User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment: Difference between revisions

This page, started on April 17, 2008, is for discussion of Hungarian/Slovakian disputes, broadly-defined, as well as some other peripheral disputes related to Central and Eastern European countries

Archives

/Archive 1

This page is an experiment, as part of my (Elonka's) involvement with the ArbCom-designated Working group on cultural and edit wars. As I write this, there seems to be a dispute involving Hungarian and Slovakian articles. The dispute is de-centralized, and is taking place in edit summaries, userpages, talkpages, and administrator noticeboards. The dispute seems to involve multiple editors, and some anonymous accounts. Since it is extremely difficult to follow everything that's going on on every page, I have created this central page, and recommend adding a pointer to this page from all the locations of disputes.

I am an uninvolved administrator in this discussion, I have no preference for either side. However, I do insist that:

• Participants remain civil
• Edit wars cease
• Anyplace that an article is reverted, that an explanation either be posted on that article's talkpage, or a pointer be placed on that article's talkpage, which links interested editors to here.

It is my hope that with a centralized point of discussion, that we'll be able to reduce the confusion, and those editors who are genuinely interested in having civil discussions towards determining consensus, will be able to do so.

Please feel free to start any threads here that you want, and invite anyone that you wish.

--Elonka 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• April 19, 2008: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA

• October 2007: 3RR archive#Tankred reported by Hobartimus
• March 22, 2008: ANI archive#User:Nmate
• March 22, 2008: Wikiquette archive#User:Nmate
• April 2, 2008: ANI archive#Hungarian names
• April 2, 2008: ANI archive#User:Tankred
• April 4, 2008: ANI archive#Personal attacks and harassing by Nmate
• April 6, 2008: ANI archive#How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?
• April 11, 2008: ANI archive#Misleading edit summaries at large (aka nasty edit warring)
• April 11, 2008: Wikiquette discussion about administrator Ricky81682
• April 17, 2008: ANI archive#User:Tankred
• April 18, 2008: CheckUser case on MarkBA

The Central Europe history is very complicated. Bratislava was parts of Hungary 1000 years, but now it is Slovakia capital.(treaty of trianon) Slovakia's own history is very little.Slovaks wrote Bratislava's history on the wikipedia (Bratislava/history chapter, History of Bratislava, Bratislava Castle) and these articles are very one-sided. Because these topics the Slovak nationalist's guarded area, putting NPOV-templates out to them would cause a serious scandal. A good solution would be later if these articles would receive totally protected status, and neutral administrators (not Slavs) could rewrite this themes.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all this upheaval at wiki is not about Central Europe's complicated history, but rather about a user not familiar with how Wikipedia works. Despite all the warnings on his/her user talk page, User:Nmate keeps making childish jokes about living persons, saying nasty things about non-Hungarian nations, and attacking other editors. Here are some examples:

• He/she abused Wikipedia's article to claim that Slovakia's prime minister's "true confession" and "self-criticism looking back on the Fico cabinet's activities" is a 17th-century outlaw.[1] Wikipedia is not a place for political commentaries. Please also note that he/she called an IP a "clone" of an established user and a previous unproblematic version of an article "serious vandalism" in his/her edit summary.
• He/she makes inappropriate jokes about other editors, calling another user "he Czech lion which defending his Slovak siblings"[2], suggesting that two editors are followers of a neo-Nazi leader Marian Kotleba[3] (this was completely uncalled for and especially disturbing for me as my grand father was in a concentration camp), and calling other people's work "dubious Pan-Slavic propaganda".[4]
• He/she said: "There is a Hungarian joke that whole Slovakia's only history is possible to send in a short mobile phone's text messsage."[5] Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it has offended many people here.
• After being warned agianst hate speech, he/she continued in the same tone: "the important historical events should be there and so Slovak historical event is not exist before the 20th century".[6]

Many people have tried to talk to him/her, but it did not work. All the deleted warnings (up to NPA4 if I remember well) may be found in the history of his/her user talk page. I feel a stronger action is needed to show him/her that Wikipedia has some rules that make our work more efficient and pleasant. Tankred (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first point, he cited a source for the most part. If you don't agree with it, you can modify it. You just removed it, although Prime Minister Fico really talked about Jánosik as a role model which is definitely relevant. Your edit may be criticised just as well.

