User talk:Tankred/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Joe I 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know. Cactus.man ✍ 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the contribs/edits in twin towns of Bratislava. dusoft 12:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have finally looked at the Nitra issue. Of course, you are right: the documents only mention the bishopric of Nitra, the "physical" seat of the archbishopric, at least in 880, was the town of Morava (i.e. probably Mikulčice). This is a nice example of the damage that a nationalist vandal (Knieza, because that has been his addition) can cause to the wikipedia - he constantly repeated "Nitra-Nitra...", and I have unwillingly "adopted" his wrong statement into my brain. Juro 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Finaly someone removed all those nonsense long desriptions. Good job. Thanks. (Although Andy Warhol still remained :) ) Jurohi 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for taking a while to answer. I haven't check SK stuff for a while, so it took me a bit to get back :) I understand very well your feelings when having to deal with these 'authors'. Tipicaly they are people unable to write an article, so they realize themselves this way. I also lost several hours trying to reason with such folks, but it is realy tiring and frustrating to spent more time arguing than writting something usefull. (You could check the last 2: Dezo Hoffmann +talk and my talk page, just above your lines...) Anyway, this IP guy is not worse our time. He clearly presented his level of education, especialy with the last frases about bryndza. The one refering to Bratislava as Poszony in 2006, does not deserve any serious consideration. I didn't comment on LoS talk page, since I wanted to avoid starting|continuing that useless discussion. However I will watch more carefuly and you will have all my support if needed. I admire your patience and calm, that alowed you to maintain such a polite style :) Good luck. Jurohi 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi body. Don't worry, I am checking quite often and I will. I have seen funny arpad's menace. The guy did 3 edits... Pretty arrogant. I already wrote you my opinion regarding 81.ip. Trying to reason with this people is just a waste of time. Just rv. Cya Jurohi 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that you translate "hradisko" with "hill fort" (e.g. in the Great Moravia article). That is a wrong translation, because a "hillfort" is at best a subtype of a hradisko. The word is difficult to translate, but the best translation is "fortified settlement" or "castle mound", but the former is better. Juro 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "hill fort" is used in English summaries of several Slovak books and articles about Great Moravia (for example in Štefanovičová, Tatiana (1989). Osudy starých Slovanov, Bratislava: Osveta.). Although the hill fort is a subtype of "hradisko", as you pointed out, most hradiska can be described as medieval hill forts because of their dimensions, purpose, and architecture. Sometimes, Slavic hradiska even incorporated fortifications of older prehistoric hill forts (e.g. in Devin Castle). Unfortunately, there is no article about hradisko and the expression "fortified settlement" is too general and vague. Therefore I use the word hill fort as the closest substitute for hradisko whenever the actual hradisko was a hill fort. Of course, few settlements (e.g. Mikulcice) cannot be described as hill forts and I tried to avoid the use of this expression in such cases. Tankred 23:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great editions to the article

14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate. No seriously I cannot complete the entire Slovakia project in one go!!!!!! What I have done is first set up the regional categories. Then I have started to go through creating the district categories within each region. These will all be neatly set up. Both categories are needed so readers can look at the villages in each district but also see the entire list on the page for each district. This is a long long long task so please have patience. No one else is bothering to help me yet an entire country is practically missing. I will not contradict myself. I will be consistent but probably no one will ever thank me for my efforts!! James Janderson 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi actually it won't take that long to start stubs. If you look at what I've done so far you will see I am doing a valuable job. But almost an entire country is missing from the project which I am amazed that nobody else is willing to help, even a little. Perhaps I will start to win more respect from other wikipedians. ThanksJames Janderson 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE formulate the request there (tell me when), and add the following users (basically those I remember and currently from the Magyarisation article): User:Erdelyiek, User:Bendeguz, User:Vay, User:Alphysikist, User:Al345 , 195.56.21.118; 195.56.248.241 , 195.56.240.67, 195.56.236.67 (the last 3 from the M. Hell article), 195.56.16.245, User:Khoikhoi, User:Kelenbp, User:Adam78, User:Fz22, User:Zello (the last two are not so urgent). I am quite sure most of these are the same person....Ah, and you should also ask User:PANONIAN for support. Juro 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

About your question: well, I never asked for CheckUser before, but I think you could ask for it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:CheckUser I am well aware of this problem with Hungarian nationalists on Wikipedia (they recently started to "work" on Serbia-related articles too) and something certainly should be done about this. However, as I said, I never asked before for user checking. As I saw recently, this sockpuppet have more than one IP adress, thus I do not think that CheckUser service would be much helpfull. But it worth to try anyway. PANONIAN (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi I am currently compiling a

09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the appreciation and help. Is it possible that the info boxes like in Italian comunes could be used on each of the municipalities using data from that statistics website. It even has the postcodes which would belong in the statistics box. I am going to need some recruits though!! Know anybody else who could help. User:Punkmorten did say he would help me. Could you message him and suggest what needs doing?. Also I have written a little note at the top of the list of villages in Slovakia page to avoid the town village municipality confusion. That list is now almost complete but needs alphabetizing Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the praise. Yes while I am enthusiastic about starting new articles as quick as possible I know that the prime aim of wikipedia is content and providing info rather than articles existing so going through will be slower but I reckon it will be of a much higher quality. Once the bones are laid down (already they look like respectable stubs) they need to be researched further and written into fuller articles later. See

17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC) -

Urgent

Could you please add some confirmatory comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks. I have been blocked again. User:Juro

You are wrong, see etitorial resumes. And my userpage. Stuff were moved, wich means deleted from one page, and pasted to another. Check. As I see, some nationalist asshole got harpen up by my action(s) also, sorry for that. I asked for removing the arbitration against Juro, because I wanted and want to ask for a third opinion first. It was a bit of misunderstanding both from me and Tony Sidaway also. See things properly please, before you start calling anybody a vandal.

Tons of blending are in these articles, and most of them are in, and you, Juro or PANONIAN always puts them back. :S For example this sentence's place is in the article abt hungarian language. I just started to make a "clearing" by simply putting the sentences, where they should be, and also deleted some povs. Hope you won't dispute, that I know better my country's history than foreigners. Anyway, my main source is this, made by Enciclopedia Humana. Hope you'll accept it, because it is the basis of my edits, for ex changing numbers. Anyway, I just restored, wich you linked for me, because - hmm - Juro was the one, who put in those numbers, with just a "??" for a resume. Sorry, but I can't get it seriously. --VinceB 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more staff. I hope we can work together. --VinceB 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that you decided to use talk pages before you make controversial edits. As for the numbers that you mentioned, Juro did not put them with the "??" summary. He restored them after an anonymous user (86.122.81.189) changed these data without any edit summary. As to the sentence from the Hungary before the Magyars that you pointed out, the sentence is factually true and makes a nice transition to other articles about the more recent history of Hungary. As to your source, I certainly cannot (and do not want to) dispute it because, unfortunately, I do not speak Hungarian. But I know that statistical data in this field are generally disputed and for example, the estimates of the number of Magyars who settled in the Carpathian bassin have an incredibly wide range across the scholarly books. Wikipedia should mention all relevant estimates. I hope we will discuss all major changes on the concerned talk pages with other (mostly Hungarian) editors in order to reach consensus. Tankred 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't read, what I linked. Just reading the title makes it clear, what language is it in. And - from the fact of being part of a lexicon - its also fully provable, and NPOV. Numbers are all shown, from the smallest (25) to the highest (1mill). No need, to double the 25, and I can not understand why is it so important. Official estimates are 500-1 million, any other disputes goes after. --VinceB 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, yours means Slovaks. Slovak nationalists are also slovaks, as you are also a Slovak. Remember: you immediately called me a sockpuppet, a vandal, a nationalist, whatever and blured with those, who scandaled "death to the slovakians". I gave you nothing for those. Should I go back and one-by-one gave a template? I find it quite ridiculous. Please read and think through what I write properly. This is not the first time of such a misunderstanding between us. --VinceB 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never called you sockpuppet. I only said that there is some evidence indicating that User:Árpád might have used sockpuppets. I warned you that your behavior (you initially blanked whole paragraphs without discussing it first on a talk page - and I am happy that you started to use talk pages) may be considered vandalism by other users. I do not remember any occasion when I called you a nationalist. And I have never implied that you belong to the group, which yelled "Death to Slovaks" in a Hungarian soccer stadium. I reread what you write and the word "yours" is still there. Well, if a Slovak kills someone, I am not a murderer, am I? If there are some Slovak nationalists out there, does it means they are "mine"? Tankred 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the

