I saw that you removed a short reference to Dinesh D'Souza's book in the Sam Harris article.
Would you explain why D'Souza is "not notable here"? It is unclear to me what distinguishes his
criticism from that of others mentioned in the section. I'm also not sure why you say there are
"no sources", because I did provide the title of the book that contains the criticism, and the
book itself is the source. If I were to provide page numbers for the parts that disagree with
Harris, would this be an adequate source? RebelChrysanthemum (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources that it is notable. Just writing about somebody doesn't make the fact automatically notable in that somebody's article.--Svetovid (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By this standard, everything in that section should be deleted. None of those critiques have sources to defend the idea that they are notable, merely a source that shows where the criticism was written.
If a source could demonstrate that D'Souza's book sold a substantial number of copies, would this, by your own personal standard, be enough to make his book notable? RebelChrysanthemum (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "own personal standard" isn't what matters here. There are guidelines and policies. Other criticism there isn't notable either then, or it's a matter of consensus on the talk page.--Svetovid (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you not delete all the other criticism then? What, in accordance to guidelines and policies, distinguishes Dinesh D'Souza from all the other critics mentioned in that section? RebelChrysanthemum (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other criticism was added when I didn't watch the article, and I assume that it was a consensus among editors (at least in the form that nobody removed it). However, I agree that the section should be rewritten or completely removed and any worthy material moved to other sections to criticize concrete opinions and ideas.--Svetovid (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I please ask you to be less sensitive? Just because someone doesn't use please in every sentence followed by thank you, it doesn't mean they are not polite or want to give orders.--Svetovid (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry if that seemed rude, but after I spent considerable time changing an article from a gallery with text into a more concise and readable one, it does not make me happy to see that someone just reverted it back.--Svetovid (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responce. I have nod add any image to the gallery, I replaced one of my images with another my image. May I please ask you if you are going to discussthe top image>? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names in Slovak cities articles
Well, haven't I said that? Your solution may be logical, but as you see, there'll be always someone who'll reinsert or revert then back, and you didn't have to wait too long. And using reverts just because of this is a fairly silly way to get in danger. Shortly: not worth the trouble. MarkBAwhat's up?/my mess12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Discovery-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sunset. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —— Ryan(t)•(c)13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made more than 3 reversions and am aware of my current number. Instead, can't you lock the article so it won't get vandalized again?--Svetovid (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you made 1, 2 and 3 reversions all within the last 24 hours which violates the three-revert rule. Second, most (if not all) of your edit reversions weren't reverting vandalism as you claimed. Why not use the article's talk page to discuss the article rather than seeing it upon yourself to keep reverting perfectly legit edits and in doing so taking ownership of articles. —— Ryan(t)•(c)17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said I made 3 reversions and that does not violate the rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Please read and understand the rule before you try to enforce it. Anyway, an editor is trying to insert his image despite the fact that editors always replace it with a higher quality one. That editor is changing IPs to avoid the 3R rule so if there is someone "taking ownership of articles" it is obvious it is not me.--Svetovid (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Pratchett FA nomination
Terry Pratchett has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
To Svetovid, Stephenb, Arwel Parry, Nate1481 (per [[1]]).
There's not been much discussion I know, but I thought what the heck- I've nominated it, lets see what feedback they give. I'm interested in what they say about the sub articles. I think it can get, with their advice, to FA. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Hedvig Malina. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind.
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).
As you can clearly see, my edit at 19:13 on 13 February 2008 was just continuing my editing with a lot of improvements to the article. The editing started at 17:55 and was interrupted by 'Hobartimus' in a very disrupting way and I didn't even notice that. Moreover, please look at the changes and the talk page and do something so that I don't have to engage in an edit war with two editors who don't seem to be interested in improving the article in an unbiased way. For example, all Hobartimus is doing is reverting my changes, even when I only correct wording, spelling or grammar. The talk page and history of the article shows that I was the one always trying to bring the article to a higher standard and compromise. It's quite discouraging when two editors assume ownership of an article and neglect from other editors and administrators help them destroy work of a valued contributor. Thanks.
