User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dealing with disruptive editors

Hiya, as part of my ongoing research into this on Wikipedia, I was looking at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and I didn't like it much, especially its section on "how to deal with them". So I just rewrote it, effectively tripling it in size. Could you all take a look at it, let me know what you think? This is the set of steps not so much for ethnic content disputes, but for dealing with an editor who isn't an out and out vandal, but is inserting unacceptable information, and reverting anyone who tries to change it: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors. I paid particular attention to adding steps for cases where admins are requested, but aren't responding in a timely manner.

Based on your own experiences, is this now adequate? Do you think it's helpful? Did you learn anything new? Or if it's going to "break", where do you think the weak points still are? Thanks, Elonka 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice and helpful expansion. But I am afraid two weak points of the procedure are ANI and RfC. We have asked for RfC several times (even repeatedly for the same article) and there was no or only very little and totally random feedback. ANI has been used frequently during Hungarian-Slovak disputes, but generally to no avail. Both reports and defenses have mostly consisted of quote mining and ad hominem attacks and counterattacks. That can obscure even a really serious incident to the point that no administrators are unwilling to take any action in what appears to be a rather messy case. Sometimes, a thread is archived even without any reaction at all. Moreover, there is a tendency to support a new disruptive (or just unsocialized) user if a report against him/her is filed by someone who has enemies here. Conflicts in the past have often spill-overs across seemingly unrelated pages. As far as I can tell, all these problems are more general and not specific to the Hungarian-Slovak edit warring. Finally, it would perhaps help if WP:Verifiability and WP:Cite were emphasized in the welcome template and in Help:Contents/Getting started. Many new users are not familiar with the rules and they do not know they should use reliable published sources. It would also help to reduce the number of policy pages because no new user wants to read dozens of confusing policies, guidelines, and essays. After they actually read the policy pages, some editors think they can use any website as a source. So they go to Google and try to find the keywords supporting their point. I think the policies should favor more explicitly peer-reviewed academic journals, books, and well-known official websites. Tankred (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been particularly interested in cases where ANI reports are not getting responses. I've been trying to compile a list of all the previous ANI threads up at the top of this page, have I got them all? Or did I miss any? --Elonka 07:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere, that for some particular users, none of the citations would be good enough, exept theirs. Or being so lame, like that forum (comment) was on the List of Slovaks, I deleted. While it is easy to recognize a forum, it is more hard to get along in the literatue, and actually find out wich sources, books are really biased and wich are just not liked by some user(s). Thats the hardest job, however google search for book+critics are usually giving a helping hand. An on the other hand, when talking about Central-Europe, you should be aware also about the political situation, for example that an anti-hungarian coalition formed in Slovakia after the recent elections, where the Smer social democrats (!) and the far and even the most far right (!) parties joined toghether. You should be aware of Robert Fico and Ján Slota and their agendas, like that ones on Janko's page, and that there's a growing Anti-Hungarian sentiment in Slovakia, wich encourages ultra-extremists to attack or even kill innocents. And you should be aware of other events[1] as well, wich are getting constantly firmly or quietly deleted[2] from here, under a "discrete pandering wink", aka "the not restoring such deleted infos" [3]. Also --Rembaoud (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The best sources, are those which have been recommended by other sources.  :) --Elonka 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, political climate has unfortunately partly moved to nationalistic in Slovakia recently, but at the same time substantial part of society voices against it. Thus the society becomes more polarized than before. But what point you try to make by explaining political situation in Slovakia? How is it relevant here? --Ruziklan (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The same society elected them. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? (Note that not everyone voted for them...) --Ruziklan (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that "substantial part", what you claim that exists. And I forgot to point out the media's "regulation" and constant strafing by the government. And their wish and attempts, including the recenty accepted media law, to turn them in a pretty dictatoric way into "more patriotic" (=less or no critization of the government, and initally propagating whatever stupidity, like "proto-Slovaks" or making Juraj Janosik a hero, they invent). If you do not see, why were these all mentoined or "pointed out", than you have understanded very few of this "experiment page"'s purpose and goals. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I think I understand the purpose and goal of this page very clearly. That is why I am constantly asking what have your explanations to do with e.g. section we are now - "Dealing with disruptive editors" and the purpose of the experiment overall. In my view proven disruptive editors are currently dealt with accordingly and this has nothing to do with their political views, rather with their way of editing and their contributions to the good of Wikipedia. Moreover there are multiple fruitful discussions running on the page with positive results. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There was, are and will be Lenin people who will agree with whatever current government will be, and try to spread their views on history, people or whatever, for example in Wikipedia. This is called activism, this is how a party or an ideology gains new supporters. No salary, no job, just doing it in free time as a volunteer job. Far right are the most active and agressive in it, and we have a far right government here. It is almost essential to know what are their current topics and "agenda" to identify them and their spreaders. With this knowledge, we can cut these "propaganda" out and monitor those users to prevent further additions, therefore making those articles affected more neutral, and Wikipedia a better place. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rembaoud, I think this is not the proper place to discuss the internal political situation in Slovakia. Nevertheless, I also have the feeling that "Prince Pribina", "Great Moravians with healthier teeth than modern people", "Principality of Nitra located on the territory of Slovakia" have become part of the self-definition of several Slovakians, but this does not mean that they cannot be true. However, I believe that if reliable sources prove that Pribina was never styled prince, medieval people's teeth were generally healthier than ours and the "Principality of Nitra" never existed, their self-definition will gradually change. Or, it is also possible that reliable sources will unanimously prove that Pribina was actually the Prince of Nitra and non-believers in Hungary will have to accept the existence of the "Principality of the (proto-)Slovaks". I think if non-fanatics of both side were in the position to realise that their knowledge of the "facts" of history may easily be challanged by reliable sources, they would begin to think independently. Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka, if you want to challenge published peer-reviewed anthropological research about the teeth in Great Moravian graveyards, you are welcome to write and publish your own work. But Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for it. Please provide evidence (meaning a reference to a source of the same quality as the one used in the article) for your claim that this published anthropological research is somehow flawed or stop questioning the well-sourced information. If it is you and your interpretation of medieval chronicles against a large body of academic literature, this discussion will never end. You have mentioned "reliable sources". Please name them, so we can talk about something substantial instead of abstract thoughts about how "fanatics" interpret history. Tankred (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, if you read my remark above carefully, it clearly (in bold) states that even the theory that "Great Moravian people with healthier teeth than modern people" may be true. Actually, I accept the concept that their teeth were healthier. Sorry, I do not want to offend your feelings and I do not want to delete or change the sentence from the article Great Moravia. I think this is a remarkable part of the article and it will probably induce not only me but other readers to mediate on the other facts described in the article. Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I must have misunderstood your words. By the way, thank you for expanding the Alternative theories section. I am happy that section is no longer a stub. There is also another very recent issue regarding whether Great Moravia "disappeared without a trace". Since you seem to be familiar with the Hungarian historiography, I will greatly appreciate your opinion at Talk:Great Moravia#New_addition. If this is really a dominant view of the Hungarian historiography, I am sure you (or some other Hungarian editor) will be able to find more reliable sources than the website added by Squash Racket. Since Great Moravia is a Good Article, it would be nice to maintain a high level of quality of the cited sources (meaning books and peer-reviewed academic journals, and in English whenever possible). Tankred (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that academic sources usually do not deny the continuity of the Slavic population in the territory of present-day Slovakia (or in the parts of it). Borsoka (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Magyar Tudomány" is the official journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, I think reliable enough for Featured Articles (not just GA) until there are not enough English language academic sources. The article is full of Slovak/Czech sources that you never seem to question for some reason. Squash Racket (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that too, I am just trying to help identifying those "fanatics" by pointing out their favorite topics. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources claiming something else than what is in the article, you can add the info and the references as an alternative. This doesn't mean you have to delete the ones that are in the article (if those statements are also properly sourced). This way several points of view can be presented. Squash Racket (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Report card