All other cases happened before a Wikiquette Alerts discussion (26 March) for which he's already been warned, presenting these as new cases is a bit misleading.

Let's not forget how he received some of those warnings. He's a relatively new user, so asking him to read WP:CIV would be OK I think.

Regarding offensive edit summaries someone else has also a thing or two to learn despite being an experienced user. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For "Bratislava" "(...)has been declared on October 28 in Prague, the leaders of Bratislava (where the majority of the population are Germans or Hungarians, see below) want to prevent Bratislava from becoming part of Czecho-Slovakia and declare the town a free town and rename it Wilsonovo mesto (Wilson City) after US-president Woodrow Wilson.", aaaaand: "(...) Legions on January 1 1919 (only the left river bank; the right river bank, not belonging to Bratislava yet, was occupied only on August 14th). It has been chosen as seat of Slovak political organs over Martin and Nitra]]; the government moved to the city on 4–5 February. On March 27, the town's official new name becomes "Bratislava" - instead of "Prešporok" (Slovak) / "Pressburg" (German) / "Pozsony" (Hungarian)." from History of Bratislava#20th_century - so wherever anyone restored "Bratislava" in pre-March 27 1919 context had falsified history, and highly compromised Wikipedia's credibility, and to say something rude and true to talk about: vandalized those particlular Wikipedia pages. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you look at Talk:Hedvig_Malina/Archive_1#Requested_move, there have been more people, not just one, arguing for the use of her official name instead of the one preferred by the Hungarian media. That is also my view, based on the statistics cited on the article's talk page. As you can see from the history of the page, I was not part of that lengthy edit war and I will be happy to change my opinion if more convincing evidence for the Hungarian name is provided. By the way, I would appreciate your opinion at User_talk:Ricky81682#Bratislava_topics. Tankred (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovak name is used by the Slovak media, is that any way better? The Hungarian version is supported by an official letter from the US Congress. There is no more credible English language source using the Slovak name. Also because of the case being sensitive, I don't think the Slovak version would help future stability of the article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to User_talk:Ricky81682#Bratislava_topics would be welcome more than ever. Despite all the possible NPA warnings that an editor can get, User:Nmate resorted to personal attacks again. In an edit summary, he/she said " jeden: naničhodník; dva: nepotrebný; tri: Sweetovid". This Slovak sentence can be translated as "one: a rogue, two: unneeded, three: Sweetovid", clearly referring to another editor (User:Svetovid).[7] Given the record of personal attacks and hate speech by User:Nmate, I would expect Wikipedia's administrators to react at least as firmly as they did in the case of Svetovid's edit warring. I am sorry to ask you personally for help in this issue, but you seem to be around. Tankred (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry to jump in) No comment to the comment below me. Now I think it's high time for administrators to do something about this. Yes, I believe he/they try to throw red herrings to distract from his actions, and especially from the examples of hate speech. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky! Do not believe Tankréd's message. What I wrote does not mean it in Slovak.I commented Svetoid's writings simply:1, useless 2,trivia 3, Sweetovid.Is Sweetovid a serious personal attack? I had to respond that the Slovaks do not allow it that let me write into the Slovak topics. If i would write my opinion of Tankréd behaviour sincere I could get blocking for it really.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can verify my translation of Nmate's words by checking an online dictionary. Moreover, Nmate has just attacked again.[8] Perhaps it is supposed to be funny, but I did not join Wikipedia 7,400 edits ago to laugh at jokes about myself. I could go to a comedy show instead. I joined this project to write articles. Tankred (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nmate also called me a good-for-nothing fink in a recent edit.
But I probably shouldn't complain, because Ricky already blocked me for complaining.
This is getting funnier by the minute.--Svetovid (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: same edit mentioned above by Tankred in detail. I would also like to know if someone edited from IPs in an abusive way with a number of brutal edit summaries or not. Squash Racket (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article still in dispute? Or has it been resolved? I'm not seeing any activity on the article or talkpage for a week. --Elonka 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka, I did not make any changes. I merely reverted undiscussed changes made by User:Rembaoud that went both against WP:NCGN and against the consensus among the members of the Wikiproject:Slovakia (which covers these articles). Rembaoud is welcome to provide evidence that the Hungarian geographic names that he inserted into articles about Slovakia are widely accepted in English. WP:NCGN lists what is needed for it and Rembaoud has read that convention. WP:NCGN also states that, in order to prevent edit warring, articles should use the default geographic names (as used in the title of the article about the place in question) until someone proves that a different name is widely accepted in English. Tankred (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tankred, we did not get any protection against uncivil behavior and disruption, instead of that we are punished and threatened. Elonka why don't you warn editor Nmate for summaries like this I removed one-sided edition by braček, jaz daljni odporný šovinistický verzia z Tankred (odporny sovinisticky = ugly chauvinistic), etc ... see here [9]. He stays not warned. Or Rembaud [10]. I wrote summary that I am reverting vandalism and I am on the black list. We are encouraged to discuss changes, we do, but the other side don't. We are warned, other side not. What should we do? What should we do? I am asking twice ... I am getting little bit concerned and I am thinking about ArbCom because this leads to nothing and nowhere and I do not want to wake up and think which warning I get now? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed both Tankred and Nmate under ArbCom editing restrictions, per the Digwuren case. I am not issuing any blocks for past actions though, because I would like to try to "wipe the slate clean" and give everyone a chance to improve their behavior from now on. But if there are further problems with civility, harassment, edit warring, or making any kinds of controversial edits without engaging in good faith discussion, blocks will be issued. I encourage everyone to take advantage of this amnesty, and cease all disruptive behavior. --Elonka 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the recent problems were caused by the edits made by User:Rembaoud and User:Hobartimus against a naming convention. WP:NCGN has been in force since December 15, 2006. It was created in a process of careful deliberation among a great number of editors (many of them being respected administrators). This deliberation lasted for several years and the resulting convention was accepted by full consensus. WP:NCGN basically applies WP:ENGLISH in the area of geographic names. Rembaoud's edits go not only against WP:NCGN, but also against WP:ENGLISH. Let me quote from WP:NCGN: "Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it... If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."