Decline reason:
You are quite right that those who have reverted you seemed to be objecting to only one part of your change. But on the other hand, you kept reverting THAT change too, even when multiple other users have reverted you. This is considered edit warring and is harmful to the editing process, which is why you've been blocked. Like it or not, the way out of this is discussion. If you feel that things are deadlocked now, there are further steps you can pursue in dispute resolution, but simply making your own preferred change over and over solves nothing and simply makes things worse. Mangojuicetalk15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...even when multiple other users have reverted you." Not multiple, only 2 with obvious bias, who have a history of disruptive edits.--Svetovid (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2008 (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.
Hi. In this edit, which I have reverted, you place an image (Image:Tanap.gif) in the image gallery. This image is not freely licensed. It is included in Wikipedia under the fair use policy. Under that policy, you can only include fair use images on pages where the image directly relates to the subject of the article. Thus the logo is suitable for illustrating Tatra National Park, Slovakia, but it is expressly not suitable for illustrating Tatra chamois. Please do not keep readding it. Thanks, Sam Korn(smoddy)19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's your individual explanation of that policy, which I disagree with. The Tatra Chamois is an important symbol for the Tatras and the image and its caption help the reader understand this perfectly.--Svetovid (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use policy is as it is for two main reasons: 1) it is legally safer; 2) it makes Wikipedia more free and thus easier to fork or whatever, which is important. I do comprehend your frustrations, however. Best wishes, Sam Korn(smoddy)21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:THEY from Games Convention 2007.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:THEY from Games Convention 2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you erase the Ulaszlo I. name in the Kosice article?
He was a Polish'king as Wladislaus III. but He was a Hungarian's king as Ulászló I.
He had 2 thrones : Poland and Hungary.
Hi Svetoid! I dont know why is It important You this Polish-Hungarian king's Polish name? in Kosice and in history of Bratislava articles that would be better if He is there as Ladislau I. because Kosice and Bratislava were part of the Hungarian kingdom.His offical Hungarian name was Ulászló or Ladislau and as first
on the Hungarian throne not third (He was third Wladislaw or Ladislau on the Polish throne). Although it is true that his nationality was Polish but if You want to use his name so historical in context It is wrong. Because He was a Hungarian king there (Kosice Bratislava).All the best.Nmate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the images and placed a note on the talk page. Please be considerate of other people's work in the future. Thank you.
You are confusing two totally different things. I just improved the page layout by removing some of the low-quality pictures and moving ext. links. I didn't delete any images. I can't anyway. I am not an admin.--Svetovid (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Svetovid, you are right that my reference is incorrect, and the truth is I thought my image was the best anatomical representation on the page, and that a picture too many was better than a picture too few. You of course wanted to set a threshold of quality for the article, and used copy editing skills to smarten it up. Both positions are well intentioned, and I apologize for my indignant behavior. Knowing the sensitivity of this issue, I thought a good source of existing picture dogma would be at the cat page. It meows the issue perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat#Too_Many_Pictures I don't think the mole article had too many pictures. One thing is for certain: it takes considerably more effort to insert a photo into an article than it does to remove it. You have made many contributions to Wikipedia so I am interested in your opinion. Thank you. Zettix (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only about the number of images but also about quality. Each image should be somewhat unique, should add something new to the article and should be of high quality when possible. And you don't have to apologize. I don't take these things personally :-).--Svetovid (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to your Elvis example? An evaluative statement (Elvis is the greatest) is a very different kettle of fish from a descriptive statement (Waldorf education has a particular aim). We have been very careful to eliminate citations of evaluative judgments from the description; they belong in the reception section, and to some extent arise naturally in the studies section as well.