22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon

Well, right now I am little bussy with work about Serbian cities and districts, so I did not read new posts on the Treaty of Trianon talk page. Since I saw that nobody change the article itself, I was not much interested what they write on the talk page, but when they start to change article, I will start participating in the discussion. :) Also, it is possible that not all of them are sockpuppets of the Hun Tomy, in fact by my opinion there are 2 or 3 Hungarian users behaving like this: one is from Sombathely in Hungary, another one is from Vojvodina (possibly Subotica), and there is maybe another one. All of them creating numerous sockpuppets and posting nationalistic content. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the fact that one nickname is registered few months ago, but used right now does not mean that it is not sockpuppet. A smart vandal could register 5-6 nicknames and then use them after few months when he need them. Do not underestimate this guy. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the appreciation. Its not that I expect a standing ovation I mean I'm sure many users are doing great work on existing articles its just that nobody seemed to notice. Usually when starting lots of new articles somebody sends you are message or something but nobody did. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I got your message. You make me really sad. If you think by inventing Slovak history it will make life
nicer...be my guest. The only people in Slovakia who belive this unproovable bunk are highly
uneducated or blinded by hatred.  I do not want to revert history...what hapend is long
 passed..Slovakia never existed before 1921. There are no original documents you can cite....if you
find any I will belive you. I totally understand that it can get very frustrating......If you think it
is good to give references to unknown webpages and sources its on you....but it will never be but
lies.  --Csabap 05:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit surprised by your reaction. I warned you that some of your edits may be considered vandalism and I listed the articles, in which you deleted relevant information. For example, you deleted the fact that Grassalkovich was a Croat[1] and you deleted the sources of an entire article [2]. We usually do not do that because it would decrease quality and verifiability of an article. Articles should cite their sources. Perhaps you believe that countries and nations can miraculously emerge from nothing and that Slovaks and Croats have no history because... I do not know, perhaps they arrived to Slovakia and Croatia in 1921? :-) As you perhaps realized, I had no problem with your beliefs, but with your edits against the actual policies and style of Wikipedia. I would like to recommend you to write or expand articles instead of deleting information that you do not like because of your political views. Tankred 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did go after Grassalkovich and the article was right so I did leave it alone. About deleteing references: links to nationalist webpages are not references, books that no one can find are not references. A proper reference can be looked up....If I refer to a Hungarian book it is always one that has an english edition and even beter online. I do this because I know not manz people around the globe know Hungarian. I always refer to books writen by accepted autors (academic people). What the Slovaks are doing is propaganda.....I found only one normal reference to a book writen by the Slovakian Academy...and thats it...no english translation, but at least it was something...--Csabap 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not write that article, I am just protecting its integrity. It is generally better not to delete any sources used write an article. As to books in other languages, you are right that it is quite annoying. But many articles about Central Europe cite mainly sources in native languages because most books will simply never be translated into English. Tankred 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does Huntington claim this? The description of CARICOM on pp. 131-33 of his book seems to suggest that it is part of the West (as opposed to the other Caribbean nations which are part of Latin America). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In his original article, Huntington claimed: "Civilizations may involve a large number of people, as with China ('a civilization pretending to be a state,' as Lucian Pye put it), or a very small number of people, such as the Anglophone Caribbean." Unfortunately, I have not his book right now, so I cannot check to what extent he contradicted himself. Perhaps we should distinguish between the article and the book in the list of civilizations because there are more inconsistencies. Tankred 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know that the book contradicts that at all...merely the book doesn't state it and leaves itself open to other interpretations. I'm satisfied, thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tankred, sorry for the late reply, I'm pretty busy these days and sometimes I can only put in a few minor edits here and there. I didn't check all the names in

13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

This situation is more complex than that which can be dealt with within the auspice of that notice board. Dispute resolution (perhaps with a quick stop at request for check-user) is strongly recommended. - brenneman ^{L} 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Aaron Brenneman#User:Tankred

Copied from other talk page

Thank you for your message.[3] But can you advise me please what I can do with the personal attack warning templates that User:VinceB put on my talk page after I filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB? I believe he/she violated the Wikipedia policy while using these templates because I have not commited any personal attack (as I explained here and User:PANONIAN supported here). It was clearly VinceB's revenge. I am afraid he/she will ask to block me just because I have those templates on my talk page. But I do not know if it would not be a case of vandalism if I remove them. I do not know what to do. Do you think you can help me somehow? Thanks a lot in advance. And if you need explanation or clarification of any of my actions in the past, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I hope this dispute will be over soon. Tankred 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

End copied section.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I see you've got several concerns, I'll try to address them in turn.

• You being blocked. Don't worry too much, it's more difficult to get blocked than that, and placing a template in the manner that you did is not usually considered a personal attack. It's important, however, to remember that in the event that you are wrong it will certainly feel like a personal attack to the other user.
• Removal of templates. As to removing the template, this is an area that is frought with controversy. My approach is to simply leave it in place, perhaps with a politly worded reply. However, users have traditionally been given wide latitude in this regards in all but the most pernicious cases.
• Moving forward. The best way to progress any concerns you have with regards to alternate accounts is via checkuser, as linked above. In fact, that's probably a necessary and sufficient condition to ending any drama. It's also always a good idea to avoid as much as possible personalising any issues, and to attempt to view any dispute from the other user's side
  while presuming that they are a decent fellow.

De-escalation is a difficult thing. But I find that a large percentage of wiki-friction arises from simple misunderstanding, often predicated on facts not in evidence. Just proceed slowly and cordially, and don't let it distract you too much from article writing.

brenneman ^{L} 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful answer. Tankred 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I asked for CheckUser as you suggested and it really proved that VinceB is a sockpuppetmaster. He/she was blocked and warned. I hope this harassment will end now. Tankred 19:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And also HunTom...

This is probably also his sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Slovan So, you should list this sockpuppet too on checkuser page. PANONIAN (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You are simply

12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you're not able to decide wheter Vince is a male or female name, then why do I have to look at you as competent in anything else, wich is a bit harder to decide? --VinceB 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tankred, you might want to take a look at the recent edits to Spiš, or

15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Vince's move made "

WP:ANI. Cheers, Olessi

03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Juro

I am not really back, but could you please activate/give me an e-mail adress here (or an ICQ number), so that I can write to you? Juro 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PANNONIAN has reverted my edits in the Backa Killings article. I had changed killings certainly number of Hungarians to must killings. Why he reverted it? I think that these anti-national article should be deleted, because it causes nothing just conflicts. He personaly attacked me with the sentence "because that article is an irredentist one". He think that I am a neonazi, a fascist and an irredentist and he will revert all my edits because he is not neutral with me.HunTheGoaT 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't heard about the 3RR before.HunTheGoaT 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still open for discuss and normal talk. You asked normally, I acted normally. I offer you a deal:

• Stop shouting vandal at me, especially in those cases, where you simply reverted cited facts written by me to uncited statements (per my view political POVs) without discussion or at least a comment on the talkpage where you briefly explain why you reverted (or modifed) my contrib. (but I would ask how can a cited data abt the migration between 1880 and 1910 be an "ultranationalist POV" or simply POV)
• Use verifiable sources, wich cannot be questioned, (I can read them)
• Do not ignore me and my comments, replies again, reply them, and don't try again to show things in - my opinion - false ways, whether if I'm right or wrong. Talk, and discuss. This is what makes things go forward. If you agree, I won't request for mediation, and stop in yr words "harassing" you by interpreting the case between us, from my view, and I won't bring up again the things you did against me wheter if I'm right or wrong.