It is not true that this policy somehow discriminates against historical names. WP:NCGN says: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." Therefore, one can use Constantinople to refer to the capital of Byzantium despite the existing modern name of the same city (Istanbul). But, again, the historical name should be widely accepted in the English language because this is the English Wikipedia. The convention also provides detailed guidelines to decide whether a particular name is widely accepted in Englsh or not. They can be found at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. Despite my encouragement to read WP:NCGN, Rembaoud has not even tried to follow these guidelines and has been replacing official names by their Hungarian version without providing the required evidence or initiating a discussion at the relevant talk pages.

All the historical names should and can be found in the lead (or a special Names section placed just after the lead) of the linked main article about the place in question. However, it would be confusing and detrimental to style to write all the historical names in every article referring to some place. To give you an example, this is how an article began before WP:NCGN: "Johann Andreas Segner (in Slovak: Ján Andrej Segner, in Hungarian: Segner János András, 9 October 1704, Bratislava (in German: Pressburg, in Hungarian: Pozsony), Kingdom of Hungary (today: Slovakia) – 5 October 1777, Halle) was…". Now, the sentence is shortet, but a user can simply click on Bratislava and see how different nations called the city in 1704. At that time, the city of Bratislava had distinct Latin, German, Hungarian, and Slovak names. Latin was the official language and the population was mostly German, Slovak, and Hungarian. All these names were used simultaneously. Many other places in Central Europe are in the similar situation.