Vis a vis NPOV: Many people feel various ways about Elvis, and it would violate the policy to claim one of their views as the correct one. In contrast, every author who has treated the subject - and their are many - agrees that Waldorf education has as a primary aim aiding children to unfold their destiny. (Whether they are successful in doing so is another question, of course, and if such a claim were to be made it would have to be backed up by a different kind of evidence.) Hgilbert (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a claimed aim, period. People claim a lot of things. It doesn't mean they actually do it. Why do you want to make it sound like an universal truth instead of a claim, which it actually is?--Svetovid (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said this several times already, I'll try once more: it is not a claim by the Waldorf movement! I have now listed all the sources on the talk page (they were already there in the article for anyone to see); all are independent, peer-reviewed descriptions the education. Their descriptions are as objective as Wikipedia gets: verifiable sources of the highest quality. By your standard, anything stated anywhere is a claim, and every line of every article should simply say that someone somewhere claims something. BUT IN ANY CASE IT IS NOT THE WALDORF MOVEMENT CLAIMING THIS, BUT OTHER AUTHORS. Look at the citations.Hgilbert (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to make it sound like an universal truth instead of a claim, which it actually is? There are critics of the education, which apparently shows that the claim is not universal, nor objective.--Svetovid (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A whole range of verifiable sources say it; no verifiable sources have been cited that in any way dispute it. That's truth sub specie Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I have tried to provide wording that makes it clear that this particular "truth" is drawn from (the cited) studies of the education. This still seems superfluous; is this not what citations are meant to indicate (that they are the source that supports a given claim)? Hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, just verifiable: WP:Verify states that "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.Hgilbert (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ecotourdirectory.com Ecotourism Resource Centre
Hello,
Noticed that you removed the link we added to Wikipedia on the 'ecotourism' page.
I was just wondering why you felt that this was not a valid resource?
You removed an external link to atheistdelusion.net from the wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins. I believe this link to be relevant as it is a site set up in response to the works and literature of Professor Dawkins. Snalwimba and myself have already had a discussion on this matter and it was agreed that the link was relevant. I will thus revert back to the previous edit if I hear no compelling arguements to the contrary by 18:30 GMT. 81.110.35.69 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, none of the other external links are to opponents of Dawkins, and so for the sake of objectivity and uniformity if nothing this link should be included.
Secondly, atheistdelusion.net has links to many interesting and relevant articles, including one on Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion" (probably the best publicised response to Dawkins' God Delusion) and audio links to debates/discussions between Dawkins and various prominent and notable theologians including John Lennox, Alister McGrath and David Quinn.
I hope this answers your reservations about the inclusion of the link.
Pete g1 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was objective in my comment, other than my perhaps unnecessary use of the adjective 'interesting'. Notability, however, is inherently, intrinsically and inextricably linked to opinion, though opinions formed from unbiased observation rather than personal taste. Opinions aside however, I stand by my point that atheistdelusion.net provides a portal whereby users of Wikipedia reading the Richard Dawkins article can find articles and talks detailing what Professor Dawkins' opponents have to say, as well as some of his own debates. Given the details above, and that this is the first such external link, I maintain that the link is a useful addition to the Dawkins article, filling in a previously empty hole in this small sub-section (i.e. External Links)
Pete g1 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stúr, Bernolák
Ahoj Svetoid!
I did not intend this comment for you!
I intend it for MarkBA because he removed what i wrote to the Nitra article yesterday.
