User talk:Hobartimus/Archive 1

Archive 1

False summaries

Please do not use false there or false something it doesn't assume a good faith. I didn't notice that it is not a WikiProject but I reverted that edit in a good faith. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the word "false" does not imply intent, you might confuse it with other words that contain the implication that the act of making a certain statement was intentional. Hobartimus (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then use wrong or mistaken but not false. False doesn't sound as good as you think. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Attack page policy

Hello Hobartimus. I have removed all the sentences in Tankred's user page intro that made reference to specific editors. I don't think that it's strictly forbidden to have such attack references, but it clearly goes against our guidelines for user page content. And, it also goes against WP:Civil when one directly associates particular editors with rather unpleasant accusations. So, I thought that the best thing to do was to remove all the sentences that mentioned Wikipedia editors. Regards, Húsönd 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-Hungarian sentiment

You should write an article about it. There's a good one on the hungatian wiki: hu:Magyarellenesség. I'm done editing. Wish you the best, to prevent this: Image:I0001334C.jpg‎ on English Wikipedia. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

I have created a centralized discussion page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If you have concerns about the behavior of editors or the way that certain articles are being edited, please post them there. Thanks, Elonka 06:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Hobartimus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ok

ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.84.181 (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

recent revert to History of Hungary

Did you revert edits simply because they were made by an anonymous IP? The edits weren't cited, but there are no footnotes in the article between 1849 and 1944 anyway. Please let me know your reasoning. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal Online

Thank you for picking up the vandalism on the Cabal Online page and reverting it. --Kigurumi Loopy (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hobartimus, hi, I just reverted some vandalism to your userpage. The anon has also been blocked. If you'd like, I can place permanent semi-protection on your userpage so it is not at risk from IP vandals in the future. This would still allow you (and other established editors) to edit it, but would keep off the IPs and throwaway accounts. Let me know... Elonka 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) --Elonka 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings

Thanks for your hard work in fighting vandalism. I noticed you don't always place warnings on user's pages after you have reverted vandalism like on Silicon. It is helpful if you do place warnings, as this will alert other vandal fighters to repeated vandalism by a user, as well as give the vandal a reminder that they are being watched. Thanks again! --Porqin (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Gold rush tools and methods

Your recent edit to Gold rush tools and methods reverted vandalism back into the article (in this edit). You should take a little more care when reverting to ensure that you are improving, rather than damaging, articles. Thanks, Gwernol 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA

Hi, I went ahead and removed the tag from his userpage, though if you know of a sock policy I've missed, definitely let me know (I'm not totally conversant on sockpuppetry procedures). It's my feeling though that since he's unblocked, and active, the tag would probably just raise tensions. If he's willing to continue on with just one account, then the tag's not needed. If he does resume with sockpuppets, then we can easily re-add the tag. If you see anything that's suspicious, definitely bring it up at the Experiment page so that we can review. If an account is obviously him, we can deal with it quite rapidly without having to go through SSP and RFCU. --Elonka 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

What was wrong with that edit? 86.163.86.45 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Oore (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Current threads on MarkBA

Somme of the recent threads you opened have been mentioned at the Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment. Can you please take a moment to comment at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Active_threads_2? Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

Thanks! If you have ideas for other specific categories of articles that should be move-protected, let me know. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring by R. Tabor

Hello,

I have been restoring passages that have been constantly deleted by R. Tabor, who progressed to blanking the page on Suzanne Olsson. I tried to take the matter to Talk Page but this was unsuccessful. I reported the matter to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Thanks, Wfgh66 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Slovak language

I can read a little bit of Slovak, at least those words that are close to their Russian equivalents and a few more. I don't read Russian fluently either, but I'm familiar with Russian grammar and common words. My Hungarian is a lot worse, there's only a few words I can recognize. Markussep ^Talk 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not my intention that everyone makes a list like this. As Elonka asked yesterday, I tried to summarize the discussion sofar. Although I think we're close to a solution, there are still some points of discussion left. A full consensus may be an impossible goal, but we should try to find wide support. Markussep ^Talk 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add and modify points, and you can move points from "consensus" to "no-consensus" or vice versa. If you move something from consensus to no-consensus, you should explain it. Markussep ^Talk 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a voting majority is not consensus. I hoped when I started the poll, that some points would be accepted more or less unanimously, but no. Markussep ^Talk 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you oppose some of the things I wrote under "consensus", then they obviously don't belong there. This list is not my opinion, it's my perception of the discussion, I could be wrong. I didn't think I missed any "common grounds", but if you know some, add them. Markussep ^Talk 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maggyarization =

I really can not understand why should I leave the article who wrote the correct statistics. It's funny that it is written in the article once 48% Hun. 16.1% Rom and beneath at the Education topic 54.5% Hun 16.1 Rom.

