they feel sorry for them, they can instigate relative (Slav) editors against the Hungarians thus, and they can do personal attacks. Tankred retired earlier because of the Hungarian chauvinists already once:[4]

Nmate (talk • contribs)

If there are future personal attacks, please do this:

• Get a diff of the attack
• Post the diff at the editor's talkpage. Use a section header that describes the policy that was violated, such as "Civility" or "Personal attacks".
• Tell the editor, very politely, that they must not engage in attacks. Link to the appropriate policy, such as WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA.
• List the attack here on this page, saying who issued the attack, and providing the diff, so that I or one of the other admins can take a look at it.

Thanks, Elonka 12:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove MarBA's userpage, and investigate wheter 78.99.121.251 and/or User:78.99.32.229 are him. I heared administrators see editors IPs. I am intrested wheter he edited from even more IPs (I am sure) for the sole purpose of edit warring and placing blatant personal attacks in edit summaries and talkpages. And also wheter he did such thing before. I mean posting personal attacks under IP adresses to prevent his account of being "compromised". --Rembaoud (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a new on Nmate's talkpage: User:78.99.176.151. OOOOOPS: User:84.47.32.229 (first edit) - however this may be a different user, like Svetovid, I guess. If not, sorry. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, loooooook at this: User:84.47.40.156. I found another one! User:84.47.30.84. The all edited the same page[5]. I am sure, tons of such would be found in all the other 40+ pages they edit warring. So, I hope it is not too early:

• 84.47.something probably Svetovid - posting various personal attacks, playing out WP:3RR
• 78.99.something probably MarkBA - same

If I'm wrong, sorry. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this "experiment". It's not about getting as many people as possible banned, it's about solving editing disputes. You may have missed what Elonka wrote here: don't focus on behaviour in the past. I don't see the value of this "The "TReWs"" section, or of your reports right above here. contributions hasn't surfaced since April '07, contributions did 2 edits on 28 March. If you find new attacks, follow the steps Elonka listed above, including "Tell the editor, very politely, that they must not engage in attacks". Markussep ^Talk 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I demand an apology for your accusation that I used a sock puppet.--Svetovid (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the contribs of the following accounts:

• 84.47.30.84 (talk · contribs) - made one completely innocuous edit in 2007,[6] adding an interwiki link. Definitely not a problem.
• 84.47.40.156 (talk · contribs) - two edits on March 28 to Bratislava Castle. Nothing since then, but the edits were problematic, so this account may be worth remembering if a future SSP or CheckUser is needed
• 78.99.176.151 (talk · contribs) - similar to above, provocative edits on Bratislava Castle on March 28
• 78.99.32.229 (talk · contribs) - similar as above, active March 29/30
• 84.47.32.229 (talk · contribs) - similar as above, active until April 2
• 78.99.121.251 (talk · contribs) - multiple disruptive edits from April 12 to today. The account has been formally cautioned

Other anon accounts may become evident to fill in some of the gaps, but I think that it's best if we concentrate on activities from this point forward. The current editor has been cautioned about behavior, and if there are further problems, blocks will be issued. If he appears to "jump" to a different anon, the new one will be blocked too, and a restriction may possibly be placed, stating that the editor is required to use a named account.

The key thing to remember here, is that if an editor is abiding by policy, they are allowed to edit anonymously; but if there is disruption, this protection stops. See WP:SOCK which states, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

Rembaoud, if you feel that you know the identity of some of the anons, and you want to pursue this, you may wish to file a report at SSP - Suspected Sockpuppets. Another option is to file at Request for CheckUser, at which point certain admins who have access to IP address information can go in and look. But let me caution you, that they won't look "just to find out". They receive many requests, and one of their common answers is, "Rejected: CheckUser is not a crystal ball" or "Rejected: CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions." The only reason that they'll dig in to those IP logs, will be if there is a serious accusation of policy violation. Examples would be if someone was using an anon to get around a block, or if someone was using multiple accounts to try and make themselves look like more than one person for the purpose of a poll or other consensus-seeking discussion.

