User talk:Iaaasi/Archive 1

The obsession with Matthias Corvinus of Hungary 's father is WP:UNDUE in his article. It is not the focus of the article, the focus is the life and rule of Corvinus of Hungary. The theories about the father is a passing sentence. And you have to understand that there are several theories about the father, the Walachian, the Slav, and the Cuman at least not to mention Serb and other minor ones. So trying to force a version in which there is only one theory is not the best idea to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you forget about the possible Slav descent? The point is that nobody knows the origins of János Hunyadi's father, but there are multiple theories. What's known is that the family was catholic which is highly unusual for Vlachs or from anybody from Walachia. Anything else than that is your pure original research. The Walachian theory is in all articles already pushing it further trying to exclude the others (or replacing the source's "Walachian" with "Romanian" will lead nowhere). This will be dealt with in the János Hunyadi article and will be removed of the Mathias Corvinus of Hungary article, where it is undue. The sooner you face the facts (multiple possible origin theories, when the source says Walachian follow it and write Walachian, there is no evidence to even to date of birth much less exact parents etc.). Hope you understand. Hobartimus (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hombartimus, I answered on your talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 http://books.google.hu/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=romanian&f=false

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Stephen I of Hungary, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunyadi

I reverted your ladt edit. Please study the wikipedia policies before you continue to edit.--B@xter⁹ 11:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't heard of the rule, you seem to be new

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> --> Squash Racket (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive edits

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->--B@xter⁹ 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sock puppetry

Please answer honestly: do you/did you have other account(s) on Wikipedia? Squash Racket (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

before answering, tell me what it is the reason of the question(nauneim 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Hungary. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Iaaasi reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

contribs) (197,001 bytes) (this one won't) (undo) ("this one won't" is this a correct motivation???) 15:10, 12 January 2010 Iaaasi (talk

Decline reason:

This request is incomprehensible. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Other past accounts

Did you previously have other accounts on Wikipedia or is this your first account? Hobartimus (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first account... why do you ask? (iaaasi 07:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Sandstein 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced content

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Hunyadi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THAT WAS NOT REMOVED BY ME

CHECK AGAIN !!! (79.117.152.247 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry

I am sorry, you are right! I compared your edits (all) together, and the "basis" was that IP 142.166.195.160 (overlooked with the edit made on 15:57, 2010 January 14).--B@xter⁹ 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hello, Iaaasi. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mures

If the river has a relevant Romanian name, why not. I am not against of a freer use of alternative names as long as this does not disrupt an article and their use is not unproportionate with the relevance of that particular name. As the Tisza is a border river between Ukraine and Romania, I would not object it. I think that unless the excessive number of alternative renders the lead section confusing, it is usually better to give prominence to relevant alternatives names eg. names used by a group of people that inhabits or inhabited the region where it flows than to engage in permanent edit wars.

by the way, I think It would be a good idea to work out a mutually acceptable formula for the familiar background of John H. father of king M. This is an English language encyclopeadia, and for outsiders edit warring on whether his ancestors were Romanians or Cumans, he himself was Hungarian or Romanian or both and to what percentage, is ridiculous, and renders the person the object of a provincial debate. This makes no good neither for the reputation of H., nor Hungary and Romania. Kind regards Rokarudi 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You need not be advocate for Serbians or Ukraininians, they can edit if they need bolding for their toponyms.Its you who is obstinate to delete Hungarian content. Anyway, Tisza, is Тиса both on Serbian and Ukrainian, but under wiki guidelines we do not bold cyrillic names. On the other hand, this is not only a purely territorial isue but that of general relevance of a name for a community. Please stop deleting Hungarian names, look for river in Belgium, you can find names in French and Flemisz, or Frencs and German bolded.Rokarudi 11:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> --> Do you understand that rule? Squash Racket (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what did i revert? (nauneim 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

You changed "English" to "neutral". I don't think that's the best description but that's not too important. The main point is arriving from a block and immediately jumping to the same article doing multiple reverts is usually not the best idea. Squash Racket (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gesta or Chronicle

Buna Ziua Iaassi, The 'Gesta' and the 'Cronicle' are different types of writing. A chronicle is a historical register or account of facts or events disposed in the order of time. A Gesta is genre which is something of literature, something of historiograpy. Gesta is a genre like novel, or poem or sonette ior chronicle.Rokarudi 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaassi. I made some changes to the Hungarian article, I do not know for how much time itr will stay. The section was as a matter of fact rather one-sided.Rokarudi 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baxter9&curid=11451171&diff=339166912&oldid=339134872--B@xter⁹ 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Trans hungarian 12th.GIF

A tag has been placed on File:Trans hungarian 12th.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hobartimus (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Trans 13.png

A tag has been placed on File:Trans 13.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hobartimus (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 January Copyright violations

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hobartimus (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright violations

You can get more information on this link Wikipedia:Copyright violations. A very short explanation is the following : You cannot upload files to Wikipedia in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement. In other words you can't upload the work of others. Photographs and pictures taken by someone else maps drawn by others, text written by others etc. You can write your own text take your own photograph and upload it etc. What you contribute needs to be your own work, or be non-copyrighted (public domain) material.Hobartimus (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of referenced content from article Romania

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Romania, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maros (Mures) County template