Where did I found the statistics?? wikipedia- Trianon treaty article

Actually I wrote it down in the discussion section but nobody answered. Csokyspite (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to write at the bottom of the page not the top see how I moved your comment here? Hobartimus (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trial run on ITN reform proposal

I have now proposed a one-week trial run for the ITN reform proposal at Template talk:In the news#Change in ITN/c format. Please comment there. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The trial run is active now! Your help in making this a success would be appreciated.--Pharos (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Turiec Basin

Hi there,

I'd like to discuss your addition of a Hungarian name in the Turiec Basin article. Should it be really included in the article? It is located in northern Slovakia, is a name of a basin (not a town or a person born before 1918) and the population of ethnic Hungarians living in the basin is very close to 0 (that is around 10 out of roughly 100.000 inhabitants of the basin, i.e about 0,01% by my reckoning)? There have recently been reverts on the topic, looking like a potential start of a revert war, which, in my opinion, should be prevented at all costs, so why not discuss the changes as per the Slovak/Hungarian Experiment?

PeterRet (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

194.160.75.10

What I've seen of this IP sofar is rather incivil and not very communicative, lots of big words, see also our discussion at his talk page User talk:194.160.75.10. Could be a MarkBA clone, but even User:78.99.132.221 was more communicative and less disruptive at first. At least he stopped editing after my last remark. Markussep ^Talk 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very very probably that this IP editor is Svetovid.Nmate (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Bogdan

Hi. Could you consider reinstating the prod on this article? The fact that he is a member of the squad is irrelevant - he still doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE because he's never actually played for them (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pim Balkestein as a recent example). I just don't want to have to waste everyone's time with an AfD that will almost certainly result in delete. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed this - could you respond. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that he played - just that he was at the club. I've asked an editor who I think has a subsription to Playerhistory.com to confirm.

Regarding the redlink issue - I wouldn't advise using it as a rationale in future. The link doesn't have to be red (it can be black if the player is not notable - see {{Darlington F.C. squad}}). Also, just in case you participate in future AfDs, being "interesting and informative" is irrelevant to guidelines, and if you use it as a reason to !vote keep, your vote will most likely be ignored. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He has confirmed that Bogdan didn't actually play for Vasas. Will you reconsider reinstating the prod? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the general idea is that players are not notable unless they actually play - he might be in the squad now, but if he never plays, in 10 years time no-one will ever have heard of him (and to assume now that he will and that he will be noteworthy is obviously a WP:CRYSTAL issue). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Podgorica Assembly

We have worked together in few Yugoslav-Hungarian related article and if I do not make mistake you are from Hungary ? User:PaxEquilibrium is now banned from wikipedia and you have been only editor which has writen comment about my and Pax dispute in article. Because of this and because you are not from Yugoslavia (you will be more NPOV about this) I will ask you to rewrite article Podgorica Assembly !?

I do not want to rewrite article because I am from ex Yugoslavia (and maybe because of that POV) and because of my poor english. You are having all points of our dispute in talk page together with sources for article.--Rjecina (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested about Pax situation you need to look User talk:Thatcher. Only today and yesterday he has created 8 new puppets !!!--Rjecina (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Transylvania

You made some changes in the article Principality of Transylvania.

Why do you believe that this principality ceased to exist in 1711? The Transylvanian Principality existed until 1867. Even before 1711 the Principality wasn't independent anymore, because became it a vassal of the Ottomans (like the neighbouring principalities Wallachia and Moldavia).

Why did you remove the template about Austrian History, meanwhile keeping the template about Hungary's history?

And why did you remove the section regarding Michael the Brave?

Regards, --Olahus (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, you answered none of my questions. --Olahus (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You still didn't bring any serious argument, you just narrate me your personal conclusions. I'm still waiting... Could you bring a serious soure ? How about a scientific work? --Olahus (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

read the lines properly..please stop vandalising the article and my talk page

the reference says:

Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who is leading a team investigating the humanitarian damage in South Ossetia, told the Guardian that Russian estimates of 2,000 dead in the conflict were "suspicious".

"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."

Neistat said that HRW investigators had, today and yesterday, recorded cases of Ossetian fighters burning and looting Georgian villages north of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali.

"The torching of houses in these villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties," she said. "That is then used to justify retribution."

Neistat said that doctors at Tskhinvali hospital had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali.

There have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments and there are no lists of the casualties. Neistat stressed that HRW's investigation was not complete

so stop sexing up with a georgian or us govt. slave like position..please be neutral (NOTE THAT I DIDNT ASK YOU TO BE A OSSETIAN)..

so please stop acting too smart..your cooperation is welcomed..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Please see wikipedias official policy on making genealogical entries like the article you're trying to save WP:NOTDIRECTORY. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why remove this?