Bottom line: To any editors who are making controversial edits under the guise of anonymity or multiple accounts, please stop, and just use one single named account. If you do this now, you can take advantage of the general amnesty on previous disruption. If you don't stop, then you risk consequences such as editing restrictions, and/or having your account access completely blocked, under any name or IP. --Elonka 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can check IPs I have used in the last year against those IPs. Actually, I'd like to see that so that the dirty accusations are exposed.--Svetovid (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wich IPs are you then? Please list them here. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this thread too? My user page is no longer a problem, so the issue has already been resolved. Tankred (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of this page

Just checking, is everyone okay with the name "Hungarian-Slovakian"? I'll freely admit that I'm unclear on some subtle differences such as whether it's more appropriate to say "Slovak" or "Slovakian", plus there may be other nationalities involved here. So if anyone has a suggestion for a better page name, please post it here, thanks. --Elonka 09:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovak and Slovakian are interchangeable but Slovak sounds more elegant :). Anyway, I have noticed that Romanian editors have their own experience with particular Hungarian editors inserting Hungarian names everywhere (obvious exaggeration but you get the point).--Svetovid (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The I feel this is more related to WikiProject Slovakia, where open discussion about "dealing with" Hungarian editors started rather than a general dispute. For example Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as far as I can see had a completely different editing focus and was already under sanctions for reasons completely unrelated to any of this. However after numerous attack messages were posted at talk of WP:Slovakia and certain user pages he became involved to a large degree as a member of that project. There were also some disputes before but they were always managable when there was no efforts to escalate them through involving others using WikiProjects or other means. Hobartimus (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions (Digwuren)

Hello, if I was placed under general editing restrictions for calling some edits as vandalism, this is next candidate because he calls some edits that are obviously (after you've explained it to me) content dispute, as vandalism [7]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing. A link to the related ANI thread would have been nice, btw. --Elonka 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've learned from some editors these edit summaries:

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia, please explain why it should be included ?

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia, please see talk. (and then they start talk)

and then they started a thread on the talk page. This is used even by the administrators or common editors. So I think I remained civil. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've invited now all four editors disputing those articles to the one talk page. We'll see who comes to talk. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Danzig/Gdansk vote cannot be applied generally. It is a very sensitive and specific consensus related only to the Gdansk/Danzig issue. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I immediately apoligized in my very next edit "undo deletion under misleading summary by Tulkolahten - anachronisms fixed again, previous was Tankred, sorry". If I wouldnt do so, Tulkolahten would never find that edit to deliberately use it against me. This tells everything about him for me, therefore I do not wish to talk to such a user now, and furthermore. I am not a masochist to go to debates to prove in lenghty, pointless battles that an anachronism is an anachronism. Nonsense, nothing to debate. Try to think for a minute: why do we have separate articles about the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic the Third Reich and (E&W) Germany? Are they really substitues of each other? Can I say that Goethe was born in Germany? In a country wich was erected 39 years after his death? No. If I would so, I would falsificate history. This is what I call "history falsification". Nor Hungary, nor Slovakia didn't existed at those times. They were one entity: Kingdom of Hungary. Slovakia was not even a successor of KoH, it was Czechoslovakia. Slovakia gained independence from Czechoslovakia, twice. First in 1938, than in 1992. Noone has born in Slovakia prior 1938 (& between 1945-1992) --Rembaoud (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not the person you need to convince. I recommend bringing up your concerns at the talkpage. Make your concerns source-based and civil, and see if you can find a meeting of the minds. I'll watch to see if I can help. --Elonka 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

all right, i am sorry. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Playing out of rules

I listed a bunch of IPs here:[8], possibly those users whom were named there. Please look at their IPs and compare them with the list I provided, they may have non-fix IPs. I am sure a lot is out there, playing out the 3RR and posting personal attacks (usually "chauvinist vandals"), wich is also on User:MarkBA's userpage. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please ask for check user. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Slovaks

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

There is a major disagreement about content of this list. The core of dispute is in my view rooted in the definitions of the inclusion criteria. One side prefers the following three-condition-start

This is a list, in alphabetical order within categories, of notable people who either:

• are or were citizens of Slovakia or Czechoslovakia,
• are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,
• were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives.

while the other side prefers the followinf two-conditions-start

This is a list of notable people who either:

• are or were citizens of Slovakia or Czechoslovakia,
• are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,

There are some other points within article repeatedly reverted, including in my view virtually non-disputed points, but the inclusion criteria should be made clear first. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruziklan.  :) Can you provide some links to where this has been discussed at the talkpage? Or is this another one where the disagreement is mainly going on via edit-warring? Also, could you please post a note at the talkpage there, linking people to this discussion? Thanks, Elonka 13:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed at the talk page see in this thread This is only distantly related though one connection is that it was brought up on talk of WP:Slovakia in a thread presumably to get more users involved in the specific content dispute. I think we really need a ruling of some sorts if it's acceptable to gather support for edit wars or disputes this way? Hobartimus (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was disussed extensively, but not fully. Other argument is brought by me in the thread False information?!. By way of example, so far nobody here denies that Johann Andreas Segner was not Slovak by his nationality (although some sources in Slovakia make Slovaks by nationality almost from everyone, :-)), but Segner's ties to Slovakia and his being understood as Slovak scientist in general sense (as well as German and Hungarian and whatever) make him in my view eligible for being included in the list of people that have something to do with Slovakia. Two criteria are not enough. The third in the present form seems to be disputed because it is not in line with page title. So let's discuss the third criterion.