The question which name should be used in historical context led to many edit wars and to the inconsistent use of four different names to refer to the same place thorough the same article. I have experienced many conflicts appearing in this area only because there were no clear rules. The unacceptable situation both repelled readers (who were confused by too many different names and disgusted by awkward or even unintelligible sentences) and discouraged valuable editors (who did not want to waste their time protecting articles against various nationalist claims). WP:NCGN largely changed that by explaining in detail what WP:ENGLISH has already established: The English Wikipedia should follow the English usage. If Rembaoud and Hobartimus want to use Hungarian names to refer to Slovak towns, they can either (1) prove that a Hungarian name is also widely accepted in English, or (2) propose changes at the convention's talk page. They did neither.

If we want this dispute resolution to prevent future edit wars, it should clarify whether the current convention is valid or not. I do not see any reason why the names of Slovak cities and towns should be an exception if the convention is successfully applied on other contentious cases (the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Italy, etc.). If we all follow its provisions (incl. how to identify a widely accepted English name), the number of edit wars will significantly decrease. I think the conflict regarding geographic names is one of the key parts of what is going on between Hungarian and Slovak users. Tankred (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred, overall I like your post, it lays out your view of the naming issues in a clear way. However, it would be better if you could focus strictly on the content, without pointing fingers at particular editors. When you "name names", it tends to make people defensive, and they are less likely to listen to the rest of your arguments (even if they are good ones). For myself, I am not willing to blame either nationality for causing the problem, because from where I sit, there have been disruptive edits made by editors on both sides.

For these naming disputes, the way to handle the disagreement was not to simply edit war about it. Instead, as soon as it became apparent that there was a dispute, things should have been moved to the article's talkpage. Describe the dispute there, and explain how you think that things should be handled (as in Tankred's post above). Then any editors who disagree should be allowed to express their viewpoint as well. In an ideal situation, the solution will not be to say "Editor A wins, Editor B loses", but instead to try and find a compromise which makes both sides happy. Once a consensus is found, especially for a controversial topic, it can be useful to put a notice on that article's talkpage, to explain what the consensus is, and link to where the discussion can be reviewed. This was done to great effect at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Perhaps we need to make a "Bratislava-Pressburg-Notice" with similar rules? I can definitely help with that.

Once there has been discussion, and a consensus can be pointed to, it can become much easier to stabilize the related articles. If an editor still disrupts against the consensus, an administrator can be alerted, shown the diff of the edit, and a link to where consensus has been created. Then any disruptive editor, if they ignore warnings, can be blocked or restricted from editing articles in that topic area. The burden is then on the editor who wants to go against consensus, to build a new consensus on the talkpage. They can bring up new arguments, point to new sources, they can persuade, they can invite discussion from other editors. What they can't do is edit war.

So I agree with Tankred, it seems the first step towards stabilizing the articles, is to develop a consensus on the rules by which the names in these articles should be handled. Hopefully, with everyone working together, you can come up with something that all editors here are in agreement with. Please proceed. --Elonka 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred's following comment at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary was a key factor initiating the edit war about articles of counties:

• The Slovak names of neighboring counties should be mentioned at least at the first occurrence of a county's name in an article.
• The capital was Komárno, not Komárom. Unless someone proves that Komárom is a widely accepted name of Komárno in the English language, Komárno should be used. It would be not only compliant with WP:NCGN and WP:ENGLISH, but also the correct link.