Hi Iaaaasi,

There is voting on whether to delete or keep my bilingual template on Maros (Mures) County, additional ro Romanian Mures County template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County

As you are active in Romanian-Hungarian issues, you are kindly invited to participate.Rokarudi 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Population of Transylvania in 1600

Vasile Lupu voivode of Moldava in 1650 wrote to the Ottoman Sublime Porte that one third of the population of Trsnyalvania were Romanians when he wanted to emphasize their great number. The fact is that in 1910 less than 60% of Transylvania was Romanian. The proportion of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1910 was 16% that of the Germans was 10%. As undoubtedly lived both Germans and Romanians in Hungary before the great settlements and migrations of the 18th century, and as both in the case of Germans and the Romanians great masses immigrated from outside the country while Hungarians moved to the Hungarian Greate Plain, the Romanian became a majority by the end of the 18th century. Demographic growths was also bigger with Romanian, as a matter of fact. This is the reason why it would be a mistake to emphasize the Romanian majority.--Rokarudi 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Population of Transylvania in 1600

Vasile Lupu voivode of Moldova in 1650 wrote to the Ottoman Sublime Porte that one third of the population of Trsnyalvania were Romanians when he wanted to emphasize their great number. The fact is that in 1910 less than 60% of Transylvania was Romanian. The proportion of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1910 was 16% that of the Germans was 10%. As undoubtedly lived both Germans and Romanians in Hungary before the great settlements and migrations of the 18th century, and as both in the case of Germans and the Romanians great masses immigrated from outside the country while Hungarians moved to the Hungarian Greate Plain, the Romanian became a majority by the end of the 18th century. Demographic growths was also bigger with Romanian, as a matter of fact. This is the reason why it would be a mistake to emphasize the Romanian majority.--Rokarudi 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--roamata (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP Wikihounding

Hunting for other people's edits (Wikihounding), more than that organizing coalitons for deleting other peoples work or nominating them for deletion in coalitions organized with fellow nationals or with people who belong to assumed allied nations from some political point of view is rather uncivil and forbidden by Wikipedia rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roamata

See: Wikipedia:Harassment

Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: Edit warring at Template:Mureş County

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Template:Mureş County. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WHY WAS I BLOCKED?????? NMATE IS THE ONE WHO REVERTED MY CHANGES WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON !!!! MY CHANGE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION, ROKARUDI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rokarudi "The list of names in Hungarian seems useless to me, but if you want to keep it, so be it. I proposed a new version of the template (Iaaasi (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Multumesc, Iaaasi. If we show good will to each other, this can make miracles (Not only on WIKI). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)" He even thanked for my version. Do you know what "multumesc" means in Romanian? I also participation on the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County where the adopted solution was THE DELETION OF THE TEMPLATE IN HUNGARIAN User:Nmate came now, without participating on the previous debate, and deleted my version WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT[reply]

Decline reason:

Just because one editor agrees, does not mean you have consensus - in fact, the fact that one person reverted it means that consensus has not been reached. The BRD cycle may be of interest. I see no attempts to discuss with Nmate whatsoever either on their talkpage or on the article talkpage, simply reversions. Finally, shouting in unblock requests merely proves you need a little time away from the computer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The list of names in Hungarian seems useless to me, but if you want to keep it, so be it. I proposed a new version of the template (Iaaasi (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Multumesc, Iaaasi. If we show good will to each other, this can make miracles (Not only on WIKI). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My change was made according to Rokarudi's proposal:
As an experimental compromise, I would suggest to keep the new template (note: this is one template) as is, but, if you want,t let us make the Romanian side "uncollapsed" to give prominence or keep closed but delete the Romanian sub-title (Judetul Mures) so that on first opening only the Romanian part open, and so that the Hungarian remain closed until it is specifically opened by the reader in a 2nd step. There is sense in such compromise if Romanians including IP-s accept it and stop attacking the idea of grouping Hungarian placenames. If you have deleted my Mures River template deleted, I will make out of it a list, and will put it to articles with "see also", instead of the template.--Rokarudi 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly was i did, i made the Romanian side "uncollapsed" (as Rokarudi recomended) and Nmate reverted it with any reason. Nmate is the one who started the edit war

Decline reason:

The only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. That you try to blame another for your edit warring is further evidence that you do not understand why this has happened. It takes two to edit war. In the future consider requesting page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please unblock Iaaassi

Attention: Administrator

I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26 After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but Romanian-Hungarian co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you are blocked

I am sorry you are blocked. I left messages on the talk page of both admins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&action=edit&section=29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Intervention_for_Iaaassi

I hope you are unblocked soon.--Rokarudi 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, thx for your support :) (Iaaasi (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent disruptive activities

If you continue down this path, it is very likely that you will be blocked (again) the diff in question is here [3]. However if you do continue ignoring WP policies you just invite more and more scrutiny on yourself. Hobartimus (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hobartimus#My_recent_.22disruptive_activities.22(Iaaasi (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Carpathians again...