Got the deal? --VinceB 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, the use of talk pages before making controversial edits is exactly what I proposed to you in September. I am really happy that you started to use them and I am willing to discuss all our differences on the talk pages of the concerned articles. To your points above, I had never called you a vandal before you actually committed vandalism. I explained precisely which of your edits were vandalism on your talk page. I do not remember any case, in which I reverted your addition of a citation, but I remember many cases, in which I reverted your deletion of citations. As to the migration data, can you provide the diff address? I may be wrong, but I believe the comment "ultranationalist POV" was written by another editor, not by me. As to the verifiable resources, I would like just to remind you that our last major disagreement over inclusion of citations arose after you deleted three references to academic journals written in English (added by me) and a reference to BBC (added by Nyenyec). I am trying to find English resources whenever it is possible. But, since you have recently added many references in Hungarian, you surely understand why I sometimes refer to texts written in Slovak. As to the proposed mediation, you can initiate it if you wish. I am a bit uneasy about the scope of it (this is not our personal dispute, but there are also several other editors who have reverted your edits). On the other hand, if you believe the formal mediation can improve the present situation, I encourage you to request it. Tankred 02:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I always used talk pages, sometimes signed in, sometimes as an IP (signed out) you just didn't take the time to check it nor to answer. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to see that you made a proposal of willing to use it. I'm eager to see it happen.

Fidesz: It was moved to the critics section, since it is a critic. As usual, wasn't deleted, just moved. Don't be neglect.

Meditation: I several times wrote down, what is my problem with your behaviour. Per above, won't write it down again (Go back and find them) - only if you're able to stop. --VinceB 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you think it is funny just to repeat my own words, but it is not. I meant it seriously. You did not consult anyone before making many of your most controversial edits, such as [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. It is quite disturbing especially in the case of the articles, to which you had not contributed in a more traditional way (i.e. expanding the text) before. That is why I said that I am happy about your declared change of behavior. Perhaps you want to clarify what exactly I should "stop" doing. Do you mean reporting vandalism, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks? Just look at your block log and then at the mine. I have not had any problem with my behavior here because I do legitimate edits in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. So, what exactly is your "problem with my behavior"? Tankred 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The first was a mistake, 2-3 were clear POVs, not reflecting or simply poorly reflecting reality. 4 is maybe a joke from you, I've answered it a month ago [11] but you ignored the talk page. This is one thing you should STOP immediately. The other, what you should STOP is what you did after it. Shouting vandal, and misleading administrators to block me for edir warring, what you started. Edit warring is the third thing you should immediately stop. Whatever yr problems, use the discussion page instead of starting a revert war. 5 displays what I told you several times before: you have a (very) limited smattering of history (in these fields absolutely clearly low), check the survey on the talk page, it was split since. 6 is a revertion of a meatpuppet, called User:Otu3. It is a part of a series started with User:Otu2. Hope no more new parts will be released. I several times wrote down what are my problems. You several times wrote down, you do not talk to me. That's the problem, and that's why you do not now. In one sentence: malicious behaviour, misleading others by you (wich mainly comes from simple neglection), against me, and backing the actions of PANONIAN and Juro. --VinceB 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

After two or three month, you still din't got in the swing of that I mainly revert Juro's vandalisms, and PANONIAN's POV's, wich were proved to be POVs on the talk pages, usually by User:Zello or User:fz22. They are in the article for so long now, that they seems like reality, for you also.

Better to say, there were at least 16 editors wich were accused with something by PANONINAN and Juro. So I thing you're "standing on the wrong side" of the track, befriending with the real bad guys.--VinceB 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The admins blocked you because of the evidence against you (i.e. your own edits archived in the history). I did not know any of those admins before and they were not active in editing the articles, which I usually edit. It is thus far from being clear for me what kind of bias they were supposed to have according to your complaint. As to my alleged declaration that I wish not to talk you (btw, when exactly did I say that?), we are talking right now or aren't we? I will not respond to your derogatory comment about my knowledge of history. But it is ridiculous to use the Spis article as a kind of evidence to support this claim. In fact, that article was created long before you joined Wikipedia, many editors worked on it and you just came and moved the article to the Hungarian version of its name without any discussion. Your edit was reverted by Olessi (an excellent editor and a respected and very neutral admin). Only afterwards, you initiated a poll about your proposal to move the article again. You lost the poll because absolutely no one supported your idea. Most users (including me) backed an alternative proposal to split the article. As to PANONIAN and Juro, they are well-established users with an incredibly long record of creating, expanding, and improving articles. I have had my own content disputes with Juro and I do not appreciate his style of communication very much, but I respect him as an experienced editor. PANONIAN is a prolific and award-winning editor. I would like to ask you to be more careful with your words because it is not extremely civil to call Juro and PANONIAN "the real bad guys", POV-pushers and vandals. You have been warned against personal attacks in the past. If you believe that a particular edit is vandalism or pushes a particular POV, there are formal procedures that you can use instead of calling other editors names. But please do not forget that it was you who have challenged the compromise in sensitive articles about Central Europe and initiated many of the recent edit-wars. Tankred 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Tankred! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply

) 15:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

what version of VP do you have?

talk • contribs • Bot

) 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what the issue is can you get on IRC to irc://irc.freenode.net/vandalproof I can help you there easier.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do What?

I think you should check that again, because I haven't even visited that page let alone vandalized anything. Bignole 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. I went to the link you provided and it appeared that the vandalization was still there, I hope that I reverted it correctly. Bignole 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is for clarity. The extra space is not required, it's rather a question of style. See e.g.

06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Knowing things better

Better look after, who's the author of the book I suggested reading for you : John Lukacs. He's a holocaust survivor. The holocaust memorial also states Horthy as non-fascist, so in fact the funny is what You said to me. Or maybe you know this also much better then the jews involved. --VinceB 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there are several views among the historians. Vince, no one believes anymore that there is some simple truth ("Horthy was" or "Horthy was not" a fascist leader) in the field of political history. When I have time, I will rewrite the Tiso, and Horthy articles, adding references to the main works because Wikipedia does not define the truth - it describes what is believed to be true (and by whom and why). You presented one view (and not very consistently because you call Tiso a fascist while you believe that Horthy was not a fascist), but there are also other approaches (both of them were fascist or both of them were authoritarian conservative leaders). Just do not rely on one book and try to read more of them before you question my knowledge. Tankred 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to better not harm the consensus on those articles by adding marginal authors beliefs. I also warn you about

. Anyway, I'm intrested who do you think more relevant in the quieston than those involved, and those who are the main researchers in the topic (aka jews). :-) This line is funny from you: When I have time, I will rewrite the [...] articles, adding references to the main works because Wikipedia does not define the truth.

I just showed you the mainstream opinion, becuse it seemed, that you does not know it. As I see, you just reject it. Tiso was sentenced to death (and hanged) because of collaboration with the Nazis, and he was a leader of a fascist puppet government, kind of a slovak Ferenc Szálasi. I better ask you to read this section on Horthy's page. I'm intrested what do you know better, than the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, and the international experts of the field. I suggest you to read the article Ferenc Szálasi also. --VinceB 11:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, I really tried, but it is somewhat pointless to discuss those issues with you if you resort to funny "warnings". It is you, not me, who likes challenging the consensus reached in articles. And I will not repeat myself all the time if you do not want (or are unable) to read what I have written several times: there are various opinions in the mainstream of history and historiography. It is not about what I know "better" (oh, when exactly did I use this word?), but about the discourse in the field of political history. Have a nice day. Tankred 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you say "tu quoque". I really want to know exactly what (who) do you mean under "various opinions in the mainstream of history and historiography". Since I've had some minor :)) (sic!) studies about the politics-polity-policy Bermuda Triangle.

Another funny line from you: "And I will not repeat myself all the time if you do not want (or are unable) to read what I have written several times". Seems so familiar for me, maybe if I have already said this several times before...(You repeat me?) I tried to reach a "deal" between us, a consensus or agreement, or something like that, but it seems, that you're not intrested in any consensus, but only in your own and only, unchangeable absolute truth, wheter it has any relations to the reality. Yo not even took the time to read my comments properly from the first time. (for ex) It is getting annoying and funny that you are continuosly repeating my lines, and sometimes simply delete it [12], but if I delete the same actions what you did on my talkpage, you bring it up as a proof for vandalism... For repeating: When I qualified yr actions as trolling [13] (per pestering), you started to call me a troll [14], and after you were warned to mind yr words, then "t..." :-) You continuosly repeating my words, my terms, if they were yours (first). This is also a part what I call "misleading of others".

