Talk:Ștefan Kovács

Ștefan vs Istvan

There is no sources that indicates that his real name was Istvan. Csurla , please stop adding the Hungarian name to the infobox. 79.117.211.187 (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is source for István and it is also indicated in artcile. Pls read again. - Csurla (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Negyven éve: két magyar az Európa-válogatottban

Hungarian:

Bő egy hónappal később, június 9-én, a belgrádi Szport című lap megalapításának 10. évfordulója tiszteletére rendezett meccsen (Crvena zvezda–Világválogatott 2-2, tizenegyesekkel 7-6) Mészöly Kálmán és Albert Flórián játszott a jugoszláv fővárosban, a csapat edzője az Ajax erdélyi mestere, Kovács István volt.

the trainer of team was Transilvanian István Kovács who managed Ajax.

Bye - Csurla (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is written only that the Hungarian form of the name was Kovács István, not that this was his native name 79.117.216.98 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He was Hungarian, his native name is Hungarian. Easy? - Csurla (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to show us his birth certificate / identity card to prove that his given name was Istvan 79.117.184.208 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? I preferred the discussion with real user instead of anon. Pls make an account. - Csurla (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN

I asked for some extra oponions about Csurla's source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WP:SPS_or_not.3FPlease don't modify the article again before consensus Folbal1 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with modification. You are the only one user who delete eveything this article with related Stefan Kovács Hungarian origin. Stop the war! You have any normally contribution in wikipedia just deletion from this article. - Csurla (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reliable source about that (in my opinion) Folbal1 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And in this reason enough you delete fact? It's not enugh. You create edit warring! Pls stop this activities in wikipedia. You just destroy here. - Csurla (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion, SPS is failed [1]. - Csurla (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the page for two days to stop the edit warring. The thing to do now is to calmly discuss the content and to try and find a solution that you can both live with. If you can't find a solution by yourself, then I recommend going to WP:3O or WP:DRN. I don't fully protecting pages for too long, though, so if the edit warring continues after the protection expires then I will probably use blocks instead. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This part contains a proper source but it was deleted. Protection is a good idea, but without this part absolutely wrong choice. - Csurla (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, admins don't get to be picky about which version they protect an article at - see The Wrong Version. Now you need to find a consensus on what to do, and once you've done that then I can unprotect the article for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a part to article with reliable source. Meanwhile I found further sources. That is the consesus for me. I will added this part as soon as possible. Folbal1 just try to find newer administative reason for deletion. - Csurla (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you have a consensus "for you" that doesn't include Folbal, then that isn't much of a consensus in my view. If you still disagree after the protection expires then the correct thing is to go to dispute resolution, preferably WP:3O or WP:DRN. I don't like fully protecting pages more than is absolutely necessary, so if you begin edit warring again after the protection expires then I will be handing out blocks this time. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)