Hello Iaaasi. In this edit you've added a bit misleading fact. Lednice Castle is situated near to Moravian-Austrian border in South Moravia, it is a well known and important Czech monument, a part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The name of the castle located in White Carpathians is Lednica. I've fixed it. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alerts against Nmate

Hello, I just inform you, that I put Wikiquette alert against Nmate [4]. Because I mentioned some uncivility by him against you, maybe you want be part of it. --Yopie (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Empire

That term you are trying to push is not applicable for the whole existence of the state. You can't say that there was a Vlach-Bulgarian Empire in 1323 for example. I advise you not to do that again and not to revert my edit due to three-revert rule. --Gligan (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is not universally accepted, it is used rarely and cannot be applied after the reign of Kaloyan in any case, so saying by 1261 is ridiculous. And second - the map you posted is wrong and above all there are enough maps in the article. Stop it already. --Gligan (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the French version and I would have corrected it but I don't know a word in French... but generally, according to the rules of Wikipedia, we cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source and that article in the French Wiki is absolutely wrong saying for instance that the Empire ceased to exist in 1280 which is ridiculous. The map is made by the same user who wrote the article and is wrong because for example we lost Macedonia (which appears as Bulgarian there) before we lost Belgrade and Branichevo (which are outside the borders) and there are other inaccuracies too. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is mentioned in one of the notes and it should stay in a note because the term is neither widely used nor applicable for the whole existence of the state. Some Romanian historians because Kaloyan was sometimes called Emperor of Bulgaria and Wallachia but that does not mean that the country is called Bulgaria and Wallachia. For example the title of the Portuguese kings was King of Portugal and the Algarves but the country is not called Portugal and Algarve or Portuguese-Algarvian Kingdom. --Gligan (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Transylvania

As to an old friend, I would advise not to add such information to the article for 3 reasons: - The article, due to the activity of some editors app. 2 years ago reached its current unreasonably blown-up format so that it does not have a proportionate structure and is full of unrelevant information. - we do not need confirmation from uncompetent western writers who do not understand the specific historical facts and theories in depths, and write what they think to be consistent with their common sense. We are big enough to solve this this problem here on on the spot - T think the whole early medieval part should be re-written, I will ask you to take part. I suggest you to go back into history of the article, and you will see that It used to be more reasonable until a certain point app. 2 years ago.

Biography of clearly Hungarian persons from Transylvania / Romania

Uniunea Democrată Maghiară ’din România’ and not Uniunea Democrată Română 'a Maghiarilor' ( Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania and not Romanian Democratic Alliance of Hungarians) see: http://archivum.rmdsz.ro/

I think you understand the difference, and name was not chosen like this accidentally. This represent the same difference as between ’Romanian-born Hungarian’ and between ’(ethnic) Hungarian born in Transylvania, Romania’. This does not want to be an unfriendly gesture, just the expression of a matter of fact which is basically very clear for Romanians as well. All this Romanian-born Hungarian and Austro-Hungarian-born Hungarian is a nonsense propagated mainly by editor Dahn.User: Rokarudi

Please look after Hungarian biographies when edited by chauvinists like 71.192.241.118. We should mutually follow the same principles in biographies. Ethicity and citizenship must be kept separate, and its better to create a clear sentence explaining the situation than tagging people with misleading epithets. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for the new design of your user page

Văd că înveţi limba maghiară cu sârguinţă...:)

Here is an important citation for your studies on Hungarian beliefs as heavy and light as guillotine:

"What is taken away by force and power may again be brought back by time and good luck, but the recovery of what the nation, fearing the sufferings, gave up herself, is always hard and always dubious. The nation will to endure, hoping for a better future and trusting in the righteousness of her cause." (Ferenc Deák, 1861) Kind regards: User:Rokarudi

By the way, the "bon mot' mocking Slovaks (although has several versions) sounds like this: 'Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, Slovakian is not a man.' Although certain may be offended, it can be an interesting project to collect similar proverbs in central-Europe as they give a very reliable picture on the stereotypes persistently surviving in the region.--Rokarudi 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All nations of the world take part in a competition. As the Romanians got the last place, they began to cry. They are asked why they are crying. - Because the Hungarians were ahead of us (Romanian joke).--Rokarudi 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Iaaassi, the Csángó anthem is not so widely known among Hungarians as the Szekler anthem. I think your translation missed the point, here is my version (not intended to be an artistic translation):

Because Hungarians also we are, Torn out of Asia at one time, Lord, change our fate for the better, Do not perish the Csangó Hungarian!

Please note, reference to Hungarians' alleged Asian origin is sometimes intended to be an offense, but many Hungarians, especially most people from the 'patriotic' bunch, are more often than not proud of it.--Rokarudi 13:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaassi, I regret you have been blocked. I do not agree with the decision, although your last userpage edit was a bit sharp. I always appreciated that you edited in a straigtforward way, and did not disguise your real opinion behind artificial argumentations on wikipedia guidelines in a lawyer's style. I do not agree with some of our friends who hold you spread hatred, I think you are really interested in Hungarian history, culture and tried to understand the motivation of Hungarian editors. I think you are just a bit hot-headed and should think twice before pushing the enter button (sometimnes so should I), otherwise, you can be easily misunderstood. La revedere, baráti üdvözlettel: User: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your hatred against Hungarians

It seems you went on to being pretty open about it everywhere, in your edits, on your userpage [5], wherever. However ethnic hate mongering is not viewed very positively on Wikipedia, especially if done as a continuation of old behavior by a sockpuppet account. Cheers. Hobartimus (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

