User talk:Doncsecz~enwiki

Archive 1

Languages of Slovenia

I've removed the Prekmurian language - what is published in popular magazines is not a reliable source. You have to provide references that have been published in peer reviewed sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm using English because it is about the content of an article in English and I want the conversation to be available to other editors too. (Pišem v angleščini, ker gre za članek v angleščini, zato želim, da lahko prebere vsakdo.) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point about Večer and Feri Lainšček getting the Prešeren Award. However, what counts as a reliable source in linguistics and any other science is only an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."[1] I have no doubt it's easy to find peer-reviewed articles treating Prekmurian in language, but it's up to you to provide peer-reviewed articles discussing Prekmurian as a language. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oprosti, ampak to ni tako. Čeprav zdaj ne najdem tiste strani, kjer je Toporišič menil o prekmurščini, ampak Vilko Novak tudi veš da je znan znanstvenik je bil, in zelo zadeven Prekmurec. On javno ni napisal, ampak sem slišal o njem, da je privezan bil tudi prekmurščini. Zinka Zorko in drugi tudi so napisali, da je prekmurščina ni vsakdanašnjo narečje. Doncsecz^talk 13:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ampak ne razveljavi vse, kaj sem napisal! Ne morem tak hitro virov najdti. Doncsecz^talk 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kot sem rekel, ne zanima nas, kaj je res, ampak samo poročamo o tem, kar je bilo objavljeno. Tvoje mnenje je zelo zanimivo, vendar ga najprej objavi v ugledni reviji, da ga bomo lahko uporabili in citirali kot zanesljiv vir. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Doncsecz, it seems there is no consensus about the inclusion of 'Prekmurian' in the article Languages of Slovenia (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia#Languages of Slovenia) and at least four(!) editors (Doremo, Mhus, 89.212.243.255 and me) find it does not belong there. I suggest you show some good faith, remove the section from the article, and try to build consensus for its inclusion first by using dispute resolution processes, or I'll have to report you for disregarding the 3 reverts rule and for tendentious editing. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I've reported you at WP:ANEW.[2] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks the warning. Doncsecz^talk 10:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop slandering me (or other editors)

Your comments in both English and Slovenian are unsupported ad hominem attacks: “Doremo ... be a stranger this informations”, [[3]] “you beforehand disbelieve” [[4]], “Doremo pa veliko stvari ne pozna” [[5]], and perhaps even racist: “Doremo moreover is not Slovene” [[6]]. Please engage in civil discourse on WP.Doremo (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And you, on end query this informations with disused sources. No got it, that here formerly just in rascist- and communistic-wise abuse the Prekmurian? Now other things exist. In my country and in the Prekmurje in 1950s the Communists prohibit the Prekmurian. Vilko Novak in 1956 in Felsőszölnök deliver a speech in Prekmurian and in Yugosalvia the Communists suspect Novak. Doncsecz^talk 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop insulting WP editors

Your comments referring to other editors as "dunce person" ([[7]]) and that they "scores cock" (whatever that means, it certainly sounds vulgar) are not civil. Please review Wikipedia:Etiquette and help contribute to consensus-based changes in a positive and constructive atmosphere. Doremo (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Prekmurje dialect template

I'm not really involved with the Prekmurje dialect article, but an Afd template is requesting total deletion of the article which does not appear to be appropriate since it is well developed, extensively cited, long standing, and exists in other versions on quite a few other language wikipedias (36 others by my count). My recommendation is to continue to engage other interested editors on the Prekmurje dialect talk page with your concerns. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

re:Hungarian Ostern

Hi. 1) The English is terrible, 2) It doesn't make sense and 3) it's completly unsourced. Lugnuts (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop insulting editors

You latest comment ("do not write stupid!") is insulting. Please find another way to interact with editors on Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Slovene dialects

I deleted the text because 1) it is inaccurate (claiming that the Prekmurje dialect is the only dialect in which dialect texts are produced), 2) it gives undue weight to one item in an otherwise simple list, and 3) it is written in very poor English. I suggest that you delete your addition and instead seek consensus from other editors on whether it should be included in the article. Doremo (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ferenc Marics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ferenc Marics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rabbitfang 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you object to the deletion of this page, make your argument on the article's talk page so it can be seen by an admin before it gets deleted. Thank you. Rabbitfang 07:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ferenc Marics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ferenc Marics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rabbitfang 07:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Ferenc Marics, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Rabbitfang 07:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

don't worry about it too much, it was a totally inappropriate nomination nomination for deletion.

