Hello, Thehoboclown! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Brambleclawx and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help, try looking at some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Brambleclawx16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. NW(Talk)05:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Gabriella Szücs a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Gabriella Szűcs. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szilvia Ábrahám until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kayau VotingISevil12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article István Csoknyai, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the end of his career as a professional handball player in 2005, István Csoknyai had won more national league and cup titles than any other Hungarian player? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I agree that you have a point, but until there is an article on the men's side this is OK to redirect to the only relevant article. When there is an article for the men, this can become a disambiguation page for the two. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the uses you had of this image in 2009–10 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (Women's handball) and 2009–10 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (Women's handball) as well as removing the rationales you added to the image for those uses. The reason is that this type of use is a failure of WP:NFCC #1. It is not necessary nor desired to include the logo of a team when it is mentioned in the prose of an article. Since the text already includes mention of the winning team, including the logo is redundant and is a failure of the replaceability clause of WP:NFCC #1. Please do not restore the image to this use, and please do not use non-free images in this manner. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion
Hey, yeah i saw the deletion message and "discussion" earlier but did not know what i thought about it. But now i guess they should be deleted as the qualifying phases for both (men and women) are not that long and are just a bracket and 4 matches (handballboxes), so it is not much to scroll. I thought about maybe having an extra article for the group phase and then later for the knockout stage as that uses a lot of space like we saw last year. Just 1 not one for each group or round. What you think about that? I will write my comment at the deletion entry now. Kante4 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i thought about it too and don´t know especially what to do. Less matches is/was the reason to keep it in the main article, but like you said the info would be in one page. I would lean to a subarticle but i ask you too, what would you do? Kante4 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i think it´s better to make a subarticle. I was very busy the last weeks and had no time to create all EHF "things", yesterday i had a free day, and so i started it all. As i speak, i got to leave again. ;) Let´s try to keep the article up-to-date and make it look good. Kante4 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add the Round 1 and 2 from the women´s article in the same article and call it group stages, just two groups, no need for another subarticle. Kante4 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the words, i also corrected a misstake from my side. I´m glad you look over the articles and feel free to edit it when something is wrong, you want to add something or the results. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thehoboclown! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Szeged 2011 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi. When you recently edited Roma in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Maybe at some points, if not then not. :) Thanks for the kind words, really appreciate it. You are one of the users you can really work with. Kante4 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ivan Čupić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Részben rátapintottál a lényegre, amellyire az időm engedi, annyira igyekszem majd fejleszteni a magyar kosaras oldalakat, de sajnos elég rég óta tervben van ahhoz, hogy bármit ígérjek. Ha kérdésem lesz, köszönettel élek majd a felajánlással.
- Az megvan már, hogy mire költi ezt a rengeteg pénzt? (A díjjal 6 millió norvég korona, vagyis 800 ezer eurónak és 1 millió dollárnak megfelelő összeg is jár.)
- Ez jó kérdés... nem tudom, ezt az összeget itthon adóztatják-e - mert a Nobel- és a Széchenyi-díj sem adóköteles -, de ha igen, és a magyar hatóságokkal meg tudnék állapodni, akkor pont annyit, amennyit Amerikában adóznék mint kettős állampolgár, annyit jótékonysági célokra felajánlanék itthon.
Szia !
Gondolom, könyebb lesz magyarul beszélgetni :)
Nagyon köszönöm a meghívást ! Örülök, hogy részt vehetek egy ilyen projektben !
Beírtam a felhasználónevemet a "Sports and games" kategóriába.
Szívesen segítek, főleg, abban, ami a kézilabdát illeti :)
Ha jól értettem, akkor meg kell várni, amig öt felhasználó jelentkezik egy kategóriába ?
Még egyszer, köszönöm,
Üdv,
Worldhandball.com
Szia !