----

Unblock request preparation

I am a beginner on wikipedia and I understood why I was blocekd, but I ask you to be unblocked. Some arguments in my defense:

First of all, the complain that generated my block:

Iaaasi

Hi again. I'm facing an issue of some urgency and scope, which has gone unnoticed - I consider referring it through the usual channels, but this is beyond AN/I and I can't for the love of me figure out how we're supposed to be filing out new sockpuppet investigations. User:Iaaasi, who made himself known primarily for this monstrosity, edits to weed out all references to dual citizenship for some Romanians and Hungarians, various forms of xenophobic edit warring, all sorts of inflammatory rants on talk pages, and his almost instant familiarity with the subtleties of wikipedia, is almost certainly our old friend Bonnie. As Michael put it: Do you remember the time... If you can offer some advice on how to handle this, one way or another, please assist. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. bogdan (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I was accused, based on the ortographic similarity between the usernames "iaaasi" and "Iasi" that my account is a sockpuppet of User:Iasi

False, because i have many id-s wih this name; one example: the youtube acoount http://www.youtube.com/user/iaaasi, created in 2007

My ip id from Craiova, not from Iasi

2.I was said to be famous for "edits to weed out all references to dual citizenship for some Romanians and Hungarians"

False, because I only reverted only a 2-3 edits of the user Rokarudi, who was engaged in an edit war on this subject and started modifying Romanian biographies after others reverted his edits on Hungarian biographies. When I uderstood the problem I stopped reverting.

Example:
original:[6]
after 1st edit by Rokarudi: [7]
after my revert to original: [8]

3. I was accused of anti-Hungarian behaviour

False, because

I. I added the German and HUNGARIAN names for Timisoara [9] [10] and for CFR Cluj [11]
II. I corrected the description of a Dutch map representing Hungarian settlements in 12th century and modern Romanian ethnographic zones from Transylvania (and not "Hungarians and Romanians in 12th century Trasylvania" as it was suggested before) [12]

I also replaced the map with its English version (which was meanwhile deleted) ,even if its content was against my "anti-hungarian" interests

III. I commented about a fancy map of Romania [13] [14] [15]

V. I created a really inappropriate xenophobic profile page when I was angry on the Hungarians users:
- Nmate, who asked to be blocked, even if my assumed edit-war enemy recognized that my edits were made in good faith[16]
- Squash Racket (in this case maybe without reason))

I also deleted it after a single day (it wasn't anyway accordind to my fellings for Hungarians)
4. I made many constructive edits:

I reverted vandalism on Hungarian pages [17] [18]
[19]
I corrected Matthias Corvinus' ethnicity : "the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful military leader of Hungarian[3] and Cuman[4] descent" before my edits to "the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful Hungarian General probably of Romanian[4][5][6][7][8][9] descent" now

I corrected wrong link [20]

5.

Hi Iaassi, I regret you have been blocked. I do not agree with the decision, although your last userpage edit was a bit sharp. I always appreciated that you edited in a straigtforward way, and did not disguise your real opinion behind artificial argumentations on wikipedia guidelines in a lawyer's style. I do not agree with some of our friends who hold you spread hatred, I think you are really interested in Hungarian history, culture and tried to understand the motivation of Hungarian editors. I think you are just a bit hot-headed and should think twice before pushing the enter button (sometimnes so should I), otherwise, you can be easily misunderstood. La revedere, baráti üdvözlettel: User: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will bring more arguments if necessary

Blocked your IP

Please appeal your blocks on your own talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iaaasi, I see some newcomers started editing in your style. Please continue the good traditions of our efforts for mutual understanding. Kind regards, your friend Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Note: unblock requests below are over 6 months old. --slakr^\ talk / 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. When your first sentence consists of conspiracy theory, you have virtually no chance of being unblocked. Smashville^talk 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

Same as the one below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There can't be the same reason, because I've rephrased the request(Iaaasi (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

I see that you have removed past unblock requests from your talk page. The situation is now very confusing. I would be willing to evaluate this if you would restore the full history. Frankly, there seems to be little chance you will be unblocked when you are behaving in such an eccentric manner. It would help if you would leave your unblock requests at the bottom of the page, so we can see the normal chronological history. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I readded them(Iaaasi (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

New motivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear you're here to push your racist POV, rhetoric (now removed) and not to contribute constructively. Removing talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Re-enabled talk page

Per your request on #wikipedia-en-unblock, I've re-enabled your talk page to allow you to appeal your block. Any admin is free to re-disable talk page access, and you should not remove your prior unblock requests. --slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These are some changes that I propose to the article Radu of Afumaţi. My work is not 100% finished, but still... Please take into consideration my unblock request. Please let me show that I am here to make constructive edits. Thanks in advance

Decline reason:

You are blocked for Eastern European history-related nationalistic battleground conduct, as seen here. You do not address this at all in your request above. A very mediocre addition to an article in the same topic area is not enough to convince me that you won't start misusing Wikipedia as a battleground again. Sandstein 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These are some changes that I propose to the article Radu of Afumaţi. My work is not 100% finished, but still... Please take into consideration my unblock request. Please let me show that I am here to make constructive edits. Thanks in advance

Accept reason:

I have to say that there is some improvement to the page in question, although I would urge to to improve on the amount of references to the data - remember all the data here should be backed up by verifiable references from reliable sources, but you are at least on the right track. I have also reviewed the data presented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive217#Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi, where there is a mild support for unblocking - but some opposers did say that was too soon (then) - however time has now moved on and you have waited. I will unblock for now, but you must realise that a lot of editors will be watching your every move, and any leaning back to your old ways will almost certainly result in re-blocking which will be far harder to remove. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let my request to be reviewed by Ronhjones, the user who made me the offer (according to User:JamesBWatson's invitation). I respected his instructions. }}

Since Ronhjones made you an unblock offer, I have invited him to assess your latest unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article merg/deletion

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've asked for deletion the article 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania. My action was contested and a merge was proposed, but I still think that a deletion would be better, because the discussed article has only a sentence which does not tell almost anything.

What solution would be better here?(Iaaasi (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Since your PROD has been declined, your only option is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Star Award

		The Purple Star
		The Purple Star given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Yopie (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not

Call editors/ips socks unless you're ready to file an SPI. This edit summary is not in good standing. And if you're sure the ip is a sock, you still cannot call the ip a sock unless you file an SPI. Please consider this a note and not a warning as I believe you will take this well. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have a reply. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just leaving another link for your benefit. Just go through the 3RR rule to ensure that in the future, you do not by chance break it. You have not broken it right now, but just about. Also please note that the 3RR does not apply while reverting clearcut vandalism. Yet, what is important to know is that Disruptive editing is not the same as Vandalism; and the 3RR cannot be broken while reverting disruptive editing. In case you need any assistance in the future, feel free to contact me. Take care; kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP ANI

Hello, You are being discussed at [21] --Nmate (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient award

		The Resilient Barnstar
		The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. Since you have made a change (to the better) I give you this barnstar. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates

Rollback

Sorry for that, but now I have rollbacked it and undo that written form. I was mis-understanding review that.--—just feel it^(talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - John Hunyadi

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

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer question

I saw your question go by about "Is it OK to accept you own edits as a reviewer". May I suggest, (by experience) that it would not be wise to accept your own edits during an edit war with another. It gives time for both parties to discuss it on the talk page first. If you are editing on a page where differences of opinion occur, let someone else with a neutral point of view see first. We all get involved in our editing that sometimes we can get blind. ~~How~~ Hope that helps...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I was talking about were made before being granted the reviewing rights, that is what the problem had appeared. Now my edits are automatically accepted (Iaaasi (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Iaaasi. You have new messages at Talk:Cluj-Napoca.
Message added 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the note. I moved the discussion to the article since it is relevant to it and others can pitch in. I added a few observations there. If you wish, please reply there. Regards! Codrin.B (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place Names

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a question about wiki policies. I was accused that this is a "tendentious-looking change", but I don't realize what I did wrong.
By my opininon, this edit was made according to WP:PLACE. The settlement is in a region (Transylvania), which was at the moment under the rule of the Austrian Empire (with German as official language). So I inserted the German name of the village. Is it correct what I've done? Did I misunderstand the guidelines? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Look, no one wants to get involved at your AN/I, but, "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names)" so whichever is more widely excepted. JoeGazz ▲ 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution regarding general conduct, sockpuppets and edits

Hi, I'm trying to resolve a dispute with you. You were blocked indefinitely for hate speech and disruption as Iaaasi and later indef blocked many times on various accounts for creating and operating numerous sockpuppets. During your block you actually edited more as the period when you were not blocked, so for the purpose of this dispute resolution I will treat all periods the same. Also we are in the same dispute since you used many of your sockpuppets to edit according to these kindof "manifestos" placed proudly on your user page:[22] [23] [24] [25] Which can be summed up as generating and fueling some sort of ethnic based hatred. Interestingly the very same attribute of the suckpupeteer account user:Bonaparte. During the block you were also in contact with other editors, who edited on your behalf in at least one case. You did not reveal any remaining sockpuppets even though explicitly asked by an administrator to do so. [26] I am concerned that you denied the administrative request to reveal any remaining sockpuppets at that time leading to the conclusion that you had more of them. Also problematic that IRC canvassing took place in that discussion as noted by T. Canens You were in part blocked for hate speech (your user page), yet your current actions as analyzed by an IP editor from the USA here show signs of focused attention to the exact same topic area that was the problem all along with all 15 of your confirmed/claimed accounts. In short I see a problem with your edits being governed by this during the past year, IRC canvassing, and non-disclosure of sockpuppets. As required by dispute resolution process I am first attempting to resolve the long standing (more than a year) issue here on your talk page. I'd like to ask you to conduct your editing and interactions with other users in a manner which doesn't remind them of [27], stick to NPOV and to refrain from using sockpuppets once and for all. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exactly you are asking, be more specific.(Iaaasi (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Also, during the time you had been blocked for indefinite time, you had made a promise that if you were unblocked, you would stay yourself away from engaging in controversial issues in the future. [28] And in addition, the aforesaid Ip editor, who lives in the USA, also told you to "try to stay away from this nationalistic stuff." [29] But you joined the WikiProject_Hungary and put a photo onto your userpage [30] with a caption of "The Union of Transylvania with the Motherland.".Do you think that it is a sign of staying away from the controversial issues? And if this is your opinion about the Hungarias [31], your participation in the WikiProject Hungary is nothing more than a cheap provocation. Hereby, I would like to ask you to delete your name from the name list of the participants therewith. --Nmate (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask both of you to file a report against me if you think I've broken any policy (Iaaasi (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I can`t believe this harassment that it is going on. Hobartimus, you should really let it go WP:LETGO , I think by now, everybody on wikipedia knows that you were against unblocking this user...and he got unblocked..live with it. What is controversial about "The Union of Transylvania with the Motherland." ? No comment... Iaaasi you should really consider filing a report according to the Wikipedia policy because it looks like this is the only way you can edit wikipedia free from intentional frictions with these 2 users.. Since you were unblocked , you have problems only with these 2 users, who from the looks of it , would do anything to get you blocked again than to be constructive with you. Adrian (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting, if Nmate or Hobartimus will fill note to ArbComm. As member of Czech ArbComm, I know, that is not uncommon, that accuser lost his cause with punishment against accuser. --Yopie (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names for Romanian localities