And surely this page is not related only distantly as firstly edit warring involved more or less the same users as other pages mentioned here and secondly many disputed people on List of Slovaks are of Hungarian nationality. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Hobartimus, edit conflict) It really depends, such as on how many posts are being sent, and who they're being sent to, and how they're worded. See WP:CANVASS. It's definitely fine, and even encouraged, to request comments from related WikiProjects. If you want to get more uninvolved editors into the discussion, I recommend filing an RfC (request for comment). The way through this is to keep talking, and see if you can find a compromise solution. It might also be useful to look at how other contentious areas have solved this problem. For example, read the lead paragraphs at List of Russians and List of Poles (or other ethnicities), and see if there is something there that you might be able to adapt towards finding your own consensus. --Elonka 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All this has already been discussed at Talk:List_of_Slovaks#R.C3.A1k.C3.B3czi_and_Kossuth.3F and Talk:List_of_Slovaks#page_name. Please read those threads if you are interested in this case. Tankred (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this particular case I think the trouble is with the audience being partisan instead of non-partisan considering all of the above mess and the involvement of WP:Slovakia members. And maybe also the neutrality of the message. I guess my question is if a Hungarian user wants to use WikiProject Hungary to call attention to specific content disputes, in a similar fashion what can be told to him/her? Do it don't do it, do it until the message is neutral etc? As to the specific List of Slovaks the topic had extensive discussion even before Ruziklan's involvement starting two weeks ago with comments from a larger group of users spreading accross several threads there so this is definitely one area where we had plenty of discussion and I think consensus -regarding at least the issue of the inclusion criteria- can be determined after full reading of that talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And that consensus, as you see it, is...? My impression was that in the thread mentioned by you (Inclusion_Criteria) the discussion was lead mainly by users from the group opposing any third criterium, namely István, K. Lásztocska, Koppany, Hobartimus and Rembaoud, the exceptions being Tankred and KaracharNevian with one comment each, so no wonder if the result of this particular thread discussion would be in "no third criterium". My comments were made later, not in that thread, that is true.

Generally speaking, I think following the example of List of Russians given above by Elonka seems to be quite meaningful way forward in my view. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just give me a few examples that you think should be included in a "list of Slovaks" but could not be included without the 3rd criterion? If there are really such important persons that could rightly be placed on a "list of Slovaks" but they don't fit the first two, they could be included on a case by case basis perhaps? Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion on case-by case basis is probably not a good idea. One could claim that all included people not fitting the two criteria were included on a case-by-case basis - "I would include them" or "I would not include them" anytime in edit summary. Do you think this could work with previous history of edit warring?

Examples are abundant. I have already named Johann Andreas Segner and many of people included in my Talk:List of Slovaks#Detailed_edit_summary are good examples as well. Also, you can check the Slovak page [9] with subtitle "najvýznamnejšie osobnosti Slovenska" that can be translated "the most important personalities of Slovakia". The page includes many people considered as important personalities in the Slovak history in spite of not being of Slovak identity nor citizenship. Of course, these people are repeatedly named as such in Slovek printed sources, I am giving the page osobnosti.sk only for quick reference. This everything is just giving good reason to follow the List of Russians style. --Ruziklan (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear dividing line between Slovak and Hungarian participants of the discussion at Talk:List of Slovaks. I do not see any reason why you should call the members of WikiProject:Slovakia (a project having this article in its scope) partisans, while you do not say a word about the Hungarian discussants. They are impartial? People who have never contributed to List of Slovaks miraculously found that discussion? They did not came from the Hungarian regional noticeboard, right? [10] The Hungarian regional noticeboard is used regularly to coordinate action of Hungarian editors on articles related to Slovakia, Romania, and Serbia, see these threads: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Except for two very recent threads at its talk page, the WikiProject:Slovakia has been used to coordinate improvement of articles from stubs to full articles, from A articles to GAs, and from GAs to FAs. That is the purpose of this project ansd I protest against the attempt to discredit our fellow editors because they participate in a wikiproject. Tankred (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, I notified Czech editors at their noticeboard, also the Germans at their noticeboard. I didn't send a message to Slovaks, because they didn't have their own noticeboard. In fact, my next edit was helping create it. Thanks for the honest presentation of what happened.