PS: You tried nothing, or you not tried "really". Whatever you like to call yr "efforts", I gave you a book, and several links, to cite my statement(s), while you just spoke in weasel terms. I also want to see a verifiable source for this: [15], and see you discussing at here: Talk:Francis II Rákóczi#This is an english speaking wikipedia. Regards --VinceB 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi yes thanks. I know there may have been a few errors. I think that 95% of it was right but it was a mammoth task and surely it couldn't have been done absolutely perfectly!! I undrstand there was a minor problem with indexing but remember if it wasn't for me neither the articles or indeed the categories would actually exist! To be honest with you I am extremely glad it is started and finished! because once I commit to something I always follow my word and complete it although I must admit I was feeling a bit fed up half way through!! As you may know I have also been working on creating films and actors to wikipedia which are about only 0.0001% covered! This is a VASTLY missing part of wikipedia!!I will concentrating on this now particularly old film and actors e.g

 !!

I have started on Hungary villages already putting a navigation box in order but I will be mostly leaving the bulk of the work to MarkBA now. I will however be creating a navigation box for each county and setting up the templates for him. We will begin with the Southern Great Plain region s I don't know if you want to watch events and do your great job in correcting any errors.

Wikipedia is still a baby in about ten years it will be nearer to recognizing its full potential. Thanks again and I will continue my work if not perhaps less arduously! And feel free to give me a barnstar on my contribution to film or just in general as I already have one for Slovakia!! As I have admitted before I do thrive on encouragement and comppliments so when other users such as Nygaard are very rude about my work I tend to feel alittle dejected and annoyed. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

HI this seems silly but how do I change the appearance of the main page? I prefer the setting where it is of a bright blue and the icons have the pictures by the side of them e.g arts would have a paint palette by it. You see I am very receptive to colour and I would prefer the main page and icons a lot stronger rather than the weak standard ones. How do I do this. I'm sure I saw this not on my preferences but on a Wikipedia: page where the choices are avilabale but I can't find where it is? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let Vince be in peace, at least for one day. Thanks! --Öcsi 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but VinceB has been advised against personal attacks and that ridiculous dispute between him and PANONIAN could be stopped before it escalated in such a nasty way. Although I am horrified by the recent use of death threats in Wikipedia, I do not see any reason why I should stop reporting personal attacks on the message board. The rules of the game should be obeyed by all of us. VinceB has been very antagonistic during that dispute and I only reported the personal attacks that he committed before, not after those disturbing threats appeared. If the involved editors had used the formal procedures of dispute resolution (such as a request for a third opinion), perhaps it would have not escalated to the situation when one valuable editor decided to leave Wikipedia and another editor received threats from an IP. Tankred 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly right with his behaviour, but I (in my opinion) think, that he is an as valuable user as any other too.

And the most important thing is, that Panonian wasn't an angel too. --Öcsi 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole dispute got very nasty. I do not support the last actions of PANONIAN (moving foreign names to a separate section without any additional information value and edit warring without requesting a third opinion), but I appreciate the immense amount of work he has done in Wikipedia. Anyway, the result of the dispute is very unfortunate and I hope all of us will learn our lesson from it. It was one of the most unnecessary edit wars I have ever seen. Tankred 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To the personal attacks: E.g. Panonian and Juro commit(ted) them quite often, but you never posted them on that notice board. Is Vince a second-class wikipedian or what? --Öcsi 21:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you see a personal attack, I encourage you to use the npa templates and to report the attacks (after the npa3 has been used) on the notice board. Because of his record of disruptive edits in the articles that I sometimes edit, I check from time to time VinceB's recent edits. This is how I found his most recent attacks against PANONIAN. Tankred 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question from Öcsi. This seems like, if you're allowing them to do what you warn me to not to do. Seems like a

 :-) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, you have made rejected reports of "incidents" and "personal attacks" allegedly committed by other users (including me) before, so it is hard to believe in what you call a "liberal" approach of you. Anyway, as I told Öcsi, any uncivil behavior makes our common effort to write an encyclopedia much more problematic. Although I appreciate the great amount of work done by PANONIAN and Juro, I would not support them in any personal attacks if they decided to make any. Tankred 04:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I said "allowing" above, not "supporting". Closing yr eyes when they do it. For ex on talk:Sándor Petőfi (Juro) and talk:Magyarization (P) to restrict to only the most recent ones. That's the point. If you'd like to be a peacemaker, what it seems you want to be, than you should at least try to act like one, by warning the "other side" also, and rather do it a calm way, not by sending me to "learn". And that definietly not that wat you do now, by letting them to provocate, then warn those who were provocated....

Pic: PD pics can (and should) be uploaded to commons to be usable in every wikipedias, for ex in the Slovak or else also. So the one wich should be deleted is what is here, on enwiki, rather than that on the commons. This is the logical way. --

 :-) 14:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the matter of record, CheckUser showed that PANONIAN has not used sock puppets and he did not send any death threats to VinceB (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PANONIAN). Tankred 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your contribution to the SIPA page and the suggestion I made regarding Lisa Anderson. Could you set up what you propose alongside a disambiguation page that links to both the surfer and Lisa Anderson the scholar. I suppose that would require renaming the original Lisa Anderson page and modifying all it's inbound links. (Finding the latter is beyond my skills hence my suggestion to you.) Let me know on my talkpage tglaisyer

Cheers - Made changes per suggestions.

Stop it, now. You delete cited fact. You have to prove, why your change is good, since deleting cited facts (CIA World Factbook reference) it is simple vandalism. Or CIA World Factobook was written by Hungarian nationalists also? Don't be reidicuolus. Prove, that yr edit is good/right/etc. I did that.

Nevertheless, "reverted per talk" [16] is simply not true, to be kind. --

 :-) 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the matter of record, I explained on the talk page concerned why the reference to the World Factbook could not be used in this particular case.[17] Tankred 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, every word you have written is correct (and VinceB alias HunTomy alias all the other names he has knows it), but you could try to continue to fix major errors at least. Juro 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize on behalf of the entire Hungarian Wikipedia community for all the trouble a certain editor has been giving you lately. His personal attacks against you were 100% unjustified and not to mention rude. I'm especially sorry the whole mess threw you into such a WikiCrisis! I hope you won't give up on this project--it certainly has its problems and weaknesses but I think on the whole it works pretty well considering what it is! Anyway, just wanted to say I hope you get over your crisis OK, and keep up the hard work. :) In the spirit of international friendship, K. Lástocska 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Szívesen, and köszönöm yourself for your compliments! I always try to be as diplomatic as possible--these kinds of projects only work when people make friends and comrades instead of enemies and dueling partners. :) I'll be honest, I sure don't always agree with you, but I can tell you are intelligent and educated, so I respect you and I can work with you. As for the whole Hungarian independence debate, I can see where you're coming from but I also think the issue might be a bit more complicated. Someone on there commented that Hungarian history is all tied up in a

, and it's practically impossible to keep track of all the times when she won and lost and regained and lost again and regained again her independence. So the 1918 date is clearly a significant one, but so are 896 and/or 1000, and probably 1849, and I would say 1989 as well. My solution was just to cram four or five dates into the box (something for everyone!), as some other pages for countries with turbulent histories have done, but someone changed it.... :( Incidentally, that whole debate confused the heck out of me, mainly because the article was just a generic one about "Hungary", the infobox was for the recently-formed Republic of Hungary, and the independence date was the 1918 one....aaaagh it was a terrible case of not defining terms. :) I'm avoiding that dispute for a while, may jump back in later. K. Lástocska 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be valuable here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary User Fz22 trying to falsify 1910 census results and to replace languages with ethnic groups. PANONIAN (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge and would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? I beleive this wikipedia sister project would be developed into an extremwely valuable resoruce not only for achieving knowledge of major languages but also other world languages which are not always readily available to learn.

I beleive that such is the massive global size of wikipedia that wikipedians from each country who have a knoweldge of their own languages could contribute. E.g I would like to have a knowledge of the Czech language but at present there is not much detail. I would like a complete WikipediaLinguistics Sister project devotes to providing languages across the planet.

E.g WikiLanguages would be divded into 250 languages eventually or whatever with each having a massive sub project of its own. WikiFrench WikiSpanish WikiFinnish, WikiPortuguese, WikiGerman, WikiPortuguese, WikiCzech WikiItalian WikiGreek WikiSwedish WikiJapanese etc. What do you think. If you think it is a good idea let me know I have propsed it on the main page but I seriously think this would be an immensely benefical part of wikipedia. Also if it could incorpate translation technology also think of the immense benefit it wuod,have from translating articles from foreign wikipedias!!!