Yes, these nationalists are ridiculous. They polarize every issue, attack everybody and then play the victims. It's easy to spot if you are neutral and intellectually honest though.--Svetovid (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we see quite often what's happening when... Just take a look at his contribs now... One alone cannot fight against idiotism. Unfortunately, I have enough of English wiki at this time due to the several circumstances combined in one... though you won't like this, I think I need a Wikibreak for some time. If something isn't done quickly, well, our golden, silver and whatever ages are gone... what we see now is the age of hell. I already have a fear that all articles which are already developed will be goners soon. MarkBAwhat's up?/my mess20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, mate. Good luck to you and enjoy yourself. You've done loads of great work here. And don't get upset about idiotism too much. We can reduce it by exposing people's fallacies, bias and irrationality. And believe me, fanatics are usually depressed, esp. when their attitude is exposed.--Svetovid (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bratislava Castle
Hi Svetoid!Why did you remove the NPOV dispute templates from the Bratislava castle article? Nmate (talk • contribs)
Assume good faith. Per the links Squash provided at the noticeboard, do not claim other edits as vandalism when it is just a disagreement about the content of the article. I also see that your first comment on the talk page was accusations of hijacking which again is not civil. Comment on the content of the article and be respectful or you could be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was productive. If you are aware of the fallacies, just read his comments. As for your warning, please assume good faith. BTW, you can challenge me on the fallacies and I can list them.--Svetovid (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be civil if it wasn't a long-term observation of the article's history and talk page, which it is. It's not just a disagreement on the content when the editors revert everything by proxy, even edits that correct sentence structure, grammar and wording!--Svetovid (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, your attitude if ultimately your choice. I'll ignore it this time, but take it as a final warning to stop with the insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these nationalists are ridiculous. They polarize every issue, attack everybody and then play the victims. It's easy to spot if you are neutral and intellectually honest though.--Svetovid (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"we got tired" --> You and Hobartimus. Editors that reverted your edits but left the article because you reverted everybody: 147.175.98.213, Tankred, 78.98.139.19. That's 4 editors with me. Suddenly, it's 2 against 4. "deletion of relevant information" - I asked 3 times to list those relevant information that was removed. Not once did you answer. As for that quote: What does my opinion on fanatical nationalists have to do with the article? It is just another red herring - "informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question." Ricky81682, sorry about the off topic comment, but I need to defend myself.--Svetovid (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Svetovid's really off topic comment:
Tankred has two edits in the article, a number of different IPs edited the article, 147.175.98.213 seems to have left Wikipedia altogether[2]. This is the other IP you mentioned?
If you want to delete reliable sources, it is polite that you give reasons for it, as I asked you a number of times. Or I should?
For this one no need for any answer, you received your final warning...
Which statement was false? Name it and say why it was false. BTW, that's fourth time I asked you to list relevant information that was removed without any answer. Also, again no answer: What does my opinion on fanatical nationalists have to do with the article? My comment was a direct reply to yours. So if you called my comment "really off topic" what does that say about yours?--Svetovid (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use Dispute resolution
Svetoid, I'll say this every time. Use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Frankly, I'm very close to simply blocking you for continuously reverting the article with as minor edit with a misleading edit summaries. Administrators are not here to deal with these petty arguments, but in one sentence, can you tell me what exactly are you disputing? I see you removing tons of sourced statements, then complaining about it being unsourced, and then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source) in the article. Respond on the article talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" - please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement?
"I see you removing tons of sourced statements." - can you list them please? I challenged Racket 4 times to do so, yet no answer still.--Svetovid (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said nationalists are ridiculous to me (statement I'll repeat whenever the topic comes up), but didn't call them nationalists in the linked comment so you obviously misunderstood it. That they are two and use it as an advantage is a fact for me. If you have a problem with that, try to explain why. Also, that was a general point about how Wikipedia works. Anyway, you still haven't answered my questions, nor backed your claims by evidence: "Take this as a final warning; do not attack an editor like that again or you will be blocked."; "And again, do not attack other editors, no matter what." Does the same apply to Squash Racket's calling me a disruptive editor[3]? "then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" - please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement? "I see you removing tons of sourced statements." - can you list them please? Why were the edits reverting correct sentence structure, grammar and wording justified?--Svetovid (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at my talk page
Do not mess with other people's comments at my talk page. Everyone is allowed to speak there, and it is my choice if I want to rearrange conversations. You can do whatever you want on your talk page but leave other people's alone. For your other complaint about Nmate, I'll repeat what I'm told everyone:
If you are annoyed with some else's edits, use the warning templates on their talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. If it is appropriate, the person will be blocked. Be prepared that if you are the one who initiated it (or it is equal), you could be blocked as well.
I am not interested in continuing discussions with you. I believe I have made my views clear. If you wish to report me on a separate report, please feel free to. In fact, I would suggest an RFC if you really want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to be sure that the sentence "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." was aimed at me. I do not have the habit of accusing people of things they didn't say.--Svetovid (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First: as I said earlier, it's still in use (i.e. it's not historical). Second: then you should hurry and remove the German name of Gdansk, and don't forget to delete the Hungarian names of Nitra, Trnava and Komárno as well. Like why does bother you that its Hungarian and German names are written after its official name (just the way they are written in the aforementioned articles)? Because they're historical names? So what? CoolKoon (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia. Alternative names that are not used (widely) in English don't belong to the lead. If applicable, there should be a link to alternative names in the lead. Thanks for notifying me about Nitra and Trnava.--Svetovid (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn......I forgot the basic rule of internet: never feed the trolls.......