BTW all the threads you mentioned at the Hungarian board are rather old, so I can't tell if you presented those the same way or not. Squash Racket (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Tankred) I can't help but notice that all of these diffs you link are at least half a year old, if not more while we discuss edits above that were made this month. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon has just inserted Gábor Demszky into List of Slovaks (see diff diff) in spite of

• discussion over the list inclusion criteria just now running here,
• no evidence on page on Gábor Demszky that he has any tie to Slovakia.

Also despite following current politics I have no idea how he is tied to Slovakia. The provided reference [22] should probably document his tie to Slovakia, but is in Hungarian language therefore I ask him to give brief summary here. Posting to his talk page. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the reference in Hungarian, but I couldn't find any in English. However the article is about Demszky's visit to Kosice to meet with Kosice's mayor. Part of the article is also a fact that Demszky's 80-year father is still fluent in Slovak, and he has spent many summer holidays during his childhood at his grandparents who lived in Kosice, and that's why he thinks it's important to reunite the families and ties cut by the borders (of Trianon), especially in today's globalising Europe. The proof of his commitment is the fact that he's writing a book about his grandparents, his grand-grandparents and the era they lived in.

So I hope this explains his ties to Slovakia (or at least to Kosice). CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Shortly said, it means his ancestors are Slovak.

This example thus gives good example of important point in the list construction. In Slovakia Johann Andreas Segner (included in the currently discussed list a few times according to the disputed third criterion) is surely considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky despite the fact that latter is Slovak according to the second (undisputed) criterion. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Johann Andreas Segner cannot be considered Slovak by any stretch of the imagination. We could just copy the debate here but you brought this source which states that Segner was born 9 Oct 1704 in Pozsony, Hungary. If you should argue for anything you should argue based on your source that you brought to the discussion, that he should be placed on a List of Hungarians, but as far as I've seen there is no desire to put him there or to mass populate that list with non-Hungarian people. But this was already discussed ad infinitum and consensus on the talk page was quite clear. And I don't really get how rehashing everything here is better than on the talk page, where actually a lot more people already commented and there were long and exhaustive discussions on the topic. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is important difference between Johann Andreas Segner is considered Slovak and Johann Andreas Segner is considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky. I have stated the latter, not the former. Believe it or not, some people consider Segner Slovak, he is for example sometimes referred to as Slovak scientist of the past. I do not share this opinion. The undeniable fact is, however, that he has strong ties to Bratislava.

Furthermore, I do not think there was reached consensus on the talk page, in my view the discussion went astray when mostly people opposing wider list discussed and agreed with themselves - as I have already stated above. Discussion has led nowhere and was turning into constant edit war. That is why somebody from outside had to step in and I am glad Elonka did that. She even provided useful links for possible way forward. Have you any objections against the way used in the List of Russians? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read your own source, he had strong ties to Pozsony, the city was renamed Bratislava more than two hundred years after his birth. I don't think anyone knowledgeable about this person would refer to him as a Slovak scientist just like no-one would refer to medieval Serb leaders as Kosovar or Albanian. Discussion did lead somewhere it lead to consensus about the criteria of the list, there is no point in denial. Anyone can just check the talk page and determine for themselves if they see consensus or not about the inclusion criteria. Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava = Pozsony, it is the same town. Name has changed, but the town is the same. Many people on the list are referred to as Slovaks in wide sense of word, precisely due to reasons similar to those in the preamble of List of Russians. I have given my arguments and now I give up. The discussion is stalled precisely as before. Somebody else? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The name has changed. Also the people in the town have changed. Unless the percentage of Slovaks is still 14% today the people have changed significantly. I don't see any reason why previous solid consensus should be subverted. And you still did not react if you would classify all Serbs Turks etc in the previous centuries as Albanians or Kosovars? Hobartimus (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people has changed, also new buildings were built - but there is something called historic continuity... Regarding you repeated question I can just say I do not know whether I would classify them that, I do not know the situation. However I know the situation in Slovakia. You have not answered my question about List of Russians. What is wrong with applying the similar approach here? I find its preamble very reasonable. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely replacing the population of a city by displacing the previous residents through various means can hardly be compared to building new buildings. You gave no reason why all the previous editors who commented on this should be completely ignored? Wikipedia works by building consensus and I don't think that by moving this dispute here you have the right to ignore all previous opinions including ones given just a few short days ago for example [23]. Hobartimus (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite opposite, I have already given a number of reasons and I have also adressed the issue of apparent consensus above (that including diff provided by you) - it was not discussion reflecting all possible arguments and involved mostly people sharing your point of view. I can thus understand why you stand by the result, but let's let somebody else give us other view. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other views were already given at the talk page. You think just because you started discussing this here the debate simply restarted and defaulted to zero? You can't just ignore people by moving the discussion around, that's not how Wikipedia works. Hobartimus (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me how Wikipedia does not work. To be sure, I have duly read the talk page in question, I have considered ideas given there ... and I stand by my arguments, they are no less valid. No consensus (including apparent consensus) is set in stone and as we two are unable to move forward - both of us standing at our positions - I am sure other users will be able to share their views and move the discussion forward. --Ruziklan (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the December 2007 discussion, and the current discussions. However, I have to point something out here: Talkpage discussion cannot trump Wikipedia policy. As it stands, List of Slovaks is in gross breach of the first pillar of Wikipedia policy. We are not here to provide original research. All information here must be linked to reliable sources. The threshold for what can be included is Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To be specific: No name should go onto the list, unless there is a reliable source which describes that individual as a Slovak. So instead of disagreeing about the exact definition, I recommend some rapid progress in providing sources for the names that are there. Any names for which there are no sources, should be removed. --Elonka 06:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is of course completely reasonable and going even to the deeper roots, thank you.