If you think it is a great idea I am thinking of organizing a Support campaign for it to ensure that WikiLinguistics or whatever is established alongside WikiSpecies WikiCommons etc. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You should remove it from yr userpage. I kindly ask you to do that. --

 :-) 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a link to a page, on which you lied about me? Anyone can just click on it and make his/her own judgment. This is not a personal attack, but merely a link to your own words. A mirror of a sort. Tankred 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked me before to remove same content from my userpage about you, don't you remember? I wanted to add links to it, but I made a gesture and removed it. It seems, that you do not want to stop warring against/with me, and still you cant act

 :-) 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the link shows only that, that I agreed with myself once, when I forgot, that it was me. I realized it after immediately, and a checkuser also proved it. (Since it is always used against me...) So: It does not prove, or anything, that what I stated about you with tons of difflinks are lies. That's only my point of view about you.

I warn you about

 :-) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tankred, thank you for your message on my page. To the diffs between spellings, yes, both are correct, and it doesn't matter whichever is used, but according to

21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Map

The suspected is Dr. Györffy György (1917-2000). Map is from books Magyarország története-Előzmények és magyar történet 1242-ig. (History of Hungary-From beginnings until 1242) Akadémiai Kiadó Budapest 1987, book 3, chapter 3, Államszervezés (Constitution of the state). He created the map and it is on the page 624. —The preceding

) 12:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Dr. G. G. has never drawn a map in which (a) Moravia is part of Hungary, (b) Hungary has these frontiers in the early 10th century. And irrespective of this the map is simply factually wrong and not only approximately but totally. You can use virtually any source dealing with this in details. To sum up, this is another lie on your part, HunTomy alias VinceB alias XY. And I simply cannot understand, how such an obvious repeated permanent systematic vandalism on your part can stay without any form of reaction in this screwed-up wikipedia version. Juro 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to the right place.--Bendeguz 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tankred.

I was just looking through categories and found

08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

KV

You should be interested in this [18], please take a look there ! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about personal attack that VinceB made against me. I noticed that there is certain common pattern of behaviour for users VinceB, Öcsi and Bendeguz, i.e. it is very interesting that user Öcsi usually come to revert back edits made by users VinceB and Bendeguz. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clash_of_Civilizations&action=history and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Öcsi It is very evident connection between those users, so is it possible to ask for checkuser to see are they a sockpuppets of one same user? - that would put some light to the whole problem. Also, I have in mind some other possible sockpuppets of those users, for example, I am almost 99% certain that user Sors bona is a sockpuppet of user Bendeguz, while other possible sockpuppets certainly include User:Fz22 and User:HunTomy. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First you should read what paranoid-panonian wrote here [19], and than consider if it's racist or not. I think it's not only racist, it's quite provocative.

PS: I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, I even do not live in Hungary (but Vince does). --Öcsi 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For Öcsi: I just informed an admin about your recent behaviour, so please expect official warning to stop personal attacks. Regarding my edit on the talk page that you showed, please tell me what exactly there you consider "hungarophobic", "racist", "fascist" or "provocative"? Who ever read it could see that it is just an observation about ethno-political situation in the region and my opinion what should be done to stop and prevent those things. You call me "racist" and "hungarophobic" because I want to prevent those attacks against Hungarians??? Is this a joke or what? PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For Tankred: I already informed one admin about this personal attack made by VinceB, so I hope he will warn him not to do that any more. Regarding checkuser, I know that checkuser is not approved if there is no major violation of Wikipedia policy, but perhaps such violation exist: for example if VinceB and Öcsi are nicknames of one same user, and if Öcsi revert to version written by VinceB then he create false impression that more users are involved in such revert wars with goal to show that his case is "stronger" - that could be seen as violation of Wikipedia policy and checkuser could confirm is this truth or not. PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(

14:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plants

Hi. I've just created today this new article and I would like to suggest it for DYK but I don't know if it has possible mistakes and/or wording, though I've added needed references. Can you look at it? Thanks. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About me: Simply wrong link copied. Right one: The Slovaks, nevertheless, formed the Slovak National Party. Supported by Catholics and Protestants, the Slovak National Party was conservative and pan-Slavic in orientation and looked to autocratic Russia for national liberation. .

buddy.

About you:

1. [20] removed per "political pamphlet" - no it is not. (till Seton-Watson is not) Pozzi denied S-W's claims in many points and "facts", by bringing real facts and real datas, etc. Read after Pozzi's works. Not a political pamphlet anyway.
2. . [21]. You're wrong again. Indirectly cites it. ((...)all Slavs under Austrian rule(...))

1. Sorry, I was happy that you, after 5-6 month, first in history, made a compomise. I just wanted to praise you, tha you made the first step from your fantasies to the reality. BTW I'm absolutely sure, you think that I hate Slovaks. (or at least dislike them). Not to mention the others.

1. [22] This link IS reachable. [23].

1. This is not the first time, you abused references, and you lied, that I did that. [24]. The only difference between us, is that you have not been blocked for that, yet.

1. why do you hate pan-slavism like that? It was the main political motivator of the Slavs in the 19th century. The fear of a slavic uprise led to the magyarization also. That artile is a big mess, not to mention that it is a lie, and puts the "fruit" before the "tree" as if fruit existed first, than the tree (wich is in fact not even mentioned). Awful radicalism, and you support it, absolutely blindfold. Sorry, but I can not believe, that you're not some political extremist. (or simply: moderate) You simply does not act like one. Just look at your actions agaist me. -
   hey, yo!
    :-) 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on your allegations ("you lied", "you abused references", "you, after 5-6 month, first in history, made a compomise", "I can not believe, that you're not some political extremist"...), a simple comparison of our block logs indicates who is right. However, I would like to thank you for emphasizing that the link to Sándor Kostya's book indeed works. It did not when I checked it earlier during the day. Now it seems to be all right. Therefore, I reintroduced it to the article. As to pan-Slavism, it was not the only or the main source of the Slovak national movement. I hope the article now clarifies the differences between various groups in the movement. Tankred 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a new thing, that when you have to admit something, you go "no comment". You don't have to say it out, I understand now. Vince 15:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it was nice to know that we share the same ideas about naming conventions in CE Europe. --Heavypiece 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See Tankred? If you personally do not want to, (what I can not believe right now) even so you're supporting anti-Hungarian "very far-right" ultra-nationalist ppl., such as Bonaparte (as Heavypiece here), Juro, etc. by having the same opinion as them, and encouraging them with your bevave, actions, and rabid revertwar, what you do against me, for ex., wich many times proved to be wrong, and lowered the quality of enwiki. (just to mention the most recent gendarmes/policemen thing) Minor thing, but in fact, huge difference. Maybe you should start to think first. Vince 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last comment clearly violates

WP:NPA. Please stop attacking me. You accused me of supporting and encouraging "anti-Hungarian 'very far-right' ultra-nationalist ppl., such as Bonaparte". Those are serious allegations. And your advise "Maybe you should start to think first" means what? This is enough. Find yourself another hobby than harassing me. Tankred

17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just speak out, what I see. When I see Juro, Bonaparte (now as Heavípiece) and/or other (indef) blocked pov-pusher and/or sockpuppeters (etc), or simply abusive editors writing to you in almost every question, quote: "we share the same ideas", then it is obvious (for me), that I think, that you're sharing the same ideas with them. I never saw you acting against it. You know, you're writing everywhere, that you're not doing anything like that, but you do not act like that, and your actions constantly bringing you comments like this above, by H.

You know, I never used the

verifiable

sources. It was nice, that you checked them on the History of S, (first time in our history), and a mistake (wrong link) had been fixed. I'd like to see more like this from you. You like to check me, so why not checking the content I add, instead of reverting at sight? It would move things forward (a thousand miles), and maybe you also realize once, how far is the pic in your mind abt me is away from reality...

BTW same applies to you, because it would be hard for me to leave you alone since you're the one, who's comeing after me... No need to answer to my questions above, since you don't want to. Nor to my previous ones. --

hey, yo!