Nem tudom, hogy be vagy-e jelentkezve a worldhandball.com-on,
de anélkül most már nem lehet megnézni a meccsriportokat, illetve a góllövőlistákat.
Én be vagyok, szóval onnan frissítettem az információkat.
Szívesen, és akkor várom a jelzésedet :)
Szia. Jelenleg az érettségim van folyamatban, szóval mostanság nincs szinte semennyi időm. Annyit tudok ígérni, hogy amint végzek, beszállok az érdemi munkába. Addig leginkább csak figyelni fogok.
Ja jó bocsi! :) Tényleg félreértettem. Ha jelentkezem, akkor mi lenne pontosan a feladatom? Cikkek bővítése, ellenőrzése és karbantartása? Segítségnyújtás kezdőknek? Amúgy én is gondoltam már rá, hogy cikkeket ki kellene bővíteni, csak tényleg elég sok van, ami igen gyér! Szép napot! Üdv! --Canysp (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oké! Rendben van megpróbálok megtenni minél többet! :) Én sem vettem még részt semmi ilyenben, ba majd meglátjuk...sajnos van, hogy napokig nem tudok netezni, mert kórházban dolgozom és van 24 órás ügyeletem, nem is egy (sajnos)! De megpróbálok minél többet megtenni! Üdv! --Canysp (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 28 May 2012
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
I was about to set up the Sports and games task force for the WikiProject Hungary, but did not manage to work out, how to set the Template:WikiProject Hungary. Although on the template's site it looks all okay, when added to for example Talk:Tímea Babos, it went all wrong and the task force slipped below the main project. Could anyone tell me what is wrong or help to fix it and make the template correct? Thanks in advance! — Thehoboclown (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Székely Himnusz.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kristina Franić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Although I fully understand that Iadrian yu's contributions to the English Wikipedia may have been causing you a lot of frustration and chagrin, I have to note that what he did at Marosvásárhely and Komárom was not vandalism. For this reason, we can't treat him as a vandal. What he has been doing in Wikipdia is POV pushing at best. He has a strong opinion on Hungarians ,for example : see this edit summary here, or see here what he voted for. And in addition, at least 50% of his contributions to the project is that he keeps watching out for what Hungarian users just happen to edit ,in order to appear at the same place to represent his well-known counter opinion there. But we still need to recognise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia open for everyone to edit. And a lot of people edit it with a very different cultural background.--Nmate (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I just saw this message. Although Nmate thinks this, that is not the reason for anybody else to think like this about me. What he is trying to do here is ridiculous. Adding this diffs to present me as some sort of a person with "strong POV" is wrong. I hope this diffs speak for themselves. You were right to correct me, maybe not as a Vandal, but that doesn`t matter. I sincerely forgot about the result when we talked about and edited the problematic article. When you corrected me I did`t edited that again. I hope that when we cooperate in the future that can be done as it was until now. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 17 September 2012
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Hello, Thehoboclown. You have new messages at User:Hazard-Bot/Requests. Message added 04:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey, long time no talk. ;) Can you also add the 2014 logo as it was presented today/yesterday by the EHF, can't link it diretly somehow? Good work on the 2012 article and looking forward to the expansion. More refs from eurohandball.com should come by the night/tomorrow. Kante4 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why you warn me? Why you including places with Serb majority into category "Hungarian communities in Vojvodina"? That is clearly inaccurate category. You should add into that categori articles about villages where Hungarians are in majority. 77.105.57.115 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to which English-language source one place where Hungarians are not in majority can be described as "Hungarian community"? If you describe Serb communities as "Hungarian communities" then you confuse readers who might think that Hungarians are in majority there. Why you do not want to include into this category actual villages with Hungarian majority? 