The question is now, how we should proceed practically. Should we delete the content of list except people with already sourced identity (e.g. on their own pages), should we allow some time to source identity people already on the list and delete reamining people? Finally, how that can be done most effciently if multiple people are expected to contribute in terms of collaboration? What would you recommend?

Another difficult issue was already mentioned by me a few times above. Let's imagine that I manage to find the Slovak source (I mean reliable source according to reliable sources) claiming that person XY is Slovak scientist. His article in Wikipedia however says and even other independent sources however claim, that he was of some other identity(ies). Should XY be included in the list? I would say yes, with proper noting of these points. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, taking your questions one at a time: Per WP:V, anyone can remove unsourced information on sight. However, simply going in and blanking the page could potentially be seen as a violation of WP:POINT. A gentler way to do this would be to add {{cn}} (citation-needed) tags next to anything you're not sure about. I spot-checked some other "List of (nationality)" lists, and to be honest, most of them are very poor in terms of sourcing. But consensus is pretty clear that just because one article might be poorly-written, doesn't give the excuse for other similar articles to be of poor quality. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  :)

For now, I've placed an overall tag about sourcing at the top of the page, and, speaking for myself, I am willing to give some time for sources to be found. Then again, if someone does remove all unsourced information, I would have a hard time seeing that as block-worthy disruptive, since they'd have WP:V backing them up. I was chatting off-wiki with another admin about this earlier today, and his reaction was, "Clear out the list. Insist that any person added must have a source referring to them as a Slovak. The end. Block anyone who adds without sourcing."

So, believe it or not, I'm actually going softer on you guys than another admin might.  ;) We're all volunteers here, so it's a bit "luck of the draw". I hope you guys think I'm doing a good job, but I'm prepared in case anyone decides to hate me for my crackdown here.  ;) The way it usually works on unsourced info though, is that on a non-controversial article, if someone adds info without a source, it'll probably get a "source needed" added to it. BUT, if someone removes the information, then it had better stay gone unless someone re-adds it with a source. If someone tries to edit-war to re-add the information without a source, they're clearly on the losing side of the policy at that point.

As for your second question, if you have a reliable source saying that someone is a Slovak scientist, then I would have no objection to their name going on the list. If the individual is also claimed by other ethnicities, and there are reliable sources which state it, his name should go on those lists too. It might be worth adding a special footnote such as "this individual is claimed by multiple ethnicities", but that's up to the editors to figure out. The only case that might be made for not including him on the Slovak list, might be one of undue weight. Or in other words, if 100 reliable sources say that a scientist is (for example) Italian, and only 1 says that he is Slovak, and the information on Wikipedia is challenged, it might be worth discussing him on the talkpage to determine if too much weight is being given to his Slovak heritage, and/or if the 1 source might be a fringe source, or even if it might be a typo (mistakes happen!). But that's multiple "if's", so it would take some doing to get into that grey area. Or in other words, I'd only worry about it if it comes up. --Elonka 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do think you do the excellent job here, thank you for the answers. For me the situation with the List of Slovaks is pretty clear now. --Ruziklan (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred's credibility

Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:[24]. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users. Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:[25], from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:[26].

Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users[27] (last comments)

Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your contributions and you are a good example of tendentious editing. Why is inserting Hungarian names into Slovakia-related articles basically the only thing you do in Wikipedia? How does that help in English Wikipedia?--Svetovid (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Trnava

• Trnava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To introduce another edit war article that is already within scope of this experiment, I have inspected recent edits at Trnava article. The reverting is centered around sentence with two versions (I have emphasized the different word):

"The St. Adalbert Association (Spolok sv. Vojtecha), founded in 1870 when the Slovak foundation (Matica slovenská) was prohibited by the Hungarian authorities, kept up the Slovak national conscience at a time of strong Magyarisation in Hungary."