Svetovid, hi, thanks for participating in the experiment. Now, I see that you are involved in some revert wars on certain articles, but that there is not any corresponding discussion on the talkpages. Please, if you make any edit that could be regarded as controversial (especially a revert), you must explain your edit on the article's talkpage. Or, you may choose to place a link on the article's talkpage, which links to the central "Hungarian-Slovakian" page. But please stop reverting without discussion. Thanks, Elonka11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the editor making an edit should explain their edit and back it up with sources first. If they haven't done so and the edit changed some information that has been in the article for some time, it should be reverted. The editor that added the info should then explain why they want to make that change. Anyway, I always am willing to discuss reasonable propositions. For example, you can see it in the thread Petržalka above.--Svetovid (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Svetovid, as you have already been cautioned, when you engage in a controversial edit you are to participate at the talkpage, not just in edit summaries. Today, you again got involved in a revert war at Talk:Bratislava, and again, without discussing your change. As such, I am placing you under editing restrictions. Please work harder to talk about controversial changes, rather than just reverting. --Elonka14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did one revert so how can that be a revert war? Also, I explained my practice in the above reply to yourself. I will not change this practice because it follows or guidelines and policies. Please read next time before making any hasty conclusions. P.S. Slovakia is in Central Europe if you want to be technically correct.--Svetovid (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made a revert,[5]without explaining on the talkpage your reason for the revert. Under some circumstances this might not seem a problem, but you have been engaged in multiple edit wars in this topic area,[6][7][8] and cautioned multiple times before[9][10] about the need to explain your changes (and not just in edit summaries). I strongly encourage you to change your editing practices, so that further administrative action is not required. By explaining your edits at talk (instead of just in an edit summary), it makes it easier for other editors to understand why you made your change, and it also opens a dialogue so that other editors can offer their own comments on the matter. As I'm sure you have seen, there have been multiple failures of communication in the articles in this topic area. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has acknowledged that Eastern European topics can be an area of disruption on Wikipedia, which is why they have authorized uninvolved administrators (such as myself) with wide latitude to address these problems and impose editing restrictions. The editing restriction that you are under is minor one: You are not to engage in edit wars, and whenever you do make an edit which could be reasonably construed as controversial, you are to explain your edit at the corresponding talkpage. This is actually not much of a restriction, it is standard practice on Wikipedia. See WP:DR#Discuss. I think that if you learn to use this practice on a regular basis, you will find that it decreases the quantity of disruption and edit wars. Best, Elonka00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a universal reason. You can see where I was coming from here and here, for instance. It's up to the editor that introduces something new that goes against a long-lasting consensus to explain his edits on the talk page first not the editor reverting such edits. (Edit summary for a revert should be necessary though.)--Svetovid (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit needs to be reasonable for the editor that reverts to start a discussion. The way you put it, everyone can make almost any kind of edit now (except for obvious vandalism) and I can't revert it with just using the edit summary, which can be more than enough to state my reason for the revert. If you talked about a series of reverts, I would agree with you. But for the first revert an edit summary should be enough.--Svetovid (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I reverted to Tankred's version, not Tankred. 2. There is an explanation in the edit summary: "I didn't notice there was any (finished) debate about this." Ironically, this explanation also follows your advice not to make any changes before the debate about names is finished. Please analyse carefully read next time before making any hasty conclusions.--Svetovid (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected about the "to" Tankred. However, the fact remains that you made a controversial edit, without engaging at the talkpage. This is disruptive, and you have received multiple warnings about disruptive behavior in the past. Please consider this your last warning. If you do this again, please be aware that you could be placed on some other type of restrictions, up to and including have your account access blocked. --Elonka11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted an edit based on you very suggestions to wait until the debate is finished so make up your mind. Either the edit I reverted shouldn't have happened in the first place and thus I was correct to revert it. Or this universal suggestion is not so universal after all.