77.105.57.115 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "Community means a group of people" then how a village or municipality is community? Anyway, it is not correct that term "Hungarian communities" means that "these places have considerable Hungarian population". "Hungarians communities" means that these places are exclusively or predominately Hungarian communities. If you had aim to create category for "places which have considerable Hungarian population", why you didn't named that category like this? Name that you choose for that category was/is misleading if you didn't had aim to describe "exclusively or predominately Hungarian communities". Moreover, you included into this category articles like Inđija where only 1.93% Hungarians live? That is not even a place with "considerable Hungarian population". I propose that you add your category into articles about all these villages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Vojvodina#Settlements_with_Hungarian_majority In that way, category will not be misleading. I already included some of these villages into new category and I didn't removed category from articles about places with Hungarian majority. However, inclusion of places with Serb majority into misleading category is a problem. 77.105.57.115 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know anything about Turkish communities in Germany, but if categories about one country are not categorized accurately, it doesn't mean that same should be done with categories of other countries. Also, if you warn me about revert warring why you behave like this by yourself? You are obviously disruptive user. I now included all villages with Hungarian majority in your category and I see no reason to include any other settlement there. Moreover, most settlements of Vojvodina are populated by many ethnic groups which make even more misleading to describe such settlements as exclusively "Hungarian communities". Please stop your revert warring and disruptive behavior. 77.105.57.115 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat: when speakers of English language read term "Hungarian communities" the first thing to which they would be associated are "exclusively or predominately Hungarian communities". I doubt that anybody would interpret term "Hungarian community" as a place with "84.87% Serbs, 3.83% Croats, 1.95% Yugoslavs and 1.93% Hungarians" (and you included article about such place into category "Hungarian communities", see Inđija again). If we speak about POV, you obviously have POV approach to this because, for some reason, you want to make false impression to Wikipedia readers so that they think that these places have Hungarian majority. If you really want to improve these articles then you should have same approach to all ethnic groups in all these settlement. For example, following your logic, Inđija could be categorized as "Communities in Vojvodina with Serb majority", "Communities in Vojvodina with sizable Croat minority", "Communities in Vojvodina with sizable Yugoslav minority", "Communities in Vojvodina with sizable Ukrainian minority", "Communities in Vojvodina with sizable Hungarian minority", "Communities in Vojvodina with sizable Montenegrin minority". Only in such case we would have accurate name for categories and NPOV approach. We should also define what is a "sizable minority"? 40% 30% 20% However, I also think that it is stupid that we create such categories for all ethnic groups because most places in Vojvodina have minorities and if we follow your approach that "sizable minority includes 1% of population" then most places of Vojvodina would be included into most ethnic categories. What would be purpose of that anyway? 77.105.57.115 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am Wikishagnik a new Volunteer to DRN. I noticed that none of the talk pages in the articles listed in this DRN have any discussion about Categories. This is a necessary first step before we can take this case up for discussion in the DRN. Can you give some Wikilinks for the places where this discussion took place? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Szabolcs Szöllősi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for uploading File:Ehfcuplogo.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miskolc Ice Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multi-purpose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Sorry for reverting your restored information but the Romanian ice rink had a cost of 10-12 million of euros and was opened 4 years later. So the price should have been higher and it was. Also, I am posting for you outside photos of the 2 locations to see there is a difference of architecture between them.
With all the respect, Hobo, Miskolc Ice Hall looks cheaper. At least from outside. And your ice rink doesn't hold/include a cube.
Moreover, Gazeta Sporturilor belongs to the Intact Media Group, own by Dan Voiculescu. His television Antena 3 is linked to the USL the rival part of PD-L. So the article on tolo.ro (the blog of Cătălin Tolontan, GSP editor) is political and not correct I've explained you why. First, because there is a difference between the two constructions. Secondly, because of subjectivity.
I also remember a same style comparison between the big of stadium of Bucharest and the stadium from Frankfurt. Gazeta Sporturilor mentioned incorrectly that a train station was included in the price of the German construction and it was not.