"The St. Adalbert Association (Spolok sv. Vojtecha), founded in 1870 when the Slovak foundation (Matica slovenská) was prohibited by the Hungarian authorities, kept up the Slovak national conscience at a time of strong industrialization in Hungary."

My two cents follow. This sentence tries to explain the role of Spolok sv. Vojtecha at the time, and the role was (besides other roles) keeping up the national conscience. Although the industrialization might have taken place at that time as well, Magyarisation is the key process that was countered by this role of Spolok sv. Vojtecha. Therefore the sentence makes more sense in the first version. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have started a discussion with Nmate, who was the one who kept replacing "Magyarization" with "industrialization". See Talk:Trnava#Strong Magyarization, User talk:Nmate#Your_edits_2 and User talk:Markussep#Reply. At least the edit war has stopped for now. The main point Nmate seems to be trying to make is that Slovaks also did nasty things to Hungarians. Markussep ^Talk 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems resolved, already being discussed at talk. The only point to make here is to note the people who participated on the talk page discussion and also note those who did not while reverting. We should start removing the threads that are resolved before this page quickly becomes unusable (or is that exactly the purpose of constantly opening new threads?). Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I think Elonka should close the thread as - firstly - we are on her talk page, and - secondly - she can show us how to do such closing properly (I mean e.g. to me). (Short answer to your question in parentheses is No.) --Ruziklan (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious IP

Since I am under editing restrictions, I will not warn 78.99.21.163 against vandalism or revert them. But you may be interested in checking their edits. They blanked Bratislava[28] and replaced official geographic names by their Hungarian versions in an article, in which Rembaoud has done the same before.[29] They also replaced the official English geographic name by a Hungarian one here.[30] Tankred (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, and thank you for honoring the restrictions. If you see obvious vandalism though (and I mean blatantly obvious, such as blanking a page), you are still allowed to fix it. If it's just a content dispute though, then it's best to just express your concerns at the talkpage, and/or bring it up at the centralized page. See also WP:VANDAL --Elonka 03:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, this is the point, where I have to ask you to delete that user wich ususally writes from 78.99.etc., for this move. By suspicion, it could be MarkBA.(see your summary page) I listed a lot of 78.99.etc. IPs on your talkpage and on your summary page at April 17., between 19:12 and 19:26 :

User_talk:Elonka&action=history

1. (cur) (last) 19:26, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (30,669 bytes) (→Playing out of rules) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 19:25, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (30,503 bytes) (→Playing out of rules) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 19:24, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (30,462 bytes) (→Playing out of rules: new section) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&action=history User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&action=history]

1. (cur) (last) 19:22, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (66,567 bytes) (→Tankred's userpage: ohhhohhhohohohohoooo) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 19:17, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (65,984 bytes) (→Tankred's userpage: new one and an agressive one) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 19:12, 17 April 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (65,638 bytes) (→Tankred's userpage) (undo)

These are my edits about 78.99.etc and 84.47.etc. This IP, Tankred showed above is 78.99.etc. and had its first edit at "20:08, 17 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Pavel Jozef Šafárik".

Do I really look that "dumb"? :) I report such activity then within 30 minutes I go into IP and blank pages and do the opposite from the same IP range wich all have the same WHOIS datas? :) Elonka, please, we both know what had just happened. Please take the necessary actions: compare the IP with the IPs of users involved, and ban for life who's it was. This impersonation attempt should not be without conseqences. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here's a clue, where may I reside btw: Hungarians in Slovakia. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "TReWs" :)

T=True R=Revert W=Warriors - The True Revert Warriors:

Block logs cleary reveals whom are the "real revert warriors".

