Amon Koth

Hungarian names in Romania

Hello, I new topic was opened on the wiki noticeboard here. If you could join the discussion it would be appreciated.Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question re your account

Amon, I noticed that your few contributions on enWiki are in relation to the Hungarian names in Romanian places dispute. The inference of Rokarudi's comments is that you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I don't believe that is the case. I think it is more likely that you are active on another Wikipedia. A link on your user page to another language main user account (if you have it) would help to prove that you are not a sockpuppet. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not posses another account an any other Wikipedia, but I will offer any necessary information that will help dispel the accusation brought against me. I am also willing to do a user check if it will help speed up the process. Indeed I have very few contributions because at this stage I am more interested in sampling Wiki and getting familiar with the rules. While I have plans for several articles, they are far from finished and will have to wait until completion. Amon Koth (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Amon, I wouldn't worry too much about Rokarudi's comments. If a WP:SPI is started in bad faith it will soon be shown for what it is. Such things come under WP:DE and are dealt with by admins in the customary manner. By all means write a few articles. If you're not sure how to create a pesonal sandbox and would like one, let me know and I'll create it for you. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your reassuring comment and I will take your advice on the articles, however I would dare not bother you with the sandbox issue which I will create myself. I thank you for your attitude and for showing an understanding towards new editors like me, considering that there are even experienced editors which have a less reasonable "approach" towards newcomers. Amon Koth (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was new once! Some editors seem to forget that they too were newbies once. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

User:Amon Koth, whenever I am not in agreement with User:Nmate&Co I am accused for socket puppeting on a daily basis, unofficially, in an attempt to discredit my reputation because they simply cannot come up with a valid counter argument. The "newest" accusation is that I am User:Olahus`s sockpuppet. The WP:ABF is great! In the article there are some sentences that perfectly describe some users attitude like : That editor who's supporting my opponent is either a puppet or a friend called in to help. After all, could more than one person oppose my natural good sense? :-)). To bad this is not an official rule :-). iadrian (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amon Koth. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Otto adler

A tag has been placed on Otto adler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

pointless spam

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ilikepieittastesgood 23:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute [1]. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus not reached ?

Hello, I have read the whole section again [2] and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end [3] just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Székelyföld

First of all, I want to thank you for contributing to the articles on Transylvania. However, I am confused about some of your recent edits and would appreciate it if you could help me to understand them better. First: what is your reasoning for including the German names of majority-Hungarian settlements in Transylvania with no documented present-day German populations? (In general, at least until this recent spate of edit-warring, the general consensus has been to mention names used by sizeable minorities [let's say 20% or greater] in the opening, and to mention any others further down into the body of the article. There has not been enough mention of Transylvania's former German community in most of the articles here, but if they are no longer there, it hardly seems necessary to put the anachronistic German name in the lead). And second: what exactly is your objection to mentioning Szent-Anna-tó's significance to Székely people in the Tusnádfürdő article? The edit summary (every stone and log, etc.) is difficult to interpret as being "in good faith" but I assume that I'm wrong about that and that you actually have an excellent reason. Hubacelgrand (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reproducing your first two sentences in my current comment would have the same validity. Regarding the issues raised by yourself:

• settlements with almost no documented present day population. If this is your argument, allow me to present similar cases:

1. Zalau has the German name in the lead yet there were 46 (0.07%) Germans;
2. Braila has the Bulgarian and Turkish names in the lead yet there were 27 Bulgarians (0.01%) and 161 Turks(0.07%);
3. Bacau has the German and Hungarian names in the lead yet there were 83 Germans (0.04%) and 191 (0.10%) Hungarians;
4. Suceava has the Polish and Ukrainian name in the lead yet there were 252 (0.23%) Poles and 287 (0.27%) Ukrainians;
5. Resita has the Czech name in the lead yet there were 140 (0.16%) Czechs;
6. Piatra Neamt has the German and Hungarian name in the lead yet there were 148 (0.14%) Hungarians and 66 (0.06%) Germans;
7. Tulcea has the Bulgarian language specified in the lead (the Bulgarian name is the same with the Lipovan-Russian and Ukrainian name) yet there were 32 (0.03%) Bulgarians;