So do you understand now why I did that? I expekt objectivity from you and the present Romanians don't need to suffer because of the past mistakes. Both Romania and Hungary did many but we move on. I just hope you are not an extremist who wants to expose this. I know it was written by Romanian/s but it is political and false.
Politics and other stuffs has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The paragraph is well referenced and objective, thus there is no reason to remove it. If you think a source is unreliable or so, feel free to go to the Reliable sources noticeboard and follow the instructions. Until those sources aren't proven unreliable, they should remain, and your action of removing the paragraph is considered vandalism. Please, refrain from such actions. As I see, you are a newcomer, so I suggest to find areas you like or you are good in, and edit in those and get familiar with the rules. You may also consider to be adopted by an experienced user, who can help you in the first steps. Don't be afraid of editing, however, be careful. Start with small edits, and once you get more experienced you can make it to the level. At all, one thing is sure: removing a whole paragraph based on some unproven ideas is not the best way to start. Thehoboclown (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Hello, I saw you edited Novi Kneževac, [1]. I was looking for some user that is interested in this articles. There is a banned editor who uses socks to remove Hungarian names(sometimes everything that is related to Hungarians) from articles in Vojvodina. I have added Hungarian names in infoboxes where the Hungarian population is more than 20%. If you can, from time to time, to have some articles on watchlist in case this happens again. I have stopped him several times, but I intend to repair many articles in Vojvodina and I just can`t watch them all. I will try and will watch them, but it would be much more efficient if there would be more users. If you can help with this user who from time to time do this, that would be great. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: 13 May 2013
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Hi. Please don't be mad at me! I reverted your edits. You can write about their personal lives if you want. Nobody should deny their ethnicity. But you must come with their declarations or some from their families. In rest all the best. Just one more question, why do you confuse things? Origin is not the same thing with descendency. If you are not sure about the origins (both parents Hungarians), please write "descent". And please add: on his father/mother's ancestry/descent through her father/mother. We must stick to objectivity! Not all the people are the same. Please don't be nationalistic and judge correctly. All the best, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:418F:FFFF:0:0:4F72:2774 (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mad or whatever. I'm happy to help you and thus I must inform you that since you are a newcomer you might not be familiar with WP:PRINCIPLES. What I added is supported by clear and reliable references. I rather feel you are a one who feel uncomfortable with it (and came out from the blue to revert it for whatever reason), and you are the one who make prejudice without knowing how wikipedia works, and you are the one who accuse me, again don't know why. I suggest you to register and make some credible edits, get familiar with wikipedia and make wikipedia better with constructive edits. This is not the best way to start you wikipedia "career". Also, although I really hate to say this, it is your last warning – if you further remove referenced sections or sentences, you may end up blocked for disruptive editing.
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarians in Argentina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (women's handball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fehérvár (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Szőcs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
''Szőcs''' ({{IPA-hu|ˈsøːtʃ}} is a [[Hungarian people|Hungarian]] surname. Notable people with this surname
Thanks for uploading File:Albacomp (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 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).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banate of Só, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Ehfchallengecuplogo.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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Ehfcwclogo.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 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).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mariama Signaté may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
where the French team won the silver medal behind [[Russia women's national handball team|Russia]]),<ref name=ff-signate/> and Signate was selected into the all-star team of the tournament as the
Orphaned non-free image File:2012 European Women's Handball Championship Logo.png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:2012 European Women's Handball Championship Logo.png. 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 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).
Hi Hobo. I know you are very disciplined, respecting the regulations all the time, but if you removed those why couldn't you help me by writing them? I would have done that for you. Robert Robertescu (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! To be honest, I don't really get what you try to say - my bad -, but I think it's kinda obvious finishing nth on a topscorers' list is not an award, no physical prize is given for that, therefore I removed those. If you think it's worth to mention that x finished nth in a topscorers' list, then go ahead add it to the article body in prose. Probably adding a proper citation to it would be a nice as well! Thehoboclown (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gardos
Please be reasonable. He is obviously not 100% ethnic Hungarian. His name is Romanian (Florin), his parents' name are Romanian (Traian and Dorina), so he clearly has a mixed origin. Cricrucra (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I do not suggest hiding his Hungarian origin (if it exists), but I have serious doubts about it. There is a single sports media article. Laszlo Sepsi has a typical Hungarian name, but for Florin Gardos I was not able to find Hungarian surnames (for him/parents/grandparents). 09:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricrucra (talk • contribs)
Hey there!