• User:Svetovid: 3x blocked for edit warring, look at his contribution list[31]. When he was unable to manage Nmate blocked, he eventually attacked the administrator wich tried to mediate between them. See this:[32] and this oddity[33]. He made some other funny "steps" against this "biased user", but I dont wan't to turn this summary into some cabaret even more.
• User:Tankred:4x blocked, all during edit warrings, twice he was paroled due to bad WP:3RR policies, wich punishes the more agressive. Stop here, and think a bit, while looking at his contribution list[34] that how disruptive this user can be, if he can make many users such angry that they can be even more (!) agressive. Tankred is under general restriction since April 17.
• User:PANONIAN: 3x blocked for edit warring. There's a note on his(?) userpage wich shows that when he "finished editing" on nov 6, there was a discussion about him on the Hungarian wikipedians noticeboard, that they fed up with PANONIAN's behaviour[35] and want(ed) to take it into some higher "court". It seems, that he created and uploaded misleading and even false maps at large. This should be investigated for good. When he "came back" for some edits, an IP told him, that there is a community ban proposal written for PANONIAN[36], and will be posted, if he "dares to come back". Not the best way of informing about a proposal, true, but it can be fully uprehended, looking at this list.
• User:MarkBA - no blocks but mass uncivility and multiple attempts to manage Nmate blocked wich all fall back on him[37], since he was way more uncivil to Nmate (and others in general). Probably he got, what he gave, and Tankred vs Nmate possibly the same. Mark now seemingly edit warring from at least one IP [38] if true. This is possibly him too[[39]], if the previous was, since both are 78.99.(...), and WHOIS are the same. Pretty sure that there is more of his IPs out there, probably breaking 3RR, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and eventually everything else. Massive general attacks: "couple of mobs pushing their crazy political propaganda", "being chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "fight extreme nationalist and chauvinistic edits" (see the favourite words? "chauvinistic", "propaganda", "nationalist" :)) ) - obviously referring to Hobartimus, Squash Racket and - probably - me. Indirect personal attacks. It should be deleted as well as Tankred's such attack was[40], for good.
• User:Tulkolahten:3x blocked for edit warring. Posted also multiple misleading edit summaries. When it is revealed[41], he goes into edit warring and a lame dispute[42], trying to prove that red is indeed, not red, just seems like red. Tulkolahten's edit summaries are also lacking credibility. See the latest:[43] and try to find when did Hradec Kralove became HK (aka a non-german town) (some wikiclues:Expulsion of Germans after World War II & [44]). This edit is what I call history falsification. Tulkolahten is under general restriction since March 30.

Favourite words they used describing Hungarian users: "chauvinist", "propaganda", "joining co-ethnics"[45], "nationalist" etc. See many links above and elsewhere on this page. General uncivility, constant abuse and accusations ("chauvinist", "vandal", etc, guess what else). Mass and general uncivility, many of it on the edge of personal attacks or even being personal attacks.

• User:Hobartimus:No blocks.
• User:Nmate:[46] One block for "disruption" for 12 hours, despite the constant and huge and etc etc. you already know all. 1 block for 12 hrs despite being the "public enemy no.1." for Tankred, Svetovid and co. I would be intrested who could get less while being under constant heated attacks from multiple (usually 3 editors) and posted twice a day at WP:ANI, WP:VANDAL and whatever community page where admins block users, everywhere being described [Nmate] by them [Tankred] as the evil himself. A wish for blocking Nmate is posted here on this page too. What a suprise. :) Are you still wondering why Nmate posts such comments as this:[47]
• User:Squash Racket:blocked once for edit warring, during a dispute with guess who:[48]. Yes, Tankred. He obviously flurred him up, as he did with me, when I asked for the deletion of my account. If it wouldn't sound funny I would say this is his "tactic". Driving ppl to madness, edit warring and mass uncivility. He's doing it well btw.

• User:Rembaoud. No blocks, and nothing else, and won't be. I asked for the deletion of my account solely as a protest against Tankred's mere existence on English Wikipedia. I believe from my full heart and from what I saw and linked, that the Wikipedia would be a much better place without Tankred, and that without Tankred and Svetovid, the cooperation between Slovak and Hungarian users would not be a funny utopia. Or at least I hope that they were not able to burn up all bridges between Slovak and Hungarian users, despite their constant agressive attempts during the years to create a "frontline" and create a "fortress" from where they can "shoot" at Hungarian users.

And I haven't summarized the constant misuse of warning templates, however Tankred usually collects and links them all as "evidence" despite that they were at least once asked to refrain from posting false warnings or misuse of them. I cant find the link so please link it here, if you find:[ ]. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not blocked 3 times, only once. Please read it properly, the first block was quickly unblocked by another administrator. I assume very uncivil to bring block that is one year old to get down my arguments. As my summary about Hradec Kralove, look for this in the diff In 1840, he returned to Bratislava via Prague and Königgrätz and I changed it to this In 1840, he returned to Bratislava via Prague and Hradec Králové. I changed it again and I started a discussion on the talk page per Elonka's advice. The summary by Gene Nygaard was explained by Wanderer and some other editors that may assume word falsification in a very offensive meaning. I don't see any point here from you. And your comment about Hradec Kralove as a German city, I think it is just a misunderstanding by you that can be very easily corrected in the close library where you should go and borrow some book about history of Central Europe, sometimes it helps, believe me. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One more point, you will not win if you call us all as edit warrers, uncivil creatures etc. etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

General restrictions I am placed on require me to stay civil and I am civil. Nothing more, nothing less. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do these descriptions lead to any dispute resolution? I believe these are against the spirit and aim of this talk page. Elonka has cleaned the table for everyone, all older actions were under kind of amnesty. Please, concentrate on discussion of the content of disputed articles. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Tulkolahten's comment and minne, that Tulkolahten was blocked for edit warring multiple times, so calling him an "edit warrer" is nothing but writing down pure facts. His block log is the source for ths claim. Tankred, Svetovid the same. But it is enough to look at your contribution lists. 4/5th (or even more) are "undid revision..."