--Svetovid (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's make it simpler. You are on a "no revert" restriction for 30 days. If you see obvious vandalism, you can still take care of it, but it has to be something really blatant such as a page blanking or inserting of profanity. Anything else, no reverts, it doesn't matter if you engage in discussion or not. If that's not clear enough, then I can simply put you on a "no article editing" restriction, but I'd rather go with the 30-day "no revert". Does that seem clear enough? --Elonka14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of "no revert" editing restrictions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Svetovid, after giving you multiple previous warnings, and a formal notice of editing restrictions per the Digwuren case, I told you that you were on a "no revert" restriction for 30 days.[12] Today though, I was disappointed to see that you still went and reverted the History of Slovakia article, with an edit summary of "obvious vandalism".[13] However, it was most definitely not "obvious" vandalism. It was a legitimate edit, well-explained in the edit summary, by an editor who has been on Wikipedia for a few months and has a history of reasonable contributions. If you disagreed with the edit, you could have brought it up at the talkpage, or you could have put the word back, and included a source which verified your point of view. But simply calling it "vandalism" and reverting was not acceptable. I am therefore enforcing the restrictions, with a block. Based on your account history, I could easily justify a 72-hour or 1-week block, but I am choosing instead just 24 hours, hoping that this message will be clear enough. If not, you can expect much longer blocks in the future. Svetovid, you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and I do not want to lose you as an editor. But unless you can abide by the policies and guidelines here, you are going to be asked to leave. --Elonka11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, the editor previously included similar misleading information and his attitude towards this subject can be seen as tendentious. If he wanted sources, he should have placed a fact tag there. Like I said before, I am not the one who is gonna miss anything out. If the focus on the so-called civility (which is a often synonym to mob rule here) is more important than focus on facts, then so be it but I won't waste my time in such a project. Moreover, if facts cannot be defended against zealots, I won't lose my time here.--Svetovid (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to "protect" facts on Wikipedia is to add sources, not to make reverts and accuse other editors of vandalism. I glanced through Borsoka's contribs but did not see what you were referring to. Please be more specific. --Elonka13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I had gotten involved with this dispute, I had definitely heard of Babylon and the Roman Empire. But I had never heard of the Principality of Nitra. Further, the Principality of Nitra article was completely unsourced until just a couple days ago. I looked at Borsoka's edits to Great Moravia,[14][15] and I am still not seeing a problem. I also looked at Talk:Great Moravia, but saw no complaints about Boroka's edits. Instead, I saw what looked like a perfectly reasonable discussion, where other editors were actively thanking him for his additions.[16] I would also point out that there were no edits from you on the talkpage, which is yet another reason that you should not have been reverting there. To be clear though: If you are going to make accusations of tendentiousness towards another editor, you must supply proof of this claim. Otherwise your accusations are an unfounded personal attack, and just another reason that you should be asked to leave Wikipedia. --Elonka13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you don't know the name of the current Chinese president either and he is known to hundreds of million people. His name is considered common knowledge and doesn't have to be sourced if he is mentioned in other articles. Common knowledge is something educated people commonly know and/or it is easy to find out. You see no problems? Boroka first says "called Principality of Nitra by modern authors" and then says alleged Principality of Nitra. It can't be both. When did he include false information?--Svetovid (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the information was challenged in a reasonable way, it should be sourced. Why not? If adding an extra footnote removes conflict, that is an effective way of dealing with things. Now, if an editor is being deliberately disruptive and asking for all kinds of unreasonable sources, that's a different issue. But getting back to Boroka's edit, it was a single edit, and appeared to be in good faith. It was definitely not obvious vandalism. Vandalism is when someone does something really blatant, like blanking a page and replacing it with a picture of their genitals. Or changing someone's birthdate to the 23rd century. Or removing an image caption and replacing it with "HAHA YOU WANKERS". Those are examples of vandalism. But a simple one-time disagreement about whether the word "future" or "supposed" is appropriate? That is not vandalism. Does this help clarify? --Elonka06:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Svetovid, it really pains me to do this. You do an enormous amount of good work on Wikipedia, but your quickness to revert other editors is causing disruption.[17] Especially at Petrzalka, where multiple discussions have taken place about this, and a clear determination of consensus was made,[18] you still revert and say that the consensus "has no binding power."[19] Sorry, but it does. When an editor disregards the input of others, we call that Tendentious editing, and it leads to blocks. If this were a one time problem, you might get off with a warning, but you're already under formal editing restrictions from the Digwuren ArbCom case,[20] and you have been placed under further restrictions about "no reverts" for 30 days,[21] which you have violated multiple times. Your account access has been blocked multiple times over the last couple months for edit warring,[22] and yet still you continue.