First of all, I'd like to emphasize that I'm not dragging into any stupid issue over how much one to an ethnic group belongs. It's already plain stupid how you started this thing. Second, noone stated that he has not a mixed background, just cited the ref, which stated he is of Hungarian origin (and it did not deny that he is also of Romanian origin..) – it was brought up by you who is twisting the words and making whatever original researches claiming things like "parents have Romanian names" and "it suggests that he is partly Hungarian" (do you have a machine to measure how much one belong to an ethnic group?, wow..) and then you have "serious doubts" on his Hungarianness. Bleh. To cut the story short, I insert there the word "descent", which is probably the closest to what in the article is stated AND fits your hungaro-romanometer. Otherwise, I'm ready to bring the issue to higher official level if you keep on your original research and keep on riding on this ethnic related issue. Put aside your thoughts and bring there a ref what supports your claim, or leave it as it now PER THE REF. That's how wiki works.. Thehoboclown (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
stop doing that
hi. why are you so stupid? i updated the squad of 2014-2015 season of gyor audi eto. what s wrong with this???
Hello!
I've explained it good enough times on your talkpage. Read it through carefully, over and over, until you understand it. (And please, drop these remarks, calling someone "crazy" and "stupid" just because you don't agree or don't get it at all, what is going on. Thanks.) Thehoboclown (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imre Földi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Snatch and Tata. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal.
To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system.
Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
The Welcome template at the top of the page was causing problems because one of the closing tags was wrong. So, I have fixed it with the correct tag. Hope you are OK with it. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively.
Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewedCaldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters).
In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here
Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Ez a szerkesztő (Levente 2) tucatnyi zoknijával együtt lett véglegesen blokkolva a magyar Wikipédiában. Ennyi információ nélkülözhetetlen itt. Üdv! OsvátAPalackposta12:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alá tudom támasztani, ugyanezt az időrabló tevékenységet folytatja, hoaxokat töltöget fel (nyíregyházi metró, 2020-ban lehet, hogy Marokkóban Lidl bolt nyílik, meg egyéb sületlenségeket), magyarul éppenolyan érthetetlen zagyva fogalmazással, mint angolul, ezenkívűl minősíthetetlen, mocskolódó hangnemben támad – érdemes megnézni a társprojektes közreműködéseitTroodon és Garbera levente neveken is. A legelemibb dolgokat sem képes megérteni, kérdez, kérdez , kérdez, de a válaszokat nem érti meg (nem olvassa el?), hónapok alatt az aláírás mikéntjét sem tudta elsajátítani, többszöri elmagyarázás ellenére sem (mint ahogyan itt feljebb is látható). Nulla a hasznossága, ellenben elég sok erőforrást foglal le a vele való foglalkozás. --Pallerti (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miksa Esterházy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tata. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.
Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.
In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.
For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.
Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Szia, csak most értesültem róla hogy egy sock-puppet ügybe kevertek Veled, hiába archív, azért keményen megválaszoltam a fantaszta FromOradea elmebeteg vádjait, ahol még le is buktatta magát azzal, hogy nyíltan leírta hogy direktbe rám lett küldve..a legvégén értesültem arról, hogy bizony nem engem vagy téged, hanem őt tiltották ki sock-puppetry miatt :))) Ilyen amikor a fagyi visszanyal :) Megint egy román, akinek fáj az objektivitás, vagy a puszta tény megemlítése, de minket bármiféle gyűlölettel vádolni persze könnyű, bizonyíték nélkül, úgy hogy magának mondd ellent. Nevetséges alak, ha már a szerkesztéseim szakmaiságát és tényét vitatni nem tudja, ilyen módon próbálkozik. Felülről küldték, sokaknak a bögyében vagyunk...További Erőt, Egészséget, ne hagyd magad, ahogy én sem, Üdv (KIENGIR (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.
Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!
114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!
For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.
We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.
Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
I have started a discussion on the WP:Football talk page about the ongoing edit war regarding Gardoș's ethnic background. You are invited to contribute to the discussion here. Bikeroo (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!
Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!
Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.
In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [2] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!
The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!
Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.
We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.
There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!
We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN.
The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same.
We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.
The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.
After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.
Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.
16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!
Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!
Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.
The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szolnoki Vízilabda SC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!
Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.
The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Pick szeged handball 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 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).
We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,
If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.
In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here
Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.
In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[4] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.
We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.
In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [5]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [6]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.
To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [7]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [8]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.
The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!
The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.
MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.
Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles.
Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.
There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.
If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December.
This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points.
We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules.
In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Orphaned non-free image File:ETO Futsal Club logo.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:ETO Futsal Club 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 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).
Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.
In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.
To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion.
In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog.
In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review.
Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively.
There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here.
Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Orphaned non-free image File:Florian Albert in 1967.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Florian Albert in 1967.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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Ferencvarosi TC logo.png. 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Byasen HE 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 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).
As it's a biography of a living person, these subjects are to be treated sensitively. I've ran into some crazy stuff in some articles, where people fight over these issues forever, and where the best solution turned out to put the ethnicity/nationality question aside, and only give the people's citizenship. Since she played for Yugoslavia and Hungary, she is listed as a Yugoslav and Hungarian player. Honestly, I don't know and don't really care whether she is Serbian, Montenegrin or whatever ex-Yugo nationality she has at all. I really didn't want to sound harsh, this is why I put there a short comment of "unsourced". Drop a link that says she is Serbian, and we're all fine I think. Thehoboclown (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Thehoboclown. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey, there is no need for the height converting template as the infobox itself does that. There are also some "new" parameters like clubs1/years1 and same for national team, just like the football infobox. Kante4 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Hsclogo.png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Hsclogo.png. 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 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Florian Albert in 1967.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Florian Albert in 1967.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 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).
Hello, Thehoboclown. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ákos Kiss until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tay87 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dávid Szappanos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tay87 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Budapest Honved FC logo.png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Budapest Honved FC logo.png. 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Diosgyori VTK logo.png. 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Siofok KC 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Alcoa FKC 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Ftclogo.png. 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 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).
Researching the statement: ...." In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the family owned many castles and large residences. It's said that they owned up to 99 castles but never 100 as this would have required their personal contribution to fund the imperial army."....
Hi, I came across this statement : ..."In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the family owned many castles and large residences. It's said that they owned up to 99 castles but never 100 as this would have required their personal contribution to fund the imperial army."... on the wiki page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pálffy_ab_Erdöd&oldid=910976523
Sadly, after 20 minutes of surfing wiki, I still have no clue why there are no email addresses of writers here to be found.
Could you possibly help me find the right track and the right way of communication so that I could find out who wrote this page with this specific statement?
any help guiding me into the right direction would be much appreciated,
Regards,
Akos Simon email: akosimon@me.com
I am a direct descendent of the Pálffy-Daun of Erdöd family, and hence am very curious where this claim of 99 castles came from. I am not doubting it, but I never heard of it before. It would be fun to be able to see the source of this statement.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Tatabanya KC 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Ehfcllogo.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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Székely Himnusz.ogg. 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:DVSE 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Egerlogo.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 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 created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Paks football logo.png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Paks football logo.png. 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 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).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Kaposvari Rakoczi.png. 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 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).
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