As reviewing administrator, I removed the tag, and commented on User talk:Rabbitfang. We cover the entire world equally, and I encourage you as strongly as I can to continue to translate articles from other Wikipedias that are missing here. We need more people to do this. DGG ( talk ) 12:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Branko Pintarič

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Branko Pintarič requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Branko Pintarič

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Branko Pintarič requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion templates

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Branko Pintarič, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Branko Pintarič. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Branko Pintarič for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Branko Pintarič is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branko Pintarič until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slovene dialects. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your post at WT:SLO

There are several problems with this edit that I hope you will be able to avoid repeating. Please re-read WP:CIVIL, and note that communications on talk pages should be in English. Also please note that this request was posted at the suggestion of an uninvolved editor responding to a WP:3O request: [8]. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration clarification

A request for arbitration clarification involving you has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_WP:DIGWUREN_or_WP:ARBMAC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Typical terms

Prekmurian is a possible formation (as are Burgenlandian, Vorarlbergian, Tuscanian, Kordunian, etc.). Nonetheless, it is less typical in the literature on the topic. Wikipedia must rely on typical usage. This may help you: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". Doremo (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Typical usage should be followed, regardless of individual instances of variant names. Please review Common names. Doremo (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then Slovenian Wikipedia should use the word prekmurščina. That's OK with me; I don't contribute to Slovenian WP. Doremo (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your last comment. Doremo (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to latest comment

Wikipedia must rely on typical usage. This may help you: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". Typical usage should be followed, regardless of individual instances of variant names. Please review Common names. Doremo (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Međimurje

You falsely claimed that the form Medmürska žüpanija is attested in Slovar stare knjižne prekmurščine, page 241. It is not. That is why it was removed. Doremo (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've already said, the form Medmürska žüpanija is not attested in Slovar stare knjižne prekmurščine. If you can cite an authentic source for the term, that's OK. WP requires reliable sources. Doremo (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Prekmurje dialect

Please refrain from making talk page edits like this. WP Talk page guidelines state that "The basic rule ... is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Doremo (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Many things are nonsense. Nonetheless, WP policy is not to delete the comments of other editors on talk pages. Doremo (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moravian language

As a native speaker of Moravian, I'm glad to see it having its own article also at this Wikipedia. The article is, nonetheless, written in a very poor English. I would like to improve it, but sometimes it's really hard to understand what it should actually mean – that's why I prefer rewriting it from scratch.

As for the article by Zbyšek Šustek, I suggest not to rely on the information stated therein. It has received a very negative review and, honestly, I don't find it very serious either. In order to preserve the quality of ‘our’ article, let's be pickier about the sources we base on. Kind regards, Määriläinen (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I replied at my talk page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Moravia#Moravia_and_the_Moravian_language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Slovene dialects: please revert your change and discuss it first on the talk page

Your recent edit at Slovene dialects has damaged the markup for the note format, as I noted in my earlier revision. The page cannot remain like this. In any case, the note was a compromise solution helpfully provided by User:Yerpo on 15 September 2011 to resolve a dispute. Because the point was previously an object of dispute, it would be appropriate for you to revert your change (including your deletion of the English-language source and replacement with a Hungarian-language source) and to discuss it first on the talk page. This will help achieve consensus on whether your change is a constructive addition to the article. Doremo (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slovene dialects. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Doremo (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bible translations into Prekmurian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carinthia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring: warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Doncsecz_reported_by_Eleassar_my_talk_.28Result:_.29 --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for failure to adhere to WP:NPOV by editorialising in articles and edit-warring to reinstate it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I not accept to this blocked. This was not edit war, this graffitys was provocations in 2009 in Murska Sobota. Doncsecz^talk 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doncsecz~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Admin HJ Mitchell me blocked with an expiry time 2 weeks, but not examine my case in the article Republic of Prekmurje, about a graffity, which was a provocation in 2009. Moreover a new user vandalised my personal user page and placed the template: You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Please my unblocked! Copied from unblock-en-l due to a backlog. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Speedy deletion nomination of Irén Pavlics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Irén Pavlics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shriram (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Irén Pavlics

Hi Doncsecz, you recently removed a deletion tag from Irén Pavlics. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Irén Pavlics. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: List of Slovene writers

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary". Thank you. -- Dialectric (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