I speak with all sincerity here, that I would like for you to be able to continue editing Wikipedia, because I truly believe that you have a lot to offer. But this editing must be done in a cooperative and collegial manner, and not by edit warring and disregarding the opinions of other editors. I have blocked your account access for one week, but I am still willing to reduce the block, if you are willing to give your word that from now on you will honor your current restrictions, meaning that you will stay civil, treat other editors with good faith, and most importantly, that you will cease reverting articles (except of course in cases of obvious vandalism). If this is acceptable to you, please place your understanding in your own words, thanks. --Elonka12:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy so a conclusion made about facts by a group of particular editors put the whole project in danger. Banning me for that edit that was reverted (and I didn't revert back) was pointless. BTW, you still haven't answered this. Unless you can show that the edit was controversial, please remove the remark.--Svetovid (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor point, you were blocked, not banned. A block is when your account access is restricted by technical means. A ban is a more nebulous concept, such as "You are banned from working on articles in the following topic area". Or to put it another way: You have been banned from making reverts for 30 days. If/when you violate this ban, your account access may be blocked.
You are correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But we're not talking a vote here, we are talking consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. You are also correct that editors cannot build consensus to dispute facts, but I don't believe that that is the case here.
As for the edit you're talking about from a week ago, I'll have to refresh my memory on that one, and will get back to you. --Elonka16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. I didn't even participate, nor did Tankred, nor did MarkBA. Why would you prefer opinions of people whose main contributions consist of inserting Hungarian names, stalkother editors, etc. instead of opinions of people that actually add content based on sources? Moreover, your decision ignored this part (The lead) of the naming conventions.--Svetovid (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about Pilisszentkereszt, I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking. Here's what I know about your last block:
Two weeks ago on April 21, you were placed on a 30-day "no revert" editing restriction.[23]
April 23, Squash Racket challenged the edit on your talkpage,[25] pointing out that the edit was controversial, and as such you should have explained things at talk.
An hour later, Squash Racket removed his comment.[26]
Neither that block nor the current one had anything to do with Pilisszentkereszt, and indeed, we have never (to my knowledge) talked about that article. Why is it an issue? Yes, you once asked about it at my talkpage,[27] wanting to know why Squash Racket complained, but I don't believe that I replied. I'm getting several Hungarian and Slovakian editors posting various accusations at my talkpage. I read all, reply to some, and ignore the rest. :) If you want to know why Squash Racket complained, ask him. --Elonka19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're asking. Okay, on this edit,[28] you deleted a Hungarian name from the lead, while at the same time adding other things. Your edit summary just said, "+info", but gave no reason for why you deleted the Hungarian name. And there was no corresponding explanation at the talk. As you know, the readjusting of names in the lead of an article is currently one of the hotbuttons for disputes, so it would have been better if you gave more explanation in your edit summary (or at talk), explaining your edit. At the time, I saw it as a borderline edit, and as I mentioned above, I didn't feel it merited more than a "wait and see" attitude. Squash Racket's first impression was evidently the same as mine, though he changed his mind a bit later and removed his comment. As far as I'm concerned the matter is now closed and no further action is required, though if you still have any questions about it, please let me know. --Elonka13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove any names. I just deleted two words that were there two times. (You can see it in the edit you linked to!) If there is no real reason then, please remove the remark.--Svetovid (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted some duplication, yes. But this is only evident after really sitting down and looking at the edit. On a first glance, the diff shows you deleting a Hungarian name, but not giving any reason in the edit summary. Better would have been if you included an edit summary such as, "Adding some information, and removing a duplicated name." --Elonka03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian name was the first word in the article so I don't think it was not evident. Also, I have explained it several times later, and this explanation was ignored.