I have started a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, where I am explaining my experiment here, and asking for input from other admins. It is my concern that the experiment may be getting too "radical" for the wiki-culture, and I don't want to be overstepping my authority.

If anyone here as part of the experiment would like to offer feedback on how I'm doing, and whether or not you would like to see this experiment continue, or whether you think that it should be shut down, you are welcome to post in that thread. I do recommend that you identify yourself as a non-admin participant who is offering an opinion.

This is your opportunity to give me (and this experiment) an initial "grade". Has the experiment been helpful? Has it made things worse? Should it continue? All feedback is encouraged. Thanks, Elonka 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I do have some feedback and thoughts. In short, you're doing alright and are to be richly commended for your initiative and innovation! Frankly, as a matter of human – and wiki – nature, it does do some good to knock heads together, especially hot-heads. The use of blocks is not supposed to be punitive but to get the attention of such hot-heads as to their activities being disruptive and thereby unacceptable on Wikipedia. The normal blocking process is to warn, block, ignore-until-disruptive-again. That passive approach often fails because there's rarely anywhere (or anyone) for them to go to to learn how to work productively. Yeah, you can direct them to policies and guidelines ad nauseum (which are often changing and in many cases unclear to non-native English speakers), but a working example serves as a much better teacher. That's why the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has been a such a blessing in minimizing (though far from eliminating) disruption on articles in a contentious subject.

IMO what has been key to its relative success has been its ability to coopt parties from the various sides into a working agreement which the "leaders" among each contending POV help to instill among their compatriots, current and newbie. Often, an issue arises because one side doesn't feel its view is being addressed or respectfully addressed; getting them to work through it with others of differing POVs, while frustrating, is a practical self-tutorial on compromise and collegiality. Once they've worked through to a modus vivendi, they become reluctant to continue fighting "the never-ending battle" and have something of their own to defend so that they can concentrate on more productive editorial work.

The issues here are nowhere near as contentious as with Sri Lanka, so I think this effort will work out fine. Your bringing in some editors experienced with what works and doesn't work in resolving these matters should speed it up. All-in-all, I think it's a good initiative toward reducing disruption in areas of serious contention. "Knocking heads" is good as long as it brings the parties to the discussion and negotiating table – it assumes good faith, but recognizes the value of a bucket of cold water. Where it would become problematic would be if the admin(s) doing such knocking also involve themselves in forcing the path of the negotiations or subsequently in enforcing the measures against any recalitrant parties. The latter should be dealt with by uninvolved admins. (After all, disruption is disruption.) Askari Mark (Talk) 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not admin, either. Formerly, I was thinking that we (editors) were ridicoulos, now I think it started to work, thank for you (and also for editors). Although, I think edit wars will be renewed in the future (because sensitive issues are discussed), but I really hope that they will be driven by less emotion. We have accepted that we (all) have to play the game with rules based on consensus and following consensual rules is not so hard (besides, it is also challanging intelectually). And their modification may also be suggested (instead of breaking them), if it looks reasonable. Thanks! :) Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous dispute resolution

I've been trying to compile a list of all the previous administrator board threads, and the list just keeps on going and going. Today I even learned that there was an attempt at filing an ArbCom case a few weeks ago.

To save time, could folks please tell me if there's much more of this? Were there RfCs? Attempts at mediation? Which articles were they on? Thanks, Elonka 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I filed two RfCs that I can recall now. Squash Racket (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitra

• Principality of Nitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pribina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please provide a summary of the disputes at these articles? I understand that one side feels that the Principality of Nitra, and its Prince Pribina, was a historical fact, and the other side feels that the Principality is "alleged" or "supposed", but what's the core issue here? Why is there so much doubt about the existence of the Principality, that people are willing to edit-war about it? How does it tie in to the Hungarian/Slovakian disputes? --Elonka 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the alleged "Principality of Nitra" is the medieval equivalent to Slovakia. The mainstream Slovakian view is that the (proto-)Slovaks lived on nearly the same territories where modern Slovakia is located and they established a flourishing medieval state (e.g, they suppose 30 cities in the "Principality" while the Moravians only had 15 towns); the "Principality of Nitra" was united with Moravia in 833 forming Great Moravia, but the "Principality" remained an autonomous territory within the empire, moreover, it reserved its autonomous status within the Kingdom of Hungary till 1108. I think, from Hungarian point of view, the existence of the "Principality" is only a question of fact: it does not harm the self-reputation of any Hungarian. However, some aspects of the "Principality of Nitra" may be provocative or ridiculous for men-of-the-street in Hungary. E.g., the theory of a "Slovakian Empire in the Middle Ages" would possibly result in laughing in Hungary, while the statement that King Stephen I of Hungary defeated Koppány, the leader of the pagan Magyars, not only with the help of his wife's German retinue but also with the assistance of (proto-)Slovaks would be provocative. My feeling is that the edit-war about the issue is only question of wording: for Slovakian editors the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" is an unquestionable fact. They have been learning from childhood that huge number of written sources and other evidences prove that a flourishing state of the (proto-)Slovaks existed in the 9th century; therefore, any question regarding the existence of written sources may hurt their convinction. If you read the debate among Slovakian editors on the talk page of Nitra, you will probably understand that it is a sensitive issue. Borsoka (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I am no historian, I think a few points should be rectified from a viewpoint of Slovak man-of-the-street.

As far as I remember my school years we never learned about Principality of Nitra as state of Slovaks, rather as state of (some) Slavs.

Further I remember nothing like "nearly the same territories where modern Slovakia is located" regarding Nitra principality and therefore I doubt it is mainstream Slovakian view. But may be.

Lastly, I see there are some historians (and more politicians) desperately trying now to show significance of Slovaks in the past and use that as a ground for their current day claims. However it is wrong to present them as the exclusive Slovak view and by showing their contradiction with facts to cast doubt also to other opinions (edits here) of Slovaks, even if this could be purely coincidental and inadvertent.