 :-) 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Can you read what you have just posted here? I have never ever talked to Heavypiece. Any reasonable reader who sees my talk page or checks my contributions will realize that your claims are just too far from reality. The only editor who is flooding this page by an incessant flow of comments is you - not Bonaparte (who, as far as I remember, was banned before I came to Wikipedia, so I have only read about him), or Juro (who is not banned), or any other banned editors (in fact, I have never communicated with any of them). Stop it. I do not have time for your personal attacks. Feel free to talk to me if you want to discuss actual edits, but please do not spam this talk page anymore by your unsubstantiated accusations. Beware that recurring personal attacks are prohibited even after the deletion of

WP:PAIN. Tankred

23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosice

Hello mate, you deleted a link to my article I added to Kosice article. Its true, it is self promoting, but I think that article from Kosice native person about Kosice can be useful. It is also not so coomerce site as kosice.info for example. What you think? --Clovek55 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be perhaps useful. But self-promotion is prohibited in Wikipedia and this kind of links is being deleted every day. Another problem is that you advertise services (kosicehotels.eu) on your web site. Even if I left the link in the article, it would not survive for more than a couple of days. Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided is very clear in this regard and the link violated two of the rules. I am sorry, but I cannot help you anyhow. Tankred 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted kosicehotels.eu from the article, to be sure it is not article created for advertisement. What you think now?--Clovek55 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would love to leave your link there, but Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided is pretty strict: it is prohibited to include "links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". Although your link no longer advertise commercial services, it is still self-promotion of a blog. Tankred 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tankred! I've noticed you've made a request for comment at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. If you would like me to help with anything, please let me know. If am, however, unsure of what the nature of the conflict is regarding Kremnica. From what I take it, it is a dispute about whether Hungarian or Slovak names should be used when making historical references. Is this right? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tankred, thanks so much for your kind words! You're a good guy--some of my countrymen seem to have gotten the wrong idea about you. :) I will be OK, I've just had a run of rotten luck in real life (just got a big fat ugly rejection letter from one of the music schools I auditioned at, among other things) and got into a really upsetting argument on Wiki.

BTW, I might be able to talk to certain users who are bothering you and at least try to make them behave themselves--he might listen if the advice comes from a (part-)Hungarian and not a big bad evil Slovak. :) I try to be a wikidiplomat, but it rarely works...K. Lásztocska 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vince--hey, no problem, he was driving me crazy too. It's his type that starts these dumb wars where we have Slovak and Serbian Wikipedians raising an army against the Hungarian Wikipedians (and vice versa), and his type that perpetuates them. I've certainly felt the effects; the first time I met Panonian (or maybe "collided with" would be a better description of our unfortunate first meeting, LOL) he just about assumed my bad faith because of what guys like Vince had been saying. I can't even find it in my usually very patriotic self to be sad to see a fellow Hungo-Wikipedian get blocked--I'm too busy breathing a sigh of relief. :) K. Lásztocska 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the prompt e-mail. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all right. Thank you for correcting it so quickly. Tankred 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great to see you and Mark BA are still improving Slovak articles it seems so long ago since I helped those villages!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On 8 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Havránok, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--

} 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like your idea to propose newly created articles for DYK, but as I can see, only with references. I have created

Poprad-Tatry Airport. Can you think about some? Thanks. MarkBA ^t/c/@

12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity. Well, maybe I can try to look up things which I have, or find them when I'll go to the town next time. So now I guess we have only some possible shots remaining: one-sentence

WikiProject Eastern Europe. What do you think, sounds interesting? MarkBA ^t/c/@

15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are interested, but I was on the trip today to Piešťany and Ducové, so I bought some literature and took some photos, some of which could be useful I think, so I'll upload them sometime. And I've found one great book, which covers Piešťany District and its municipalities very well, particularly history, so I may be able to improve some. Please feel free to improve expanded Piešťany District article if you think something is wrong or missing. Cheers MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll upload some of them, just I was wondering where to categorise them at Commons. Neither Great Moravia nor Považský Inovec categories do not sound well to me. Should I create some Ducové category or whatever, because I have images not only from that hillfort itself, but from the village as well. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Wilno

Replied there, in case you are not watching the page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

NCGN

Hi Tankred, this is regarding this edit. Given that the time we're talking about is 1899 when Hungarian was the official language, and the context is that of the biography of a Hungarian person, to me it is self-evident that the Hungarian version of the name should be used. Please explain why you think this is wrong. Regards,

issL

08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but

Maybe you're not really aware of the differences, and disputes between the russian and other slavic etimologists. I'm a bit. On the other hand, as I said to Juro before [25], "I haven't been banned ever, I don't see in the block log, nor in the "what links here" (my IP userpage) any sign of that this IP was banned before... I see only, that it was used before me on nov 20th, but no other sign. since this is a dinamic IP, I believe, if you say, it has been used by a banned User before me, but as I repeat, I haven't run into autoblock, or found any sign of your claims right now." PS: How can I remove the you have a new message line? It appears continuously, despite that I clicked all the blues in in, twice.. :S --195.56.91.23 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, maybe I try cachecleaning. BTW, what to do with this "style"? I mean I gave the time to improve these articles (at least a bit :), cited sources, cleaned up mistranslations, minor "bugs", and similar staff, than comes Juro, with a strong accusatory style ("liar") and reverts it all, by this, for example putting back the wrong Hungarian names (and their wrong translations) of geographical places on the

Northern Medium Mountains (Hungary)

page. I'm tired to start a lame edit war, so please, don't let him/her to destroy my work.

As for the comment, I placed on Zemplín, I just pointed out, that a political division is not equal with a geographical region, wich is in fact, as I gone further in reading, I saw, that mostly is known, and divided, but This is an exception :) BTW#2 I don't see, why can't it happen that two individuals can say the same, or to make a connection to my third paragraph :) even have the same internet provider.

For the 195... thing, these are dinamic IPs, a lot of ppl could have used them. I've had troubles from it on other wikis. --195.56.91.23 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All in all, please, revert Juro, ok Slavic ppl can be disputed, than leave Juro's version, but the others, including comments are - in my opinion - is simple destroying, and it pretty annoying, that 2hrs of careful editing, and researching is simply deleted... --195.56.91.23 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: As I see, the last checkuser took 2 days. I won't wait it all along here, if you don't mind :) And thus, nor my internet provider. My IP changes about every day. Hey, be thankful, that VinceB was not with T-online. It gives a new IP to every page downloads, like AOL. (or wich). :)) --195.56.91.23 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Báthory film

Thanks Tankred for your remarks. Jakubisko's version of Báthory will be released in Hungary this November. I too am curious to see how they treat the story. A Hungarian version is also being considered but suffers from lack of funding and support. Gyula 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NCGN again

Hi Tankred, this is regarding the apparent revert war here. I have reverted to you and complained to this anon not to abuse my name even in an edit summary. Note however that I do not fully agree with your version (the use of the anachronistic Bratislava in particular). Once I work out what I think is correct, I'll come up with it, but not in the next few days probably; I'm sick right now. Regards,

issL

17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Slovakia

Hello Tankred!

1) That section, contained invalid informations:

• The "karpatalja" (in hungarian) region was part of Hungary before 1400.
• The "Principality of Nitra" was dissolved in 1108 (you can find this information in the article Principality of Nitra) but in the other article (slovakia) you can read this: (from 1100 the north regions) "For almost two centuries, it was ruled autonomously as the Principality of Nitra, within the Kingdom of Hungary".
• What kind of "high level of economic and cultural development" are you talking about?

2) Please, dont tell me the stile in I should write! Other editors use vulgar words (and as you can see I used the "*" button) and they delete sections from articles too [26]. Did you already write to this user? And what do you think about this? What about the wiki term? [27] —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 160.114.118.83

3) You think, that Révay Rozália is a croatian name? That information was correct too.