There are many similar examples to be found. Notes:

1. data is taken from the official 2002 Romanian census;
2. the proportion of the minority population used for reference is less than 0.3% in all the cases;
3. the settlements used for reference have not been under any administrative control of the minority considered (with the exception of the Turkish control of Braila); while all of Transilvania was incorporated into the Habsburg Empire for well over a century.

Siebenbürgen still holds a certain significance for the German ethnic group. I would have never thought that including the existing name of one of the historical minorities of Siebenbürgen would represent an issue. And if you rely on the minimum 20% minority, know there are a throng of settlements where the Hungarian name is used in the lead even if the Hungarian population is well under 20%. I have not removed an alternative language name from the lead of an article, and do not plan to do so.

• Saint Anna's Lake. Making the Hungarian name of a geophysical item from Romania official and elevating its importance at the cost of the most relevant - i.e. English - language is difficult to interpret as being "in good faith" (quoting from your previous paragraph). You should also check Wikipedia's naming conventions WP:PLACE and WP:NAME and the previous discussion about this matter at [4] where Rokarudi was involved but did not agree with the general consensus. The reason for removing the significance was simple, because no source was offered for it. I have encountered similar claims made by the same editor on other articles as well. I understand that every settlement (and surrounding areas) where a minority (from a wider geographical area) is, in fact, a majority is important in one way or another. However, mentioning this too often while not even offering valid sources only dilutes from the said importance, if any.

I saw your discussion with Iadrian at his talk page and noticed you consider yourself neither Hungarian nor Szekely. On your talk page you have also specified, through userboxes and your own rating, a higher level of knowledge of the Romanian language when compared to the Hungarian one. Yet most of the time you mention Hungarian names (see your last comment for example) in discussions. Also taking into consideration the Hungarian POV you exude, your ethnicity really doesn't matter that much. Amon Koth (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly and politely. You may have a point that mentioning minority names (in this example, German names) in the lead is precedented and in theory, I also find it unobjectionable. In the articles for settlements with former significant Saxon or Donauschwab populations, you can make an excellent case for keeping the German names in the lead (a case which I would support) - Kronstadt, Mühlbach, Hermannstadt, Lugosch, Temeschwar/Temeschburg, and so forth. Most of the settlements in Harghita and Covasna, though, have minimal German populations and no historical ties (that I have ever read or heard about, at least) to the Saxons/Schwabs. Furthermore, to my knowledge, in none of the settlements in Harghita or Covasna is German used officially, even on the local level. The Siebenbürgen that is significant to Germans does not, in general, include the Székely Land, as I am sure you understand. Finally, I'd like to make a personal admission and a personal request. When I first saw your edits on Székely-related topics, I hastily assumed I was dealing with a Romanian nationalist. The more I read your arguments, the less I am convinced that is the case, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions with some of the suggestions I may have made. In the same spirit, I would ask that you avoid characterizing my POV as "Hungarian" - in fact I have personal ties to multiple sides of the ethnic divide in Transylvania and am trying extremely hard to be as respectful as possible. I am not a policeman for Hungarian interests; I am simply troubled by what in some quarters could be seen as a sudden campaign (not exclusively yours by any means) to minimize the importance of the ethnic-Hungarian majority to certain regions in eastern Transylvania. Finally, thanks for helping to build the consensus on naming at the discussion page on Székely naming/maps. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lunca de Sus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Also, please don't accuse other of vandalism, if you disagree with their edits. Content disputes are not the same as vandalism. If you keep accusing others, and violating policies such as WP:NPA/WP:AGF you may find yourself subject to restriction under this sanction.--Nmate (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nontheism

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism.

Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)