That is something that bothers me personally the most in recent disputes (or often just edit wars). --Ruziklan (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is very significant, thank you for your comments, and the insight into the school system, it would be useful to know when was this type of teaching in effect and if, or how the practice changed to the present day Fico-Slota government. Hobartimus (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. My comments were based on remarks made by Slovakian editors on talk pages connected to the History of Slovakia. E.g., for them King Stephen's refuge from Koppány to the Slavs is a "basic fact", while it is a surprise for a Hungarian. As to the territory of the "Principality of Nitra", I refer to the map in the article Great Moravia demonstrating a huge territory marked with red as the territory of the principality. If it contradicts to the mainstream view in Slovakia, it should be clearly adressed on the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there something about Nitra that is making it high profile in current events? Was it referred to in a popular speech or book or magazine article? I'm still trying to understand why the name of a 9th century entity would even be coming up among "men on the street"? Is it because of the Hedvig Malina incident, or something else? --Elonka 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some high profile politicians connected to Slovak government (to say it very lightly) have recently come with statements about old Slav or even old Slovak history that are not very well grounded in historic studies (again to put it lightly). There are quite wide efforts to move similar claims to schoolbooks etc. As I have remarked above not everyone in Slovakia is happy about these efforts and it is currently a matter of debate. It is not directly related to Hedviga Malinová issue, but both issues have some nationalism behind. The fact is that nationalism got some momentum in Slovakia since Slovak National Party became a coalition party about two years ago, while Party of the Hungarian Coalition was in the previous two coalitions (i.e for 8 years...)

On the other hand, as Borsoka has remarked above, principality of Nitra and prince Pribina are taken as historic facts by standard history in Slovakia since long time ago and manifold references to both may be found in all kinds of history publications, both scientific as well as popular. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruziklan described it almost perfectly. Slovakia wants to build her own identity since becoming independent. Some try to do it in a modern, normal, European way, as it should, while others want it in a 19th century style nation state building way, like creating 1000-1500 years of history using some "different/alternative interpretations" and/or "minor ministerpretations" at large, or sometimes simply by claiming or inventing something. This aim is often ridiculed at Hungary by for example what Nmate wrote (Slovakia's full history can be sent in a short text message). While obviously Slovakia has a bit longer history, than a text message, it is obviously not as long as our beloved Janko & Anna and their comrades wants. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to actually document some of the claims, in a neutral way. For example, if many politicians are repeating a claim (even if the claim is not true), we can still include the claim on Wikipedia, as long as we're careful and neutral about how we phrase it. For example, if all of the politicians were claiming that the moon was made of green cheese, we could say, "In 2008, some politicians such as (names) have been stating (quotes). Some of these statements have been repeated in (sources). However, mainstream historians such as (names) in (academic sources) say (different quotes)." The key is whether something is a "significant" view. If there's a significant view about something (even if it's wrong), it's okay to include it on Wikipedia, as long as (1) we include the sources; and (2) the views are provided in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE. Note that "significant" has to be defined carefully and with good judgment. For example, if one guy puts something in a self-published book but no one repeats it, that's not very much weight. However, if a major politician said something repeatedly as the major thrust of his speeches, that might qualify. --Elonka 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

uploading pictures from newspapers

How (under what licence) can I upload any picture from a newspaper? I got confused in the labirynth of this, and when I eventually clicked on one of them, it disappeaser and I had to choose one from a list wich had many new things, the description did not... --Rembaoud (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, image licensing on Wikipedia is a nightmare. The basic rule of thumb is, that unless you personally own the picture, meaning you took the photo yourself, you probably can't upload it. There are a few exceptions to this, but they basically boil down to: (1) If you know who owns the copyright, and they give written permission to upload the photo under a free license; or (2) Some images are considered so rare, or impossible to get a free copy of, that they can be used under what's called "Fair Use". In the case of a newspaper photo, this would probably have to mean that it was either of something that happened very long ago, or was of an event that was very newsworthy, and a photo was essential to adequately describe it. But trust me, there are teams of admins who do nothing but scan for "bad license" pictures, and delete them, aggressively. Photos are uploaded to Wikipedia in the thousands, and they are deleted in the thousands.

Bottom line: Which photo? I'll take a look and let you know if there's a possible fair use exception. But the answer will probably be no. --Elonka 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some pictures about Daniel Tupy on the net, for example: [4]. If I find a "normal" one, and I'd like to upload it (or for whatever else I'd like to illustrate), under wich licence (and how)? --Rembaoud (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a photo that is under a free license, meaning it's in the Public Domain, or can be used under GFDL or CC-by-SA. You might want to check Flickr, because often there are photos there which are free to use. Or, contact the photographer and ask if they're willing to give permission for the photo to be used. You may also wish to contact Tupy's family directly. --Elonka 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --Rembaoud (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons

While reading articles connected to the history of Slovakia (i.e., Great Moravia, History of Slovakia, I realised that they usually contain(ed) a sentence that make a comparisons. E.g., statements similar to the following:

• "there were 30 towns in the Principality of Nitra; note that there were only 11 towns in the Principality of Moravia";
• "the diocese of Saint Method was the first archbishopric established in Slav region; note that the archbishopric of Prague was only funded much later".

Is it possible to complete such statements in a way like that "there were 30 towns in the Principality of Nitra; note that there were only 11 towns in the Principality of Moravia, there were only ... towns in ...., but there were ... towns in ...";", or "the diocese of Saint Method was the first archbishopric established in Slav region; note that the archbishopric of Kiev, Gniesno, Prague, Moscow, Cracow, Zagrab were only funded much later, and also note that archbishoprics for Latin, German and Eastern territories were established much earlier."? Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fico

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

Some stuff had been eventually [5] deleted from the page, after a short "debate" if we can call that[6] that. I would be really intrested where should the parts about Fico's relationship with the Slovak media should be moved from Robert Fico article. Someone please revert Ruziklan and put fact tags at the end of those sentences, asap I'll change them into english sources. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some to read in english:[7], [8], [9], [10], --Rembaoud (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rembaoud, you are welcome to edit the article and add information which comes from sources. A "revert" would be if you just put the information back without sources. However, if you add the information back with sources, that's not a revert, that's "improving the article". Please proceed. --Elonka 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring

Controversial edits made by Nmate while we are still discussing some of these issues:[11][12] Without any explanation, he replaced "Slavic" by "Hungarian highland" and replaced the Slovak name of a town in north-eastern Slovakia by its Hungarian version. Is this undiscussed change meant to be an invitation to another round of edit warring? Or just an abuse of the fact that none of the editors under editing restrictions will dare to revert him? Anyway, this undiscussed and unsourced change is unacceptable for me and I do not see any reason why Nmate should be allowed to behave like this. If I revert him, I will get blocked for violating my editing restrictions. If I leave the article in Nmate's unacceptable version, the result will reward him for making undiscussed provocative edits. So, what is going to happen to that change?