As far as I remember, the discussion were on the inclusion of the Hungarian name for Romanian towns and villages. I believe consensus was that where the location had strong ethnic Hungarian connection, the Hungarian name may be mentioned as an alternative.

With regards to BLPs, and BIOs generally, the link should be to the title of the location article, with piping to avoid a dab should this be desired. There is generally no need to mention the Hungarian name for a Romanian place in a BLP (although there just may be the odd occasion where this is necessary - e.g. Hungarian name given in a source). Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply (Iaaasi (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Golden Team

Coopuk had completely vandalized my article, 'Golden Team' that I put 5 years of work into. Please don't revert it back to his format, he completely gutted 95% of my writing. I am giving you a simple warning before I take this matter up with administration and have you blocked. Consider this fair warning. Coopuk's act was pure vandalism pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Greetings, i have recently changed back your edit to the golden Team article as seen here [32]. I did not see a edit summary for your revisions made to this article.Please feel free to change it back with a edit summary of why you reverted the article so that other editors know why any changes were made,

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 09:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in summaries

Hi Iaaasi

I am asking you to try and refrain from using the edit summaries box to post comments on actions. The summary is for the edits you are making, rather than commenting on behaviours etc., and is there to help other editors to see what changes have been made without having to compare diffs - a "trusted" editor's summary is often enough to let others know that their diffs do not need to be compared.

Also - "A website is not a trusted source" ?!? Really, that is news to me lol, so I shouldn't be using the BBC, National Geographiv, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, New York Times etc. etc. websites ??

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing of revert

Hi

You should not come to my talk page to "Warn" me of something like that. You obviously have not read the policy in WP:TOC.

Please do so and consider that this accusation is simply that at the moment, an accusation - it could even be considered defamatory, and is awaiting action by checkuser.

It is also off topic. I asked you to delete it and continue any discussion on my talkpage. Instead you chose to say "I think it is interesting", it is not. I removed it as per policy and any revert will be a 2RR on your behalf. I suggest that if you do not understand why I archived it and cannot discuss this in a sensible fashion, you should go to dispute resolution.

I would recommend that you end this confrontational attitude, it is not good for a healthy cooperative editing environment and it certainly does not credit you with any positive aspects.

You seem to forget that I am a neutral editor - do not forget that. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What is wrong?" - The fact that it is only "suspected" sock. The fact that it is not to do with the topic in the discussion.

The discussion is of the sourcing of the addition, not who made it or why they made it. Another editor, CoolKoon, has agreed with Ronaldka and the addition of the material, as well as saying that the sources are valid. Normal procedure would say that the consensus is for the addition 2-1. I am agreeing with you that the source used was incorrect, that makes it 2-2.

Next step is to discuss the material and the sources. That is what we are doing now, in an NPOV way :¬)

There are very limited times when another editors additions to a talk page can be altered WP:TOC:

Spam/vandalism/defamation
Off topic comments

and only two ways in which it can be handled:

Deletion
Archiving manually

I decided that you comment was possibly defamation, as there is no ruling on the sock aspect, it was definitely off topic, and asked you to remove it yourself.

You chose not to and so I have to consider what is vest. I decided that the best course of action was to manually archive it.

I realise that you thought it had been deleted but your comments on my talk page warning me that your "legitimate" comments were removed by me in a "disruptive" way and was "vandalism" were extremely uncalled for.

You really need should not be making accusations of socks on an article talk page, your failure to respond quickly to my objection by deleting it yourself and your answer "his edits should not be discussed anymore" and "a website is not a valid source" show me that you were not thinking clearly, something which happens a lot with you and your Stubes issues.

I really want you to just join in the discussion on the talk page, wait for the result of the checkuser, validate the comments on Hunyadi and join in the collaborative effort that is happening there. IF you decide that you can then you would once again turn my opinion of you into a more positive one. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In that case it is not fair to support his edits" - No-one is supporting his edits, it is the material that is being investigated, is it correct, are there reliable sources, if the answers are yes how can we not use it if CoolKoon wants to?