I noticed the revert you did on the 2008 South Ossetia war page. May I ask what the reasoning was for this? You said that the previous editor pushing it was blocked, but why was that? I mean, the quote is properly sourced and relevant. Is there something I'm missing? Actually, I know I'm missing something because I'm not heavily involved in editing this article, but I'm still curious. --clpo13_(talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I could explain longer but the short version is that a lot of editors agreed that it was not appropriate for the article for many reasons discussed in talk and in edit summaries and the lone editor pushed too hard vs too many people (violated a rule called 3RR). Now when already 4-5 people agree that the edit is no good and someone starts up again alone he would be in the same situation as the first guy maybe even worse as more people notice, at this point best to use the talk page rather than revert once again. Hobartimus (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I wasn't sure if there was any discussion about it. I must have missed it on the talk page. Thanks. --clpo13_(talk) 07:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the citation, had trouble finding something myself.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to warning

Do not throw warning messages at me, I've been here too long for that. User:Biophys reverted my changes with a deceptive edit summary, when it is his choice of wording that is questionable. Ottre (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am required by policy to give out warnings before I can report 3RR, the standard reporting template requires a diff link of a 3RR warning. It can be substituted in case of old accounts but a warning is still preferred I think. You made 3 clean reverts within 24 hours and some other edits too so you were definitely close to breaking the rule. In any case you can remove the warning any time there is no requirement that you keep it so in any case it won't do any harm. The requirement is only that a diff of warning can be provided. In any case you stopped reverting so there is no issue anyway. Hobartimus (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin and 3rr

Just be careful with the rving? BLP is contested on the AIP stuff do you likely will not have the BLP exemption to 3rr. Someone already got dinged there today for that. rootology (C)(T) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, even though I think it's really a BLP (which would qualify for exeption) I will leave it to others now, you are right that sometimes these things are contested. Hobartimus (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions Section (Sarah Palin)

I have taken a stab at converting this section to an actual summary. Its not perfect, but please do let me know what you think. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you also have protested the changing the summary I (partially) wrote back to a dumb list. I have tried to get people to agree to change the list to something (anything) else but the idea has been attacked. They claim consensus for the list, but none exists at all. I don't care if my version isn't used, but I really think *something* needs to be done - the current version is absolutely horrid stylistically speaking. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to get even the most minor changes made in the current state of full protection, so I guess we are stuck with the garbage version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall making uncivil comments against you

I never said any uncivil comment against you, I should have clarified what I meant when I asked you to not be uncivil, which I was referring to this comment by you "Empty rhetoric by the Serbs cannot change the de jure status of Kosovo at this point". That sounds offensive to Serbs, if you had of said that that "the Serbian government" couldn't change the status, that would be less offensive. If you were offended by anything I said, I apologize.--R-41 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

I made a move of Ossetian war article. Please see my last comments and contribute if you wish. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Editting

For the sake of reviewer sanity, I'd like to encourage you to avoid making major changes to more than one section of the article per edit. It's easier to follow people's edits when broken into managable pieces, plus it encourages the use of more focused (and hence more descriptive) edit summaries. Thank you. Dragons flight (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm refering to this [1]. Dragons flight (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What about editor sanity, do you know how hard it is just to get an edit out with all the edit conflicts? Do your bit, help the article a little with your edits. Now you still can somewhat, when the previous rate of editing returns it will be near impossible. (at the high point of the article I had 4-5 conflicts for every one of my edits that got through) Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing of Palin's article

In reviewing edits to Sarah Palin's article, I have some feedback to give you.

1. I noticed a case where you added a fact in one edit and the reference for it in a separate edit. Please take the time to get these both into a single edit in the future; part of the challenge with this article is that the sheer volume of edits makes it hard to sort out what is going on. And including the reference at the time you include the fact reduces the odds that someone will find your edit problematic and undo/revert it.
2. I also think you need to be a bit more judicious in the use of the minor button - nothing was flagrantly wrong but sometimes even one word edits can be contentious.
3. In this edit you adjusted a sentence for which consensus had been formed (without your vocal participation). The discussion is archived to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 11#Geraldine Ferraro.
4. In this edit you reverted several edits at once, with an edit summary applying to just one of them. Another editor had to undo your edit then selectively implement what it appeared your intent was. If you have to go back multiple edits in one section, it is your responsibility to make sure you don't inadvertently mess up later edits to other sections.

GRBerry 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section just above yours. Also I don't recall using the "minor button" on Palin, I think you missed something there. I usually won't use that box for even one word edits because it has the effect of hiding the edit from some lists etc, and lessens scrutiny. Instead sometimes I use a one letter or one word(like add or such) edit summary so the edit is not hidden in that way, and I still don't have to write "I added the word 'sometimes' to the sentence in line 745", to describe an edit. Hobartimus (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragons flight and I were clearly reviewing simultaneously - to the point of both of us pushing undo on an edit and edit conflicting on that undo. The minor bit is an error on my part; your edit summary was just the letter "m", which is also the same symbol the software uses when someone marks an edit as minor. Sorry about that. GRBerry 03:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(I tried to edit my own comment but you replied to it since) For point 1. I suspect you mean the viewership stats for the Palin speech. First I thought that at this point the addition will be uncontroversial since many are familiar with the speech and viewing numbers, then I remembered that nielsen stats were only 37.2 mil but not all networks were covered by them hence the discrepancy between total number of viewers v number of audited viewers on the selected networks.I didn't want others to think that I decided on my discretion to round up 37.2 to 40 if someone only saw the 37.2M number so I quickly added a source to the "more than 40M viewers". It's a minor point but I see that you take great intrest in keeping the article safe by reviewing edits so I thought you deserve a response. I also do some edit checking myself so I might bother you with stuff I find if you don't mind. Hobartimus (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1