This is not the first time something like that happened. I think we all should be bound by some rule or at least an agreement that we will not introduce any significant and potentially controversial changes before discussing them with other editors either here or at the talk page of a corresponding article. Without such an agreement, incidents like this one will always lead to more edit warring. Tankred (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite Tankred's claims Nmate added the German, not the Hungarian version of the Slovak city's name. Hungarian highland (I think rather Upper Hungary) is a widely used name for the northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary (and he also left the modern phrase "present-day Slovakia" in parentheses). He also contacted MarkBA after being reverted two minutes later. I don't say that his edit was perfect, but it was definitely misrepresented here.

Some civility issues also with User:Tankred: here he gives me advice on where to go and what to do instead of editing Wikipedia (and he also knows very well that I proposed changes at the mentioned talk page without sufficient results). I don't know if that comment is in accordance with civility guidelines of the Digwuren case.

In this edit he reverted a Ukrainian/American editor's edit despite being on no-revert restrictions (and that was neither his userspace, nor blatant vandalism). Squash Racket (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So you say it is all right to delete selected geographic names from articles about Slovakia while we are still discussing which names should be used? I also see a big difference between the words "Slavic" (as an identity of a people) and the "Hungarian highland" (as a place - by the way factually questionable because that part of Slovakia was just freshly acquired by the Hungarian kings and I do not know any reliable English source calling it "Hungarian highland"). But the main point is that an editor is making substantial and controversial changes without proposing them at a talk page first and without adding any supporting citations. I have also proposed a solution that would prevent this kind of behavior in the future. But if no one is interested in it, please propose another solution because this situation is unacceptable. There are only few active editors interested in Slovakia-related topics. Since most of them are somehow "restricted" now, edits of Slovakia-related articles are not subject of the usual "edit-review-change" process, in which a stable version of an article emerges from edits of several people. If there is something unreasonable and unsourced, it is usually either reverted or changed (and then perhaps changed again to something in the middle - a stable state). But now, anyone can do anything (except for a really blatant vandalism) to Slovakia-related articles and their edits will stay there regardless of quality. I see it as a major problem. If you are unhappy about my proposal, I wonder what solution you would recommend to resolve this problem. Tankred (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't say that his edit was perfect" became "So you say it is all right..." in your words (why am I not surprised?). What I said is that you were reporting others while disrespecting the rules yourself.

If I understand you correctly: you are under editing restrictions after a history of disruptive edits (just like Nmate BTW), and now you want to drag everybody (including for example Ruziklan and Markussep) under the same restrictions. That would be a nice, fair proposal?

Perhaps you should try using the talk page of the relevant article and discuss problems patiently instead of revert warring. Squash Racket (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Tankred has a right to feel frustrated here. Squash Racket, your comments could also be a bit more civil. Personally, I think that you are both very intelligent editors, well-read, and capable of some excellent editing. Sometimes I wish that you could drive to each other's town and meet for a beer or something, as I think that you would find that you had a lot in common. For example, you both love editing Wikipedia!  :) --Elonka 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Slovak

History of Slovak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a debate about its content on its talkpage, with the "usual editwar" in the article's history. Take a look at this article too. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have added the following templates to that article: {{histinfo}}, {{misleading}}, {{Disputed}}, {{POV}}, {{Refimprove}}. However, no one (including you) has pointed to any specific piece of information in that article that should be tagged by these five templates. I have requested explanation on the talk page of that article on January 17 (!), but to no avail. These tags serve some purpose. An article cannot be improved if you do not say what exactly you want to be improved. If you say an article is disputed, what exactly in it you want to dispute and based on what sources? The same for the "misleading" and "POV" tags. Please explain or revert yourself. Tags with no justification make no sense. Tankred (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed all but the {{POV}} tag. See also WP:POINT. --Elonka 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

# (cur) (last) 13:56, 3 May 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (12,719 bytes) (oh, there was several other templates on this, wich Tankred deleted at sight. I put them back, since a dispute is ongoing on the talkpage about all of them) (undo) --Rembaoud (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon added these [13] templates between 22:24-22:42, January 17, and made a rather sentimental expression about the addong of them on the talkpage at 22:29[14]. Tankred asked for expression at the talkpage at 23:52[15], then deleted the templates from the article as "lack of any discussion" [16] at 23:53 (!!!!). CoolKoon replied at 00:15 btw[17], but Takred did not replied back, so the discussion practically ended. I did not want to label or point out this act, so I simply put them back. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Petržalka

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

The dispute at this article seems to boil down to whether the alternate names, "(Hungarian (Pozsony)ligetfalu, German Engerau)" should be included in the lead, or further down in the article. According to my reading of WP:NCGN, the names should be included in the lead. Does anyone have other opinions on this? --Elonka 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There seem to be only two notable alternative names and there is no separate Etymology section anyway:

Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.

Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that this was also discussed at /Archive 3#Petržalka. --Elonka 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on my review of the previous discussions in the archive, it appears that of all currently active editors, the consensus is to include the alternate names in the lead. This is also in accordance with WP:UE#Include alternatives and WP:NCGN#General guidelines. So the alternate names should be added back in. Anyone that removes them, can have their edit reverted, though whoever is restoring the names should link to the relevant discussions in the edit summary, place a warning on the removing user's talkpage which links to the discussion, and potentially bring it up here at the Experiment page as well. If anyone wants to change this status quo, it will then be their responsibility to participate at talk and to build a new consensus, per WP:CCC.