(talk) 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Re:WP:NCGN

I am not sure exactly what is the problem: can you show me an article, and how the NCGN guideline application is interpreted by you and him? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the rules, feel free to quote me if this is useful: "If in period X the historical name A is considered correct per WP:NCGN, then it can be used throught the article (however the modern name should be mentioned on first occurence - A (B). If not, then it should not be used, unless it is the article about A in which case in can be mentioned in lead. Of course, in many cases some but not all historical sections will be relevant to the period, and the name should change accordingly from section (paragraph, sentence, etc.) to another."-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your ultra nationalistic edits

In your recent edits you claim Slovakia existed about 900 years before it was actually first created. As I am sure you know Slovakia never existed in the middle ages and earlier as you claim and was actually first created in march 1939. You should not use wikipedia to further your agenda or to spread propaganda/false claims (not talking about only those edits but your editing in general). Your editing is very tendentious and troubling/distressing. Please stop or at least slow down. Odbhss 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Austria miraculously raised from the sea in 1918. I have already heard your story. Thank you. Tankred 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This post shows your ignorance and how little you know about history. Ukraine declared itself an independent state on August 24, 1991, so no it was not raised in 1918(it was part of the soviet union) and in any case has nothing to do with Slovakia. Romania and Serbia existed long before 1918 you should probably notice the fact that they fought in WWI if you knew anything about history. Unfortunately the problem is with all of your editing, it clearly shows a disturbing pattern to me. But perhaps we misunderstand each other, could you clarify your own statements? I see that you clearly think that Slovakia existed before 1918 but what is the exact date? Since when Slovakia exists exactly in your opinion? Please answer this question. Odbhss 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Hy!

I am not a sukpuppet! I would like to ask why do you delet my edits? They contain valid information, and I deleted that he was hungarian, so I deleted, that he was a slovak too. There is a big discussion about his nationality in the article, so it wont bee good to claim, that he was slovak, or hungarian, or polish. Lets keep the articles neutrality.Pannonia 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

You have reverted my edits again, and you do not answer to me. Show me your evidences, that I am a sockpupet. If you dont have any, stop calling me "sockpuppet"!

You should know, that I have asked a neutral administrator to make the decision about the first sentence of the article.Pannonia 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

cuisine of slovakia

Hello!

Just one other thing: I didnt find any article (or article parts, in the cuisine of slovakia) on the wikipedia about the cheese parenyica. Someone should write about it, because I think it's a well known cheese abround the World.Pannonia 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kremnica and Banská Štiavnica

Hi Tankred. I don't know what to do with User:Odbhss and his tagging. I have already reverted three times his changes in the articles mentioned above, what means I can't revert anymore to avoid 3RR violation. Any help on this? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with User:Pannonia. He keeps revering my undos of vandalism on the Slovakia and Principality of Nitra articles. I think that placing warnings on his page will do nothing. What should I do? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hy Tankred!

1) I Wrote to V79Benno In hungarian, because I dont speak englis so good. But, i am going to try to translate it to english for You:

This is the hungarian text:

"Bocsi, hogy zavarlak, de attól tartok, hogy épp most sikerült belecsöppennem egy szerkesztési-háborúba, vagy mibe... Azért fordultam hozzád, mert ismerlek a magyar wikiből, és remélem van néhány bölcs tanácsod.

A probléma a következő lenne:

Írtam a Benyovszky Móritz nevű cikkbe a család eredetéről, ás B.M őseiről. Tudni kell, hogy a cikk szerint három nemzet fiai vélik sajátjuknak (szlovák, magyar, lengyel). Na innentől kezdve lesz érdekes a dolog: hogy megőrizzem a cikk semlegességét, kitöröltem azt hogy magyar volt. Csak később vettem észre, hogy a cikk legelső sora leszögezi, hogy szlovák. Én ezt kitöröltem, és indokoltam, hogy nem lenne célszerű ezt állítani, különösen az első mondatban, ráadássul ellentétes a cikk későbbi részével. Ennek ellenére bizonyos Juro és Tankred nevű felhasználók mindig visszaállítják a korábbi változatot (természetesen csak azt hogy szovák, a magyart kitörlik). Már írtam nekik, de nem is válaszolnak semmit. Kérlek segíts! Adj tippet! Hogyan lehet kérni, egy harmadik, semleges fél döntőbíráskodását? Milyen sablont kell kirakni, és hova?? Le lehet védeni a cikket??Előre is köszönöm:Pannonia 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

In English:

Hello V79benno, I am sorry that I am disturbing you, but I think that I just run into an Edit-war, or something...I know you from the hungarian wiki, so I thought that you can give me some tips, how to handle it...

My problem is this:

I wrote into the Benyovszky Moritz article, about the origin of the family. You should know, that according to the article, 3 nations children claim him as their own (slovak, hungarian, and polish). This is the part when it's started to get interesting: to keep the articles neutrality I deleted that sentence which said that he was hungarian. Later, I found that the first sentence claims, that he was slovak. I deleted this to, and I said, that it wont bee a logic thing to claim that he was slovak (right in the first sentence), because it's against the articles other sections (nationality, origin). Still, user Juro, and Juser tankred removes my edits. I already wrote them, but they refuse to answer. Please help my! What should I do? How can I ask a third neutral person to make decision about this? Is there any template to put into the article? And if there is, where? How can I protect the article. Thank you:Pannonia

2) I wrote to you in several times, but you didn't even answer to me. 3) As I said I am not a sockpuppet, and I just want to keep neutralit. If you wish scan my Ip, or something, I dont know, but I am not a sockpuppet. 4) Iam going to send this message to V79Benno too. Thank you:Pannonia 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Test

You should know, that I asked User: jpgordon for a check on his discussion page, because I am not a sockpuppet!Pannonia 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To (

Personal attack removed

)

1)As I said, I am not a banned user (perhaps I am going to bee one after all this...) 2)You said, that I am a sockpuppet, so I decided to act like one! 3) As a vandal, I think someone will scan my IP, so you can find out, that I am not VinceB! Pannonia 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

KissL

This hungarian irredentist strikes again.--194.225.166.11 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bratislava Castle

Thx! --Öcsi 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Howdy Tankred! You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of WP:TW... Olessi 03:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pushing fascist POV?

In your recent edit to Slovakia [28] you deleted "fascist leader" and replaced it with "president" in the case of Jozef Tiso, a convicted and executed war criminal. You also deleted the only mention of the

Holocaust

from the article, the sentence "most

Holocaust

." Your version of the article, after these deletions has no mention of the Holocaust ever taking place in Slovakia. You then called the fact that the

Holocaust

happened I quote "strong unsourced claim". In my opinion calling the Holocaust an "unsourced claim" is very close to

unsigned comment was added by Stormcloudz (talk • contribs

) 01:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

No, I definitely did NOT call the Holocaust an unsourced claim. In fact, that was me who added details about the Holocaust in Slovakia into History of Slovakia, including the precise numbers of the victims and citation of sources.[29] And this is exactly how it should look like. I reverted your edit because (1) you claimed that the government "was" a puppet regime and (2) Tiso was a "fascist" leader. The government became a puppet regime gradually and Tiso was an authoritarian nationalist leader, called by some sources clerical fascist. I would not touch your words if they were precise and supported by citations. As to the title of this thread ("pushing fascist POV"), I consider it quite offensive because my grand father was in a concentration camp. I certainly cannot push a fascist POV. What I am pushing Wikipedia towards is more citations and NPOV. I would appreciate if you do not draw far-fetched inferences from a simple revert next time. Tankred 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Recently, several Hungarian and Romanian users on the Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc have made certain "agreement" about alternative usage of names that is not in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions. The "agreement" was about names of the towns in Transylvania, but Romanian user Ronline also edited several Serbia-related articles claiming that his edits were "agreed" on the Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc. Since I believe that it is only a question of time when user Zello (or somebody else) will try to implement same "agreement" in Slovakia-related articles, I think that you should be aware of this problem and if you want you can writte your opinion about it on the Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc. PANONIAN 12:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian names in the infoboxes of Slovak Hungarian-majority localities

Hi Tankred! I'm contacting you because I have added the Hungarian names to a few Slovak localities which have Hungarian majorities, such as

Miercurea-Ciuc: i.e. both the Romanian and Hungarian names are bold in the lead sentence. This was a compromise on an earlier proposal by User:KIDB

that Hungarian-majority localities should be moved to the Hungarian name, since this is the majoritarily-used local name. Even though Panonian has hinted at this, no-one so far is seeking to apply this model top-down to Slovak articles as well, since we haven't had the input of Slovak editors. However, I believe that such a proposal would also work with regard to Slovak localities, and I believe reaching a joint Romanian-Hungarian-Slovak consensus on this would be truly excellent. Under the model, for example, the lead sentence of Kolárovo would be written like this:

"Kolárovo or Gúta (Slovak: Kolárovo), Hungarian: Gúta) is a town in the south of Slovakia near the town of Komárno. It is an agricultural center with 11,000 inhabitants."