When you create new articles, feel free to add the names into List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary. As long as the names are uncited redlinks, they do not belong in the list. Your recent revert restored a number of redlinks, which should be removed. Please discuss this further on the article talk page, where I have explained my reasoning. Dialectric (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please revert your re-addition of redlinked names in List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary, as discussed on that article's talk page. I have attempted to pursue this as a disupute resolution, and my next step will be to raise the issue on the Administrators' noticeboard. Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited László Kovács (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hi. When making edits to the date pages like September 22, please don't link generic terms like Hungarian-Slovene or years of death in the births section or years of birth in the deaths section. You will see that none of these are linked. If you have questions, please ask. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Irén Pavlics

The article Irén Pavlics has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 18:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Szőlős

Hello. I'm very sorry to revert you again, but what you've inserted into the article is not English and cannot be understood. It cannot remain. Can you possibly find a colleague with better English to make any necessary alterations? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But this is not real: After the victory, in order to increase his power, Emperor Jovan Nenad incorporated South-Transylvania into his empire Haţeg and the Saxonland. Doncsecz^talk 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What you have put in its place is no good because it is unintelligible. Please don't keep on inserting the same nonsense. If you prefer, I can simply tag the article as {{Rough translation}} and request a translation of the article in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Would you be happy with this? --Stfg (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've done that for the Aftermath section. There's no alternative that I can see. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yopie (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Moravians (ethnic group). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yopie (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not edit war, i have sources. Doncsecz^talk 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Krasny Bor

Please look at the article talk page and history as well as related pages:

1. Spain was not a WW2 belligerent. The 250th infantry division of the wehrmacht was under German command and control. Please stop adding the Spanish Flag for the participant entry.

2. The battle involved more than just the 250th and and the overall commander was Lindemann.D2306 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not Spain, but Spanish Volunteers. Doncsecz^talk 17:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the spanish flag should especially not be there. The 250th infantry division of the wehrmacht was under German command and control. It was mainly composed of the spanish, but there were many other units with foreign volunteers. For example the Flanders legion also participated in the same battle, but that is no reason to add their flag and commander. D2306 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Non constructive edit to Battle of Valea Albă

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Battle of Valea Albă. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ʝunglejill 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

THE MOVE OF SYRIAN UPRISING IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I WANT YOU TO REVERT IT AND WAIT FOR AN ADMIN TO CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION. I WILL BE COMPLAINING TO AN ADMIN IF THIS IS NOT DONE. Tradedia (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

on the contrary, it is acceptable. I7laseral (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You say in answer to my comments on my talk page and I quote your words for the benefit of other colleagues to see and reflect on: "Excuse me, i was moved the article, but only by opinion of the United Nations." End of your comment -- Really --- Now THAT'S enough ground to revert the move that you have done. werldwayd (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

An opinion is an opinion, nothing more. And the opinion of a "certain individual" at the organization at that and not the entire organization itself and its member states. Tomorrow another individual from the UN may issue another declaration asserting some other so-called "opinion" and we change again based on this new opinionator? Please don't make this even worse on you. Revert to original title and wait for concensus which will be any time soon. No need to quote a so-called subjective opinion. werldwayd (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A further comment from you on my talk page. Quote: "Moreover, it is explicitly a civil war. The blind can see" --- Now now now. This is getting even worse. Now I do have serious doubt on the basis your premature "fait accompli" move was done. My request is: Let us wait for an administrator to see the long discussion on all this, formulate his opinion based on concensus formed and let him decide please. Meanwhile let us be, and concentrate on improving content rather than a disputed title move. werldwayd (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This move was a very bad idea due to the ongoing move discussion. It is generally considered a very bad idea to move a page while a move discussion is ongoing. Please don't do this again. As a neutral admin I have now closed the discussion as no consensus. My reasoning can be found on the talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Varna Stop changing the numbers, i am just adding a Turkish source at it, european historians tend to inflate te numbers of the Ottomans in battle.

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Zsibó, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komarno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I do not know the exact relationship between place names. In Hungarian language is much clearer, as this place was the settlements of the historical Hungary. Doncsecz^talk 15:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Raab

Whether Hungary should be listed as an independent country, during the Napoleonic Wars, or not should be discussed on the Napoleonic Wars talk page, not on this particular article. So far, the presence of an independent Hungarian army in the battle of Raab is not proven. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC);

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, you haven't brought any valuable evidence so far (see WP:BURDEN). 10:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place to discuss it. Your point of view is unsourced. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)