Caveat: This does not necessarily mean that everyone should go nuts and force controversial changes into every article where you think this applies. See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If an article has already been in edit-wars about this, or there's a pre-existing discussion at talk, move cautiously, bring things up at the talkpage, state what you're intending, link to previous discussions as needed, give it a couple days to see if anyone wants to object. And if someone does object, listen respectfully, and see if you can find a compromise. There may be good reasons why putting in alternate names may be a bad idea on some articles (for example if it's an archaic name, or does not appear in reliable sources). Or, on some particular article, the editors there may have worked out some previous compromise, so be careful about respecting a "special case" consensus. But in cases where there are no objections, I'd say go ahead and proceed. --Elonka 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with Ruziklan' last changes [18] because He hushed up essence of the sentences so.Nmate (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your additions were too long compared to other points. Secondly, in 1945 point, action of Slovak soldiers in flats of Hungarians did not take place in Petržalka, but in Bratislava. Thirdly, details of murdered soldiers are not important, they were Hungarians and that is enough. Fourthly, reliability of your source is questionable. Fifthly, details of Daniel Tupý affair are at respective page. And finally, deleted sentence was unsourced assessment not relevant to Petržalka. With what do you not agree? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You compromised the integrity of sourced text, please never do that again. Thank you. Hobartimus (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No answer to my points, just revert of part of my edit. Thank you. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't just rewrite sourced text with your own words and change it's meaning while leaving the source there to support the "new" text. Actually rather than "reverting part of your edit" I did check the source and made sure that it corresponds to the text of the article. Did you actually check the source before editing or not? Hobartimus (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How could I if it is in the language I do not speak? Yes, I have been on that page and have not understood it, naturally. That is why I have questioned it. Actually I would like to know what was wrong in my edit because in my view it has captured the essence of previous version as regards Petržalka, having in the mind also the expected length of text. What is so important for Petržalka history in the statement that Hungarians were allowed half an hour for packing in Bratislava? Further your edit does not respect the formatting as did not the Nmate's... but I am not going to edit it anymore, do whatever you want. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources, is that right? I do not consider http://www.transindex.ro/ a reliable source. If those things happened as described by Hobartimus and Nmate, I am sure they will be able to find a reliable published source (such as a book on history of Bratislava). Until then, I believe the claim should be removed. I have also a problem with the length of Nmate's addition, which is disproportionately too long. The addition is about what happened in Bratislava, not what happened in Petrzalka. If included in an article about Petrzalka, Nmate's text should be shortened. Tankred (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now this is becoming ridiculous. Nmate again states in the edit summary that he does not agree with my rewrite, but he does not say what was wrong in my shortening rewrite and fails to notice that current version is not mine, rather the result of Hobartimus' and Tankred's editing. I repeatedly state that I am not going to edit this, however as far as I understand the way this experiment is lead, discussing in edit summaries is not enough. I have given my points on both experiment talk and Petržalka talk in length. Why does not Nmate do it similarly?

And is new source any better? --Ruziklan (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's review the timeline here let's pick part of the text, "inhuman circumstances" that comes from the source word for word. First it's added by Nmate, then deleted by Ruziklan, then readded by me after I check the source and find it there [19], then deleted by Tankred again [20] (reverting my addition), over sourced information. Tankred is also on a "no revert" restriction yet he chose to undo the actions of others by re-deleting parts of the text. Before moving forward it would be good to know if the restrictions still apply to him or he can freely violate them and avoid blocking by simply asking for a "review" of his edits. [21]. Preventing deletion of sourced information is important to the success of the project, if restrictions don't work someone will have to revert these abusive deletions. Hobartimus (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we are at citing word for word, I ask what is the quality of source? (Actually sources now, in time of my edit there was only one.) I have repeatedly questioned its reliability and no one has addressed this point. Where does the exact information come from? --Ruziklan (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You never made a serious argument (or any argument) as to why you think the source is unreliable. There is nothing to respond to. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. Hobartimus (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturally for me it is unreliable because it is neither in laguage I could check, there are no sources cited there, it is not peer reviewed journal... tell me why should I consider it reliable and be satisfied with citing word by word? Dunabogdány is a village in Hungary, I suppose [22] is its website, how could this be reliable source in area of history of Petržalka more than 60 years old? Transindex is a Hungarian daily newspaper published in Romania, i.e. may be good source for current news in Romania from Hungarian point of view, but hardly history of Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually a few sources are named "Forrás: MTI, MTI-Sajtóadatbank" very clearly at the bottom. I'm still not sure if you want to attack the strong editorial team [23] or claim that this newspaper is obscure citing the low number of google hits [24] which is under a million or claim that only journals written by academics should be allowed as a general rule and all lesser sources are unacceptable starting with Slovak language blogs [25] currently present in an article inserted by Slovak user user:Svetovid and easily retained there for months. Or you might want to check a short history describing the beginnings of Transindex at [26] or the article in the Hungarian wiki [27] or use any number of your own ways to look into Transindex. However I'm not sure what you want to achive here by these attacks on the source, if you believe that none of the events described ever happened it would be easier to bring a peer-reviewed, academic, English language, easily accessible source that says that and then everyone could just easily verify the facts for themselves without any problems. Hobartimus (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the blogpost you mention lists errors and inconsistencies in the reportages about Hedviga Malinová case by people from Slovak Television, i.e. institution with supposedly strong editorial team and fact-checking. We are on daily basis witnessing a lot of factual errors and wrong interpretations or tendentional claims in newspapers or in TV worldwide and by the way, the blog you mention as a whole concentrates on uncovering errors made by and quality assessment of opinion-forming media in Slovakia. This, by the way, makes your point about strong editorial team in newspaper rather weak.

I do not challenge Svetovid's source, I challenge Nmate's source, so please, stay on-topic. Or are we going to discuss reliability of all sources? WP:RS gives guideline and here are then examples - where exactly does fall your source in it?

You know I cannot check anything in Hungarian.

I want to achieve providing reliable and well-balanced information to reader. While I do not question that something really bad happened in 1945 to Hungarians living in Bratislava, I question the extent of information relevant to Petržalka and the accuracy of description of events. Right now we are discussing the latter. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to propose new a policy of sourcing in which Slovak sources - even blogs - are always reliable while non-Slovak sources ,newspapers are always non-reliable and they can always be attacked based on absolutely no evidence or even before the attacker actually checks what the source really is. However until such policy is accepted there should be no double standard that includes Slovak blogs while excluding far superior sources of other origin. I was surprised to find myself reverted by a user supposedly on "no revert" restriction and a few things need to be clarified in case such future abuse happens that includes removal of sourced text, that is my main concern here. Hobartimus (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention on proposing the new policy, even less something you have imagined, the current is adequate. Have I said anywhere blogs are reliable sources? No. Have I said all Slovak sources are reliable? No.

I hope Elonka would bring her uninvolved view here as regards all things happening, including Nmate's undisturbed editing without involving in talk in the meantime, Tankred's edit explained in talk and the reliability of sources in History section of Petržalka article. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Actually the blogpost you mention lists errors and inconsistencies in the reportages" It seems to me that by saying this as fact, you were implying that the blog was a reliable, trustworthy source, since the only source for the "errors" listed in this case was the blogger. And we still have no source not even a blog to the effect that there was no internment camp in Petržalka in 1945. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have I added something from the blog to the article abou Hedviga Malinová? No. My remark did not assess the substance of that article, not even why Svetovid has used that reference, if it was him. I was rather pointing to the amount of contentious material in current media and this specific blogpost have served as an example. It is even known that some of blogpost claims are wrong, but many of them are verifiable in the STV archive and indeed many people verified them. The point is only: We are on daily basis witnessing a lot of factual errors and wrong interpretations or tendentional claims in newspapers or in TV - and that is valid worldwide. As a result using such media for encyclopedic purposes is not the best way of sourcing articles. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a good point I can agree with. However there are other questions as well such as when there is a choice between "no sources" or "some sources" is it better to go with "no sources" considering that TV or newspaper reportings have a possibility for errors? Hobartimus (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruziklan,regardless of what we may personally feel or blogs may report about newspapers, unless you have a very specific reason to doubt this particular material, the consensus at Wikipedia is that material from reputable newspapers is considered reliable. If you're concerned that this particular material is incorrect, please try to find other sources which support your concerns or contradict the text in the newspaper article. If the majority of sources say something different than the newspaper article, it's much easier to make the case that the newspaper is mistaken.