Here he says don't apply WP:NCGN for old Hungarian counties (add Slovak names) and let's apply it for towns/cities (delete Hungarian names).
Little additional info: according to a Slovak editor even Slovak sources tend to use Hungarian names for counties of the Kingdom of Hungary, while Komárom is a city in Hungary, and Komárno is its twin city with a clear Hungarian majority in today's Slovakia. Squash Racket (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read at WP:NCGN, general guidelines, number 3, which is about using a name in another article, there is no good reason for removing alternative names, except style (cluttering). And: "In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)."" I think we agree that the modern English name would be the Slovak name (any exceptions?), and I can imagine that for the period before 1918 the Hungarian name would be a widely accepted historical name in English. Since the names are often quite different (e.g. Nagyszombat=Trnava), I think it would be good service to the readers to give both names on the first occasion, as WP:NCGN already recommends. Actually, based on what we discussed at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties, I already added missing Slovak and Hungarian names of counties to the county articles, like [11]. Markussep ^Talk 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Hungarian counties and modern Slovak regions are not the same and they never were!! Those counties were immediately torn apart after they were turned to Czechoslovakia. Your premise and your edit linked above is therefore wrong! I see correct articles, where these are separated, like Szepes (county) and Spiš. This is the right way, and the accurate. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komárno/Komárom are still Hungarian cities, both together and on their own. If you only deriver names from their inhabitants, Komarno should be still called "Révkomárom". :) --Rembaoud (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much debate about this already, see for instance Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#What language versions to be used for naming former KoH counties?. You should consider that Hungarian wasn't the only language spoken in those counties, that these counties certainly had names in Slovak, German, Romanian, Latin etc. etc., and that Hungarian wasn't always the official language in the KoH. Noone claims that the old Hungarian counties and the modern administrative regions (especially after the latest reform) are the same, we're talking about Slovak/Romanian/etc. names for the KoH counties. Markussep ^Talk 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty funny in my opinion that if you fight for "strong magyarization" to be included in the Trnava page, you delete everything wich is hungarian, and you claim that Trnava was always called Trnava and there was no part in history that it was called Nagyszombat. But this is just one oximoron :) --Rembaoud (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better check your facts. I don't delete everything that's Hungarian (au contraire), and I would only claim (but I don't recall doing so) that Trnava was always called Trnava by its Slovak inhabitants. I would never claim that it was never called Nagyszombat, show me the diffs if I did. Markussep ^Talk 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You" is in plural, referring to everybody who acted like I described. I do not see, what you want to say with your link, since in the link you provided you actually turned every placename in that article into contemporary Slovak. "Bratislava county". Anachronism, and obvious fabrication if written in pre-1919 context. You compromised that article with your edit you linked in. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markussep's edits can seem very biased by looking at the sheer number of Slovak names, and Hungarian names added by him, but I think he can be reasonable and his position seems consistent. It's Tankred who always twists interpretation of this guideline to end in removal of Hungarian names and inclusion of Slovak ones. There are other problems here as well but the main issue here is user conduct related, once those are resolved most disputes will be manageable again. Remember that there were disputes in the past, and we got along just fine before WikiProject, attack pages, lurking IPs became involved. Hobartimus (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For best results, please stick to discussing the article, instead of each other. As an exercise, try to see what it's like to write a post without using the word "you." Now, can anyone think of a compromise which might incorporate the different views? --Elonka 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't let this groundless accusation go unchallenged. My proposal would be, for articles discussing the period before 1918: use either "Mr X was born in Prešov (Eperjes), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Prešov in the year Y." or, "Mr X was born in Eperjes (Prešov), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Eperjes in the year Y.". So that's both names at the first occurrence of the town (or county), and the linked name (which would be the best name for the context) in the rest of the article. Should we define which name goes first, or should we make that situation-dependent? Markussep ^Talk 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: user Fz22 has just changed year date in Names section of article Bratislava. I find it controversial, therefore I am going to revert it with proper noting on Talk:Bratislava and invitation for him to join discussion here. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above proposal by Markussep but how can we a bit formalize it? I mean what form should such a proposal take? Hobartimus (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To formalize it, I would recommend writing it up in its own section (once you know what you want it to say) and then formally asking everyone, "Do you agree with the above proposal?" in a poll format and get everyone involved to signoff on it. Then, if it's something that's going to be needed on multiple articles, I or someone else could turn it into a talkpage template like the Gdansk notice, and we could put it on the affected articles, and have it handy in case it needed to be added anywhere else. Or if it's only affecting a couple articles, we can make a different kind of banner just for those articles. --Elonka 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Markussep's first proposal ("Mr X was born in Prešov (Eperjes), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Prešov in the year Y.") and it has been already successfully used in the case of Bratislava (Pressburg). It will be also friendly to the average English-speaking reader of Wikipedia, who might know about existence of Presov (appearing on maps and having its own article here), but never heard about Eperjes. What I more concerned with, is how we would choose the alternative name. For most of its history, Latin was the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary. But at the same time, the cities and towns in Slovakia usually had a German (often German-Slovak) elite, while the majority of their population was usually Slovak (sometimes Slovak and Hungarian, Slovak and German, or Slovak-Hungarian-German). All these nations used their own names for the given town. So, we have usually four different names used in official documents. I do not see any reason why we should use the Hungarian name for medieval Banska Bystrica because the city was clearly German-Slovak at that time and the official stat documents referred to it using its Latin name. Unless there are clear rules, this will be a future point of contention in a great number of articles. We should resolve it while we still have a chance. Tankred (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besztercebánya (− first recorded in 1263 as Byzthercebana); well, Eperjes in Hungarian, Eperies or Preschau in German. Maybe English language Google hits (without Wikipedia) should decide?