What if Ronaldka is not a sock? Wipe the sockpuppet thing out of your mind, we are discussing the material now, not the editor. The sock thing will be dealt with and then the appropriate actions will be taken. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

Since you follow me onto all of the pages that I posted on or edited from the inception of your unblock and even before with your sockpuppets, it falls under Wikihounding. This is the last time I told you to eschew from sauntering me around. Next time I notice that you behave yourself in the same manner, I will make a dispatch to the Arbitration_committee. And I do not know whether what will happen if I report a "second chance" type of user for wikihounding.--Nmate (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to study the policies with more attention before bringing such accusations. Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Which is your work and how did I inhibit it? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Do not be in my enviroment. It is quite weird and annoying.--Nmate (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Hi

You know very well that is not what the source says.

"overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars"

It does not say they were Romanian.

I suggest you revert yourself this time. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct quote is ""Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars" (Iaaasi (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And where in that quote does it say "he was Vlach" ?

Stop messing around. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin" Please check also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi/Hunyadi (Iaaasi (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Once again, please stop messing around. The quote says "not Magyars" it does not say he was Vlach, the text prior to the ref says

state that overwhelming evidence support the view "was of Vlach (Romanian) origin..."

The source used does not say that Chaosdruid (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that either. The text from the article is "while other researchers state that overwhelming evidence disregard this theory. [18]" Moreover, the text "tate that overwhelming evidence support the view "was of Vlach (Romanian) origin..." existed in Hobartimus' version, not in mine [33] (Iaaasi (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It makes no difference, if you truly are neutral, and by the look of the subpage you created I can see that you are trying to be, you should make sure that the text quoted is the same as in the source. You could have easily changed it to read "was not of Magyar" instead you are leaving it as a bad quote. I removed the "overwhelming" as puffery, it is not included between the " " and so is not quoted, therefore it should be removed, or included within the " ".

You have also gone past 2RR now on the reverts to the sources, without achieving consensus. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bringing accusations of non-neutral point of view unless you can't bring proofs. You should assume good faith, that is a majoy policy on WP. If you checked article history, you would have seen that the phrasing "was not of Magyar"" was the one inserted by me in the first place, but User:Hobartimus modified it. I brought sources for the Vlach/Romanian ancestry, you are free to bring sources that oppose that theory

You are the one who insists to add text prior to achieving consensus (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

March 2011

Please note that the matter has been sent to ANI-edit warring. The report is here Chaosdruid (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of the editwar report

Hi

I am asking for the editwar report to be closed. I do not think it is anyones interest for it to go ahead. The text is back to the original but I did not see that as I had an internet outage earlier.

I also put the incorrect original diff in, although I have edited it, and a later one was incorrect also.

I do not know if it can be closed early or withdrawn as there does not appear to be anything about that. I have asked though on Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, making reports against each other does not lead anywhere (Iaaasi (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the 3RR warning as I did not voluntarily put it here. It was only as a result of the withdrawn report, which instructed a warning should be given, and I certainly would not have put it there otherwise. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi! Sorry for not replying earlier. I haven't heard of such a battle and it seems not to fit very well in the context of the Ottoman–Albanian war. Perhaps this might be the Battle of Niš of 1443?

Snaim is not the name of a past or present settlement in Bulgaria and doesn't sound like it could be. Kustinitza, near Sofia sounds like it could be Kostenets or the eponymous nearby village. I don't know of any major battles near those places though. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not give me any advice

I told you in the past several times to leave me alone. If I report anybody for edit-warring, and then I do not leave notification on the talk page of the reported person, it is my own business. If you want to be my undesired envoy to notify that person I have reported, you are free to do so. For the meantime, proofs of your wikihounding are at least gathering to an ArbCom-report.--Nmate (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Hungarians

Hello Iaaasi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hungarians, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controversial or is under discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a controversial move, as I believe that all of those pages were moved to the "people" suffix recently after consensus. Please discuss on the talk page first. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

With your re-asserting of order of the city names, you have just hit the 3RR limit. Be aware that any further changes that undo in part or in whole edits of annother editor could be reported as 3RR. Let the article be and let the eye attracting you've done have their work. Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this and your spat at ANI, I will consult the administrators who granted you a second chance so that they may review your indefinite block. Kuru (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see that I was blocked as a result of a 3RR report against me that I was not even informed of, so I was deprived of the opportunity to defend myself at the thread from AN/ER. It is not the first time when User:Hobartimus fails to fulfill the mandatory task of notifying the accused party when filing a report, so I can't consider it is a mistake.

The article in discussion - John Hunyadi is probably the most edited article by me on en.wp. I am the main contributor on this article and I've brought many improvements to it. Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: [34] [35] so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it.

Regarding the proper edit war I can say that in any conflict there are belligerents so it is unfair to punsih only one side. The other side was composed of 2 users (Hobartimus and Fakirbakir) so they were able to avoid 3RR rule by alternative reverting. Moreover, the edit war was already over at the time of this report.

During the edit war, there was an ongoing discussion on the article talk page where I've explained each action of mine. The other side continued to push their POV by readding the text, even if there was no consensus yet on the subject.