Nmate, please remember to use the talk page of the article (or here) instead of trying to converse through edit summaries. Shell ^babelfish 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source for these edits?[28][29] I have never heard anyone calling Petrzalka the "Bronx of Bratislava". I do not think it is appropriate to add it as a "nick name" to the infobox. Nick names in infoboxes should be properly sourced and a particular nick name should be proven to be widely used. Otherwise we could add a thousand one liners from the press there as "nick names". Unless someone can provide overwhelming evidence that "Bronx of Bratislava" is really a nick name of Petrzalka, it should be removed from the infobox. Tankred (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these city nicknames are very much a North American phenomenon, see for instance List of city nicknames in Texas. There may be some cities in Europe that have a (tourist) slogan, like "The City of Light" for Paris, but the status of the nicknames for Bratislava and Petržalka is not so clear to me. Markussep ^Talk 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I listened this statement that "Bratislava Bronx" or "Pozsonyi Bronx" to the Hungarian radios several times.

[30] [31] [32] Because of its bad crime statistics.Nmate (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this reference in the Slovak Spectator. It seems to me it's only used jokingly, and in no way officially. If it is (or was) widely used, you could mention it in the text (for instance in the "characteristics" section), but the infobox doesn't seem the right place. Markussep ^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K.Nmate (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian names

Okay, I need some more input here. Nmate (talk · contribs) was inserting Hungarian names in dozens of articles. Then an anon, 78.99.161.255 (talk · contribs), from a Slovakian IP, was following along behind, reverting all the changes. I've blocked the anon, but need some help reviewing the articles. Are any of them controversial changes, meaning that there's dispute on the talkpages or other edit wars? If not, my inclination is to let the names be put back in, per the Petrzalka discussion above, with a link to the discussion. But if there is any controversy on any of these, it's best to bring it up now, and set those articles aside for the moment. I don't want to open up dozens of worm cans at once. --Elonka 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course this can be seen as controversial. While Petržalka is just a few kms from Hungary, Nmate was adding Hungarian names to caves and mountain ranges in whole Slovakia. I have checked a few contributions and I do not think they add to mutual understanding and cooperation within experiment framework. Do we really need Hungarian name on every single geographic location in Slovakia? --Ruziklan (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that Nmate was going from personal knowledge on some of them. And some of the articles appear to be very poorly-sourced. I'm trying to think of what a good "speed brake" would be on these. I'm inclined to once again go back to the mantra of "sources" and say that Hungarian (or whichever) names can be added, as long as a source is included which shows that the name is in current and relatively common usage. Would that help do you think? --Elonka 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb this might be good idea in my view. There are always two possibilities: 1. that Hungarian atlas uses them (and this is my personal tip for source for mass editing) 2. that they were official names in times when Hungarian was used in Slovakia area. Nevertheless, most of them are probably not in current and relatively common usage in Slovak or in English language. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NCGN, the alternate name should be added if (1) it's used commonly in a significant number (10%) of English-language sources; or (2) it's relevant, such as the name that has been used by the inhabitants. Just having it in a Hungarian atlas probably wouldn't be enough, and just saying, "There was this one Hungarian guy who lived there" wouldn't be enough, as by that logic we would have to add Hungarian names to articles like California. ;) --Elonka 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the Hungarian names to the articles because everything Slovakian geographical name exist in Hungarian variant. Their Hungarian name are the origin name and their Slovak names are the loan translations of the Hungarian names. Moreover the Little Carpathians article implies its German name "Kleinen Karpaten" but the Hungarian name "Kis-Kárpátok" was removed by this anonymous user immediately. This is very interesting.
Some geographical article imply historical decriptions but their historical Hungarian names very disturb the Slovaks.Nmate (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

78.99.161.255 (talk · contribs) was probably MarkBA (talk · contribs). Fits in the list at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nmate, what are you using for sources to prove that an area has a Hungarian name? --Elonka 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe immediately that most features in Slovakia have a name in Hungarian, see for instance these maps from around 1910, and I see the relevance for some of them, but definitely not all. Note that the names should be relevant for the audience of English wikipedia, as Elonka quoted above. Nmates statement Their Hungarian name are the origin name and their Slovak names are the loan translations of the Hungarian names is definitely not true for several of the names, for instance "Kriváň" which is obviously a Slavic word (кривой krivoy means "bent" in Russian). Markussep ^Talk 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For exaple I use second hand books before 1920 (because this territory belong to Hungary before 1920) or Hungarian historical books or guide books.Nmate (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you do a controversial edit of this type, please propose it first here. Personally, I do not see many reasons how the second-hand Hungarian books published 90 years ago can prove that a particular Hungarian name is widely used in modern English sources. You should also read WP:NCGN that describes in detail when and how we put names into the lead. Gerlachovsky stit has a separate Names section, so alternative names are used there. And your claim that the Kozie chrbty mountain has two names[33] is wrong. I do not know any English source using the name Kecske-hát and there are no Hungarian who could possibly use that name living in that region. I think the whole edit war between you and an anonymous user could be easily prevented if you refrained from doing undiscussed controversial edits. We could discuss them in advance and come up with some solution. Tankred (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the usage of the Hungarian names in the Slovak topics, but in this case not.[34]

Because FC Artmedia Petržalka was not an legal successor of Pozsonyi Torna Egyesület.Nmate (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Absence

As a personal note, I have had a death in my family (Croatian side), so I will be out of town traveling to the funeral in Indianapolis, and my wiki-time will be constrained for the next few days. I am bringing my laptop with me, and will try to keep up on some Wikipedia things as I can, but probably won't have time to do as much in-depth analysis as usual.. My apologies for my absence, I'll let you know when I'm 100% back. Please, try to be nice to each other for the next few days. I have been very pleased with how some articles have been growing, and people have been working together to ensure that different viewpoints are incorporated, and linked to reliable sources. I hope you will be able to continue that trend. :) If you need the urgent attention of an administrator, I recommend contacting User:EdJohnston. I have also asked administrator User:Shell Kinney (one of the members of WP:MEDCOM) to keep an eye on the experiment, so you can ask her for help as well. They are both excellent administrators and I completely trust their judgment to do what they think is best. Thanks for understanding, --Elonka 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about a death in your family. Thank you for notifying us and please do not worry about Wikipedia. I am sure nothing is so pressing here. Tankred (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it looks like I'm slowly a persona non grata here, I am sorry to hear this piece of news as well. Thank you anyway for notifying. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as funerals go, this was a particularly intense one, especially as I may have to return in a few months for the spouse's funeral.  :/ I appreciate the kind words though. I'm back in St. Louis now, and digging through backlog. It'll take me a bit to get caught up on things, so please be patient with me. --Elonka 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New active threads