I didn't call anyone "uncivil creature", but simply uncivil, BUT I provided many links also to prove my belief that what I see and call "mass uncivility" is - in fact - mass uncivility, and I am absolutely convinced about it, as everything I stated about you. With links proving it. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to think that you are unable to read, but have you read the blocks in my block log? I don't think so. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - then immediately unblocked as not 3RR at all. The last block for 3RR was valid and is 1 year old. What has to do with the current situation please? Are mine arguments worse then yours because of that ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed[49], that all the IPs were MarkBA's. --Rembaoud (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we close this thread too? A related issue: I also expect Rembaoud to remove his personal attacks from the CheckUser page. Tankred (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava topics

The Central Europe history is very complicated. Bratislava was parts of Hungary 1000 years, but now it is Slovakia capital.(treaty of trianon) Slovakia's own history is very little.Slovaks wrote Bratislava's history on the wikipedia (Bratislava/history chapter, History of Bratislava, Bratislava Castle) and these articles are very one-sided. Because these topics the Slovak nationalist's guarded area, putting NPOV-templates out to them would cause a serious scandal. A good solution would be later if these articles would receive totally protected status, and neutral administrators (not Slavs) could rewrite this themes.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe all this upheaval at wiki is not about Central Europe's complicated history, but rather about a user not familiar with how Wikipedia works. Despite all the warnings on his/her user talk page, User:Nmate keeps making childish jokes about living persons, saying nasty things about non-Hungarian nations, and attacking other editors. Here are some examples:

• He/she abused Wikipedia's article to claim that Slovakia's prime minister's "true confession" and "self-criticism looking back on the Fico cabinet's activities" is a 17th-century outlaw.[50] Wikipedia is not a place for political commentaries. Please also note that he/she called an IP a "clone" of an established user and a previous unproblematic version of an article "serious vandalism" in his/her edit summary.
• He/she makes inappropriate jokes about other editors, calling another user "he Czech lion which defending his Slovak siblings"[51], suggesting that two editors are followers of a neo-Nazi leader Marian Kotleba[52] (this was completely uncalled for and especially disturbing for me as my grand father was in a concentration camp), and calling other people's work "dubious Pan-Slavic propaganda".[53]
• He/she said: "There is a Hungarian joke that whole Slovakia's only history is possible to send in a short mobile phone's text messsage."[54] Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it has offended many people here.
• After being warned agianst hate speech, he/she continued in the same tone: "the important historical events should be there and so Slovak historical event is not exist before the 20th century".[55]

Many people have tried to talk to him/her, but it did not work. All the deleted warnings (up to NPA4 if I remember well) may be found in the history of his/her user talk page. I feel a stronger action is needed to show him/her that Wikipedia has some rules that make our work more efficient and pleasant. Tankred (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the first point, he cited a source for the most part. If you don't agree with it, you can modify it. You just removed it, although Prime Minister Fico really talked about Jánosik as a role model which is definitely relevant. Your edit may be criticised just as well.

All other cases happened before a Wikiquette Alerts discussion (26 March) for which he's already been warned, presenting these as new cases is a bit misleading.

Let's not forget how he received some of those warnings. He's a relatively new user, so asking him to read WP:CIV would be OK I think.

Regarding offensive edit summaries someone else has also a thing or two to learn despite being an experienced user. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For "Bratislava" "(...)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.", aaaaand: "(...) Legions on January 1 1919 (only the left river bank; the right river bank, not belonging to Bratislava yet, was occupied only on August 14th). It has been chosen as seat of Slovak political organs over Martin and Nitra]]; the government moved to the city on 4–5 February. On March 27, the town's official new name becomes "Bratislava" - instead of "Prešporok" (Slovak) / "Pressburg" (German) / "Pozsony" (Hungarian)." from History of Bratislava#20th_century - so wherever anyone restored "Bratislava" in pre-March 27 1919 context had falsified history, and highly compromised Wikipedia's credibility, and to say something rude and true to talk about: vandalized those particlular Wikipedia pages. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When talking about present day city's history, it's common to use its current name. It's not a falsification of history; it's a matter of convenience. See, for example, London.--Svetovid (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)