They were trying:

to corrupt the information from the source "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin" to "Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin""
to alterate the information from the source Catholic Encyclopedia which contained the text "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin" and to write that the source supports Serbian origin

I think these can be (at leat partially) categorised as disruptive edits, so my reasons for unsupporting them are correct

Last but not least, I am kindly asking for being unblocked because I am currently discussed at a very important ANI thread where I'd like to have the possibility to defend myself

Thanks and I hope I can find understating

Decline reason:

You know what edit warring is. You've been blocked for it before. You know Wikipedia policy about edit warring. And what you're saying here is that you feel it was justified. It never is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Excuse me, but since when manipulating the information from a source counts as a valid edit in an edit war? Isn't that an enough correct justification? It is not the first time when Fakirbakir is corrupting the information from a source I will explain how Fakirbakir had corrupted the information from the sources:

The quote from the source was: "Recalling what has been said above concerning the Turkic name Bayq, we may rightly come to the conclusion that the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin.'". So the affirmation is about "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father". Fakirbakir tried to impose the affirmation that the source supported the Tatar-Cuman origin of the person. To make an analogy, George is of Greek origin, but that does not imply that George Bush had Greek origins He tried to add Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for Serbian origin, even if that source states clearly that "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin". Moreover, at that time the source already existed in the article as a support for the Romanian origin He tried to write "There are also Hungarian and Serb authors suggesting Cuman[14] or Tatar-Cuman(...)", even if no one of the provided authors was Serb. So aren't these edits an obvious manipulation of the information from the source? Acording to 3RR_exemptions "removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious" do not count in an edit war. I think manipulating information from sources fits into this cateogry...

Can you please convert this sanction into 1 week edit restriction on John Hunyadi or 1RR/2RR editing restriction?

Decline reason:

There are so many things you can do besides edit-warring to correct a problem in an article. You already know that edit-warring leads to blocks, but you made the choice to edit-war instead of doing any of those things. You didn't even do the simple things that any Wikipedia editor would do, like using edit summaries or explaining yourself on the article talk page. By choosing to edit-war, you made the choice that it was worth being blocked to make those edits. I'm not sure why you made that choice- edit-warring rarely leads to useful, lasting change- but I respect the choice to be blocked that you made. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hard to see how John Hunyadi fits into an exemption specific to biographies of living people. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is not a very big difference. If the person is not alive any more, editors are more entitled to add "biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"? I did not say that I am unguilty, but I think I have mitigating circumstances. The other side of the edit war (Fakirbakir and Hobartimus) is as fauly as me. On this blocking principle, the majority will decide everytime, even if they are right or not, because by alternative reverting they wiil be able to avoid breaking 3RR.

The status quo version of the article should have been kept until the consensus of the ongoing talk page discussion

Please look into my edit history to see how many times I've recently addressed to different admins, noticeboards or asked for 3O in order to solve disputes, while others prefer to simply revert.(Iaaasi (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Can you please convert this sanction into 1 week edit restriction on John Hunyadi or 1RR/2RR editing restriction?

FisherQueen, you are wrong. I've explained everything both in edit summaries and on article talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Iaaasi, as a non-admin, let me just try to help clarify this point: there are exactly 5 exceptions to the edit warring restrictions on non-main-page articles, none of which apply here. The only exceptions are reverting: vandalism (per the definition at WP:VANDAL, note that this does not include questionable or even wrong information), BLP violations, copyright violations, material that is illegal in Florida (like child pornography), and the edits of banned (not blocked, not under scrutiny) editors. The whole point of 3RR is that, invariably, both/all sides think that they are "right", and thus believing that another user is wrong does not give you an exception. In the terms you used, there are no mitigating circumstances to edit warring other than those explicitly listed. What you need to do is go through the whole dispute resolution process, getting more editors involved, etc. I know that its hard to keep editing "fairly" when you think another editor is blatantly flouting policies, but edit warring doesn't solve that problem. Qwyrxian (23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iaaasi, I see your edit-summaries and talk page edits now. I was only looking at your edits to that article in the last few days, which were summaryless, and didn't notice the older ones. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know that the events are difficult to be watched by an outsider (Iaaasi (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After the above discussion, I realise that I was wrong. It seeems that I misinterpreted the policies. I am sorry, I really thought that reverting soomething like that constitutes and exemption to 3RR. If I knew these aspects I would have not make those reverts for sure. Please unblock me, I've understood my mistake. I think I've proved that I was of good faith and I did not have disruptive intentions(Iaaasi (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your long history of serious misconduct, your claim you've suddenly understood 3RR lacks credibility. I think that you should feel lucky for only being blocked for a week - I hope that you approach editing with a cooler head when the block ends as any further blocks are likely to be for an indefinite period and a ban is a distinct possibility. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am making this request because an ANI report against me has been filed today. This 1 week block has been set to expire: 19:28, 19 March 2011, but I am asking for the favor of being unblocked one day earlier in order to reply to the accusations. I've understood now that I misinterpreted the policies about 3RR exemptions and I will not repeat the mistake in the future. If the response will be a decline, I'd like to ask for the delay of the verdict in this case until after I my defense arguments will be posted on the thread. Thanks in advance

Decline reason:

Please post your statement on this page and it will be copied to WP:ANI. Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The above is not a valid reason for unblock especially considering three previous unblocks declined. The discussion will run for several days and you will be able to participate Please note that if you unblock with 3 previous unblock requests declined I will immediately file for arbitration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobartimus (talk • contribs)