--Svetovid (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Svetovid, you are on editing restrictions where you are not to revert articles except in cases of clear vandalism. You were blocked for a week, starting on May 4.[29] Now that you're back, I see that you are reverting other editors again, such as at Zilina.[30] Or this edit, which isn't marked as a "revert", but clearly is a revert, as you're simply removing information that another editor added.[31] Therefore, I have blocked your account access for two weeks. Also, even if you wait this one out, please be aware that your 30-day "no revert" restriction will restart, at the end of your block. In the past, I have offered to lift your block early, if you would simply give your word to modify your own behavior,[32] but you have been unwilling to do this. My offer, however, is still open. If you are willing to give your word to abide by restrictions, please place your agreement in your own words, thanks. --Elonka13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[33]: I started a discussion and waited 2 weeks. After two weeks and no participation from the other side, I removed it. [34]: This is just nonsense and never happened. Am I supposed to prove a negative here or ...? BTW, you still didn't remove the inaccurate remark about the alleged controversial edit even though you already acknowledged it wasn't controversial. Could you do so?--Svetovid (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the edits at Franz Liszt, since Rembaoud was adjusting things per talkpage consensus. As for the edit at Petrzalka, I agree that it was a revert with an uncivil edit summary. He should have added sources at the time, though I see he has corrected the problem since then. I did have a word with him about the edit summary though. As for your change at Zilina, I am not seeing the situation as you are describing it. You brought it up two weeks ago, and there was a thread about it at the talkpage, in which Rembaoud was participating. I saw no consensus for you to remove the information. As for the "nonsense" that you removed, the addition was not clear vandalism, and I see no source (from either you or the other editor) on that section. If you felt that the new information was inaccurate, you could have removed it and added a source with an alternate view, or you could have added a {{fact}} tag to the new information, and then if no source was provided in a reasonable amount of time, you could have removed the information. But you are under "no revert" editing restrictions, and I expect you to follow those, especially considering that you just came off another block for violations. --Elonka04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he wasn't participating! I removed it at 14:27 on 11 May 2008. Only after that he posted a comment at 23:24 on 11 May 2008, and that comment had nothing to do with the edit anyway. Then at 23:38 he posted a relevant comment. There was also talk about the same subject at Petržalka article, in which he also didn't participate until the edit was removed. And where other editor(s) expressed their opinions about relevance. As for the nonsense, it's not up to me to prove a negative, that something didn't happen. Extraordinary claims require sources and if such claims denigrate an existing company, similar rules to those associated with biographies of living persons should apply. You can't just say that some company was recently burnt down without sources. That would be ridiculous and against what Wikipedia should be. And actually, I did try to find sources about the fire in English, but I couldn't.--Svetovid (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point on Zilina. You had raised a question at talk,[35] and then when there was no reply after 2 weeks, you just removed the information from the article.[36] However, what would have been better would have been for you to tag the sentence as needing a source. Or, at the talkpage you could have clearly said, "I propose removing this statement". And then if there was still no reply in a reasonable amount of time, you could have removed it, with a link to the thread where you had made the proposal. I realize that this may sound fairly strict, but that's the point of restrictions, is to try and provide a structure which reduces disruption and edit-warring. As for the Petrzalka edit about the fire, you don't necessarily need English sources. A non-English source would be alright, as long as you follow WP:RSUE, meaning that you provide a quote from that source, as well as an English translation of it, so that it can be verified. --Elonka15:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to release your block so that you can speak for yourself, but for the next two weeks, you are to honor the rest of your block, which means that you are not to edit articles in any way. You may participate only at talkpages, and only in a civil fashion. Is this acceptable to you? --Elonka16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}