After Elonka announced her short-term absence, Hobartimus has already made three attempts to ban MarkBA. Since he somehow forgot to put links on this page, here is the list of the currently active threads:

• Wikipedia:ANI#Checkuser confirmed persistent sockmaster needs indef
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Community_ban_of_MarkBA_for_repeated_sockpuppetry

There is a long record of such "reports" and "counter-reports" in this conflict and they did not resolve any of the substantive issues spoiling relations between us. It was my understanding that we were trying to reach some kind of dispute resolution here and any new supposed incidents would be reported here as well. I trust Elonka's judgment because she is closely following this complex case. Maybe I was wrong and attempts to get the other side blocked by contacting random uninvolved administrators are still a fair game. If this is the case, there have been other users who have recently broken their editing restrictions and/or posted personal attacks. Should I go ahead and report them? Are we going to return to this old game or we want to have a centralized discussion here? Tankred (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Hobartimus to comment here. Shell ^babelfish 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Tankred already made false statement in this case once I'm not surprised that he did it again, and again so obviously, the last thread on Arbitration Enforcement was opened by User:Shalom very clearly, not by me, exactly for the same reason, nobody is sure what is the appropriate place to report this. Also if Tankred would like to make the claim that CheckUser confirmed abusive sockpuppetry is now freely allowed on Wikipedia I'd like to see the policy that supports this intresting interpretation. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All threads are patrolled by administrators experienced in dealing with sockpuppets if they thought that this discussion board set up for content disputes is the best place for discussing mass sockpuppetry they were free to move the threads here it takes a couple of clicks. Maybe next time CheckUser (notice that this was a CheckUser related case) should also be requested here and if a Slovak user vandalises, or inserts shock images to articles or makes death threats, it should be reported here, not WP:AIV or other places because every disruptive, abusive action made by a Slovak user is somehow part of a dispute now huh? Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me by your carefully chosen extreme examples. Although you did not really address any of the issues I raised in my comment, at least I know now where we are. It would be also nice if you could stop calling me a liar and stop putting words that I have never said into my mouth. But after all my previous experiences with you, I should probably lower my expectations of what you can write about me. Tankred (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

I'll be forwarding this case to WP:AE (arbitration enforcement) in a moment. That's where MarkBA can be dealt with. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the first thread shown as "active" has been archived quite a while ago, it has been inserted into Archive 414 many hours before Tankred added his comment and we also have Archive 415 for more recent cases. Squash Racket (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography

On another personal note, there is a chance that I may be traveling to Europe this year. If I do find myself in Central/Eastern Europe, I would love to meet Wikipedians while there, especially you guys.  :) Are there ever any meetups in your area? And/or, would you be comfortable listing which cities that you live in, so that I could arrange my itinerary to be sure to travel through there at some point?  :) --Elonka 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some meetups in Hungary, but I don't know much about that as I don't attend these. Squash Racket (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm......looks like there aren't any definite meetings in Hungary scheduled yet, and besides from the already finished meeting places Budapest was the closest for me but that's still ~200 kms from here. And BTW Elonka I'm already planning to add a userbox to my "little" collection regarding the city I live - Bratislava. So if you happen to get the train wrong or end up in Bratislava by any other unfortunate events, I could show you around ;) (As for the people interested in my harrasment: we've got a magnet activated door lock which keeps Jehovah's witnesses and other unwanted people out :P) CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this all right?

Can an editor under editing restrictions (User:CoolKoon in this case) move articles from a Slovak title to a Hungarian one without any discussion? See history of Pázmány family and Hunt-Pázmán. It seems no one gives a crap about this experimental page any more and everyone is either trying to bypass it or just ignores it. But it would be polite to use at least the talk pages of the moved articles. Tankred (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay civil please. I looked at his edit and he simply didn't seem to be aware of past talk page discussions or any controversy. He simply thought the articles were listed by a completely wrong name and moved them.

He also changed the names at the article Great Moravia, that also suggests he didn't think discussion would be necessary. Squash Racket (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I never thought that the name Poznan could be in any way related to one of the oldest Hungarian noble families, whose names are always cited as Pázmán/Pázmány. I even know a family living in Bratislava whose family name is Poznan (the weird thing is that it's a Hungarian family). I'd never thought of them having any relation to the Pázmány family. BTW it's really not nice of you, Tankred, to assume ill faith or maliciousness. I'm just trying to be objective. BTW since when had the Pázmány family anything to do with Slovaks whatsoever? Tankred, even you seem to only support the fact that maybe they have some ancestry in the Great Moravian Empire.CoolKoon (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. If I ask people to discuss controversial changes on talk pages, I am being "uncivil", and I "assume ill faith or maliciousness". Why do I bother? Tankred (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Say, Tankred, do you take all edits even a little bit related to Slovaks or Slovakia (by Hungarians) as a personal attack? Or do you mean that any article edits related to Slovakia must be subjected to a discussion (especially the ones made by any Hungarian-speaking people)? Did you think that I've made those edits just to annoy you? CoolKoon (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon, I don't think this helps. Elonka had a good suggestion recently: try discussing without using the word "you". Markussep ^Talk 10:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to repeat the clearly uncivil part of your comment, but Shell Kinney did it so now it is probably clear to everyone. Squash Racket (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what Squash Racket and CoolKoon were trying to say was that he reasonably believed these would not be controversial. While this is a safe place to talk about issues and hopefully is building understanding and trust, there's no requirement that any edit anywhere that might possibly be related to Hungarians or Slovaks be discussed here first.

Instead of coming here claiming no one gives a crap etc., a polite note to CoolKoon could have cleared up this issue in a civil and productive manner. Accusing someone of bypassing the page is uncivil -- you'll often find that people do things because they think they're helping far more often than they do things just to get away with it. Its always difficult in heated situations to keep your cool, but remember, its important to try to assume good faith of everyone's actions even in the middle of a dispute. Shell ^babelfish 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Dear Elonka, I made two edits today at Slovaks[35] and Petrzalka[36]. I explained them at the respective talk pages[37][38] and on your experimental page[39]. But if you wish to review my edits, here they are. If you think something in them is not all right, please feel free to revert them and leave me a note on my user talk page. I hope I did not break any rule by making these edits. Cheers. Tankred (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also if possible, please, could you have a look at whole debate in User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Petržalka yesterday and today? --Ruziklan (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get caught up now. Looks like things have been busy! --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial edit at Pilisszentkereszt again

I tried to have a discussion about that (you can read this at the bottom of an earlier version of his talk page), but:

• he deleted my last comment referring to naming conventions in the edit summary (didn't get his point)
• and some civility issues arose: fallacious debate/accusing others of your own actions/attacked his edit/agenda etc. Squash Racket (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's often observed that people start talking about civility when...
Ignoratio elenchi: "informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question."
You accused me of changing the subject even though you changed it right at the beginning. The edit was not about naming conventions. I made that clear several times later too so now you are either ignoring the explanation or doing it deliberately. Agenda is an NPOV word and since I kept repeating it wasn't about naming conventions and you kept inserting off-topic questions and comments related to them, everybody can make their own conclusions about our aims.--Svetovid (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, is it necessary to answer this or just move on? Squash Racket (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of your answer.  :) If you feel just that you want to defend yourself for my benefit, I wouldn't bother. But if you feel that you can actually try to communicate to reach a meeting of the minds, it might be worth making a good faith post at his talkpage. --Elonka 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He wants to get this remark deleted about the edit being controversial. I don't think he suddenly forgot how the layout in the lead should look after all the edit warring at other similar articles. I think the edit was clearly controversial, but I don't mind having the remark removed if he acknowledges that (because no sign of that up until now).