Cheers, Ronline ✉ 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL...I just wonder how I predicted such thing... :))) PANONIAN 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronline, I am sorry, but I do not see any reason for bolding alternative names in this case. They are already listed in the lead and emphasized by italics, exactly as

WP:NCGN. I will appreciate if you refrain from bolding alternative names in case of Slovakia. Thank you. Tankred

15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I will not implement anything that does not go through a consensus - I haven't even tried to implement bolded alternative names at the Slovak articles. I was just making the point that if we were able to reach consensus on this matter with regard to Romanian localities, there is no reason why this should also not be reached with regard to Slovak articles, particularly since the

Otlaca-Pusta model or even Komarno. At the moment, however, the convention is not applied cohesively. Why is it that Komarno has a dual-language infobox but, say, Dunajská Streda does not? My other argument is that it's generally good to have more names in the infobox rather than less, if only because it provides more information and is more pluralistic. Multilingual infoboxes are all over Wikipedia :) Ronline ✉

12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no broad consensus among the Wikipedians about the use of minority languages in town infoboxes. It is nice that you have decided to use two languages in the case of Transylvania. But many other local infoboxes (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium, Estonia, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey) include only the name in the official language. I do not oppose a broader discussion about the Slovak towns infobox and I will be happy to implement any consensus arising from such a discussion. However, the change you have proposed should be discussed by all the relevant editors of the articles about Slovakia, not just you and me. I believe this talk page is not the most appropriate place for such a discussion. Tankred 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless something has changed since May 14, maybe someone should explain to Zello, Ronline etc. that now that there is a naming convention, any issue they agree on in contradiction to that convention is invalid. Secondly, such an agreement (namely to "declare" inofficial names official by using bold script) is misleading and actually ridiculous for any encyclopaedia in the world as I and many other users have already said on the respective talk page. Juro

Dear Tankred!

Thank you for your help! Now the article is better! :) Bye!Baxter9 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ďakujem :)

(I hope I spelled that right.) Thanks for your kind birthday wishes! :) I'm sorry to see that sockpuppets are still terrorizing you, just let me know if you need anything. I'm not going to be doing much on history- or geography-related articles for a while (I have a good deal of music articles I want to write) but when I do return to Central Europe topics I look forward to working with you. Thanks again! K. Lásztocska 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava/Pressburg

Am I correctly reading you to be saying that, if I can demonstrate that "Pressburg" is widely used in English to refer to the city before 1919, that you would accept using "Pressburg" to describe the city in the appropriate parts of the historical section of the

john k

21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I am not sure whether you can really prove that. I am not so familiar with the English sources mentioning Bratislava. But if you are able to show that "Pressburg" is a widely accepted English name of Bratislava in the historical context, using the evidence prescribed by

WP:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name, I certainly will accept the use of Pressburg not only in Bratislava, but also in other articles mentioning Bratislava before 1919. The policy is clear in this case. But you have to provide strong supporting evidence of consensus in English sources. Good luck. Tankred

15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on this. I will say that I'm not sure there's a consensus on use of Pressburg for pre-1919 references. I think it's the most commonly used name, and that Bratislava is the least commonly used name (with Pozsony making up the remainder), but it will be hard to demonstrate. You'll see I did some google scholaring and google booking over on the talk page to address this issue. As to the sockpuppet, it's not me, and I have no idea who it might be. I haven't involved myself very much in Slovakian-related editing in the past.

john k

15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: names

...and it looked so promising until Panonian and Zello wrecked it with their bad-faith assumptions and political mudslinging.....there really have to be some changes around here, we can't go on like this with the Slovaks baiting the Hungarians, the Hungarians tormenting the Serbs, the Serbs pissing off the Romanians and vice-versa in every possible nasty configuration of rotten behavior. Nothing will ever get done and a lot of people will just get angry. Is there anything that can be done?! K. Lásztocska 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. :-) I just lose perspective sometimes because these petty fights are so disgusting to me, there's so much stupidity and cruelty on all sides when wikiwars like this break out, I end up feeling like I'm just banging my head repeatedly against a very solid brick wall. (There is also one editor who has an excellent talent for pissing me off, but best not go there...) I must say I really appreciate your willingness to give my ideas a fair chance and actually discuss them like a civilized, intelligent human being, it's a real breath of fresh air sometimes. When I first got here I often heard your name mentioned unfavorably by some of the Hungarians, so it's been a pleasant surprise to actually get to know you. ;-) I'm sure there are a lot of things we disagree on, but the important thing is that despite our inevitable disagreements I still feel that you are someone I can respect and work with. So, thanks for that. :-) See you around! K. Lásztocska 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bač, Serbia

Hi Tankred! I have opened up a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Slovak name in the infobox of Bač, Serbia, a locality where Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population. Serbian law specifies that in areas where an ethnic group makes up more than 15% of the population, their language enters into official usage, including on bilingual signs, which means that, in Bač, both Slovak and Serbian are in official usage. This means that the infobox should also contain the Slovak name. You can make comments regarding this at Talk:Bač, Serbia. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

An anon IP asked me to add {{sockpuppeteer}} to User:Juro. I've done so after examining the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juro. Send me a message if you have any objections or there is anything I should know. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming

There is an ongoing discussion about the change of naming conventions on places in Transylvania (hungarian/romanian) and Central-Europe. Because you have experience on this in the similar situation of places in Slovakia and this discussion will possibly constitute itself in a precedent for other places, if you would like to participate, your comments are welcome at

Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal. --Roamataa

10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

You reverted all of my edits on numerous pages, claiming that I'm VinceB. I don't know what kind of tensions are between you, but please, leave me out from your revertwars, I'm just doing this as a hobby, and it is very annoying, that whatever I do, is deleted, and I do not want to be involved in any revertwars. If you dispute the content, than drop a message on that talkpage, and I'll respond to it in some days. --91.120.113.31 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, we both know you are VinceB. You are banned. The only reason why I did not submit an offical request to block your new IP is that the IP is dynamic and you will change it in few days. But, as you wish, I correct my mistake now. Tankred 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up at AN/I, it looks like he may have beat you to it. I just finished reading through the community ban discussion. It appears from Miklós Horthy that he's pulling new IP addresses quicker than every few days. ~ BigrTex 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vince (yet again!!!)

Hey Tankred. No, don't worry, I'm actually pretty sure this IP probably is Vince. I didn't mean to imply you were on a crusade, just that the longer Vince keeps using Budapest IPs to evade his block, the more suspicion will understandably surround other people editing from the same city/IP range. I just think it's sad, and it won't end well...K. Lásztocska 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I definitely need to apologize now for accidentally defending Vince. I just don't know what the hell can be done in a situation like this!! We might as well block all of Budapest, it might be the only way to finally, once and for all, and for sure be rid of him! K. Lásztocska 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Like Zello said the other day though, I'm also terribly naive. :-) My one advantage in spotting sockpuppets is not only is English my first language, but I have a very good sense of languages in general, which extends to people's own individual writing style. Vince's use of commas is very distinctive, and clearly derived from Hungarian grammar. This IP uses commas "in such a way, that I think, that it is probably him." ;-) So the more this guy writes to me, the better chance I have of being able to figure out whether it really is him or not. (Cripes. I feel like Lieutenant Boruvka, from Skvorecky's novels.) So on the one hand I feel pretty foolish for letting myself get tricked, on the other hand, I hate when people assume bad faith and I don't want to do the same. This really is an impossible situation. K. Lásztocska 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

It is 3RR policy that all violators on a particular article be treated equally.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): WP:ANI#Urgent_admin_help_needed, (and apparent sockpuppetry by User:VinceB, this was clearly the case. Duja► Request handled by: Duja► 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Duja. (And I'm technically the one who unblocked). I just want to add that even in the case of a banned user, a block is a better solution than reverting. Mangojuice^talk 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so so much to both of you. Next time, I will pay more attention to prevent any misunderstanding of this kind. Tankred 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)