If you don't mind, I wouldn't use his talk page. I consider neither the above comment, nor the ones on his talk page too civil. Squash Racket (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Svetovid tries to get Rembaoud blocked. Here Rembaoud reinserted the information about Daniel Tupy with another sentence about a monument in the city dedicated to him. (Svetovid had removed the information about Tupy earlier as recentism(?) and POV). I think if he has a monument in the city, then his case is worth mentioning, the only mistake was not using in-line citations when reinserting the valid information.
Regarding Franz Liszt Svetovid decided to "improve the wording" and questioned him considering himself Hungarian (see a thread about that for example here). After that Rembaoud removed the information about him being Slovak(?) referring to a talk page discussion in the edit summary (actually two editors already proposed the deletion here and as I can see there was a similar case in 2006(!), one and a half years ago. Squash Racket (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Autobahn

• The Autobahn (talk · contribs)

I have a bad feeling that this new user might be MarkBA (talk · contribs). Mark finished editing on May 8, this new user started editing on May 8. Its fourth edit was a "revert" of Nmate and deleted a part of the Hungarian history of the town as "unimportant"[40], and under the label "more neutral" rewrited Hungarian history to its Slovak interpretation (April laws to March laws)[41] then renames the article of it too[42]. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's MarkBA. Or if it is MarkBA, he has turned over a completely new leaf. The Autobahn is participating in the same topic area, but he is doing so in a very civil manner, and he's actually working on articles, creating and updating templates, and making constructive edits.[43] The communication style is also very different. I don't think he's an entirely new user, because he does seem to be very comfortable with wiki syntax right off the bat. But regardless of whether it's MarkBA or not, as long as he is able to participate in a civil and constructive manner, I think he should be allowed to do so. --Elonka 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.[44] --Elonka 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that edit was totally legitimate and not only in line with WP:NCGN, but also in line with what any reader can actually see in this type of articles. Names sections have been written in a number of geographic articles and many editors (including some of the Hungarian editors participating in this very discussion) have subsequently removed the redundant names from a lead. I have probably done it too on several occasions and it did not make me a sockpuppet of MarkBA:-) The Autobahn has received some not exactly welcoming messages from Nmate just after he/she joined Wikipedia and there is now this thread created by Rembaoud. After seeing all that and also after reading Hobartimus' questions about RfC against me in the thread below, I got a disturbing and hopefully unwarranted feeling that there might be some concerted effort to get as many Slovak users as possible blocked. I believe this dispute has already greatly harmed the Slovakia-related articles in Wikipedia and it would be nice to contain it instead of spreading it out. Although the Wikiproject Slovakia managed to upgrade several articles to the FA and GA status in its short heyday, its membership is now effectively wiped out. Tulkohalten left disgusted, MarkBA is banned from editing Eastern European topics, Svetovid is blocked, and I am trying to limit my presence here as much as possible. If we welcome new users interested in Slovakia by sockpuppetry charges, Slovakia-related topics will never recover. I was told to assume good faith by the same users who now seem to be unwilling to assume good faith in this case. It is not exactly the lesson I expected to learn from this experiment. Tankred (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian editors removed names from the lead, because a number of Slovak editors were heavily pushing for that solution, not because they agreed with it.
This editor is not new to Wikipedia, so I'm just wondering why is it strange that someone may think it is MarkBA (who couldn't stop sockpuppetry as we all know). It is better to mention it here than immediately at a noticeboard. Squash Racket (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tankred, I just lifted your own "no revert" restrictions, since the 30 days are up.  :) I personally don't feel that I've blocked anyone in an unfair manner, but if you feel that I have done so, I encourage you to speak up about it. No one, to my knowledge, has been blocked for expressing a civil opinion on a talkpage. And I promise you, Tankred, that you are not in any immediate danger of being blocked. If I do see anything at all that I consider problematic, I promise that I would give you a fair warning on your talkpage first. --Elonka 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I did not challenge any of your blocks (including the one of my own account). In fact, I greatly appreciate what you are doing for us. I respect you as a neutral and trustworthy arbiter that we all need. I am concerned with the fact that some other users seem to assume bad faith and I am afraid that it may discourage the future generation of editors interested in Slovakia. Since the previous generation did not survive this dispute, new users are badly needed to maintain and improve quality of Slovakia-related articles. I hope they will not be dragged into this conflict. Tankred (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This "no revert" is not the same as the one I got myself along with Nmate, Rembaoud and some other folks, is it? CoolKoon (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to Autobahn's edit of Košice that Elonka questioned above, I think his change is directly against the draft naming convention as I understand it. He was removing the Hungarian name of the city from the lead. It appears that Košice is a large city with an obvious Hungarian connection. I'm not happy with his removal of various events of Hungarian history from Bratislava either but this is not controlled by the naming convention as such. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, his removal of the Hungarian name Kassa (that was also in the "Names" section) is in line with WP:NCGN and the first bullet of the "consensus" above. Markussep ^Talk 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not the case. I would urge everyone to carefully consider all the facts before making a rush to judgement here one way or the other. Hobartimus (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? Could you explain how his edit to the Košice article violated WP:NCGN etc.? Markussep ^Talk 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It violated this experiment. --Rembaoud (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But how? What I see is that he/she removed the Hungarian name from the lead, because it was already mentioned in the "Names" section. That is no violation of WP:NCGN or our experiment. Markussep ^Talk 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No notice on talkpage, and generated an argument, therefore yes, it DID violate. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this edit was outside the scope of our discussion (which is about how to refer to towns in other articles) and in line with conventions and similar articles, like Prešov. I don't think The Autobahn should have expected an argument (and basically the argument was more about his identity than about this edit). If you think mentioning (relevant) alternative names only in a separate section, and not in the lead, gives the alternative names too little emphasis, that's another discussion. Markussep ^Talk 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting to fast, for example the arguments around Petržalka. Your opinion was the "opposite" at there [45] a week ago. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that related? I was removing a name (Petersilienhain) that isn't used in German for Petržalka. Noone doubts that Kassa is a relevant name for Košice. Markussep ^Talk 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)