Why did you support adding Slovak names for the old Hungarian counties (besides?) German/Latin versions if you are concerned about the cities now? Please try to keep talk page formula. Squash Racket (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Banská Bystrica was first recorded in 1255 as Villa Nova Bystrice. I think it is a good idea to use English Google hits excluding Wikipedia, but I think we should also look at other, more authoritative English sources listed at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name. Would that be acceptable? Also, the modern name is clear, while the historical name is very often contentious. So, I would suggest we do not replace official names (accepted in modern English sources) before discussing which historical name should be used along with the modern name. I would also suggest such a discussion should always occur at the talk page of the article about the concerned place. It will make sense to centralize discussion at one place and it is also in line with WP:NCGN. Tankred (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We only try to find a compromise here for the issue of Slovak-Hungarian names that's what's the compromise or this dispute resolution is about. One possible version was presented by Markussep who already implemented some of it(or similar?) to the county articles. This is to present both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in the first instance they appear in an article (order can be decided on talk page if there is dispute). Let's discuss this idea without getting off topic into general issues. Hobartimus (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but how can we take this dispute resolution seriously if one side keeps making unilateral changes? I thought Rembaoud is under editing restrictions, but neither the restrictions, nor the discussion here prevents him from changing geographic names in articles about Slovakia.[12] Tankred (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diff, and I can see what could be the problem with it. The additions "(today Devín)" could imply that the name Devín wasn't used at the time of Ľudovít Štúr (I think that only goes for Bratislava), when it actually was used by the contemporary Slovaks. And not all places have the Slovak (or Czech) given as an alternative. Could we stop the edit war by changing the article according to my proposal? Markussep ^Talk 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Today" can safely excluded I think as it adds to the clutter significantly. Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should make it historically accure. For example Bratislava. If even in the History of Bratislava article it is mentioned that it was not a Slovak city and Slovak was not an official language, and was not in Slovakia but in Hungary, it is nothing but falsification to call that city on its invented Slovak name in pre 1919 context. I still wondering what is ununderstandable about this. Peter Minuit was never been in New York, nor in the US. Not even in New Orange. When will you understand that? --Rembaoud (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tackle this once and for all. It is indeed silly to use names that were introduced after 1918 in a KoH context, but that only goes for a limited number of places (Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča, more?). IMO it is appropriate to add the modern name in parentheses, and WP:NCGN recommends that. Markussep ^Talk 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what they came up with in the Gdansk/Danzig debate, per Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice:

• For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
• For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
• In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
• In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
• For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Could we swap out "Gdansk" and "Danzig" for "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" (and of course change the years and countries) and come up with something similar? Which values would be appropriate? Are there any points above which everyone here could agree on? --Elonka 10:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks OK to me. I think we should make a distinction between the general issue and places that changed names after 1918 (Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča, more?). Generally, for all places in present Slovakia (except the changed names), I suggest a distinction between contexts before and after 1918.

• Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Eperjes (Prešov) or Prešov (Eperjes).
  • In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form Prešov (Eperjes) and later Prešov exclusively
  • In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, the name should be used in the form Eperjes (Prešov) and later Eperjes exclusively
  • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence
• After 1918: use the Slovak name. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form Eperjes (Prešov) and later Eperjes exclusively, or in the form Prešov (Eperjes) and later Prešov exclusively

Any comments? I have no idea how to handle contexts before the arrival of the Hungarians (10th-13th century), suggestions? We can discuss what to do with Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča etc. later. Markussep ^Talk 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omg Markussep I love your post very much except for the part where you place the "arrival of the Hungarians" into the 10-13th century(the 10th is pretty close but the 13th?)? Let's just stay with the scientific consensus of 896 (maybe 895 if you want to place it at the earliest), anyway If we could settle even only the biographies this way it would be a huge step forward and the proposed solution (clearly Slovak person, clearly Hungarian person) seems very sensible. Hobartimus (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it ;-) I meant the arrival of the Hungarians at the specific place. The Britannica says "From the 11th century, Hungary ruled what is now Slovakia". I got the "13th century" part from the Slovakia article, which says that the northeasternmost part was under Hungarian control by 1300, maybe that only applies to a small part. Shall we put the limit at the year 1000 then? And everything before 1000 according to the "after 1918" rules? Markussep ^Talk 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sure 1000 is fine I just didn't know what you meant :). Yes, to the second part of the question using the after 1918 rules before 1000 as you said is fine as well. Hobartimus (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other cases we should discuss, like clearly German persons (examples?), or places with a significant German population (probably Spiš)? Other nationalities, like Rusyns? Or should we treat that like "other cases"? Markussep ^Talk 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be treated like "other cases" as you said, or if we have a general rule for non-biography articles they can be covered by that. Hobartimus (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me the proposal sounds ok as well.

There is one other additional question: What to do with geographical places having changed names multiple times. As an example take Veľký Meder, with Hungarian name Nagymegyer, that have been called in Slovak Čalovo in years 1948–1990. There are many such places in Slovakia and probably having the rule would be useful. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For places like Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča and Veľký Meder I'd say: follow the same rules as above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. So for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, I'd propose Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo) and for a Hungarian in the 1950s in Veľký Meder, I'd say Nagymegyer (Čalovo, present Veľký Meder) or Čalovo (Nagymegyer, present Veľký Meder). Bratislava is a special case because its German name Pressburg was widely used in English, probably the same goes for more places. Maybe we should decide that on a case-by-case basis. Markussep ^Talk 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you both like it, I think I'll put my (modified: before 1918 --> between 1000 and 1918, and after 1918 --> before 1000 and after 1918) proposal up for a poll. Elonka, what would be a good format for that, a yes/no poll? And only for editors who have been involved in this experiment or should we announce this somewhere (WP:RM or something like that)? Markussep ^Talk 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say getting the initial signoff of the editors in this experiment would be a good first step, and then once there's agreed consensus wording here (or earlier), announcing it at a few other key places. Definitely the talkpages of the major location articles (countries and cities), plus the related WikiProjects and noticeboards, and the key guideline pages. There are also the various discussions at the Wikipedia:Village pump. For example, someone could post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), either to announce the poll, or to explain the poll, and ask for advice on where else it should be posted. Though be aware that the Pump often attracts, hmm, editors who like to spend more time arguing than actually working on articles (I'm sure you know the type). So there may be some that will immediately shout "Polls are evil!" But don't worry about that, sometimes polls are still the right way to go.  :) To many experienced Wikipedians, as soon as you say "a Gdansk/Danzig solution", they'll know exactly what you mean, because it was such a large dispute for such a long time. And for what it's worth, I'm very pleased with how this discussion has been going so far! It's exactly what the Wikipedia:Consensus process is about, trying to hammer out a solution which pleases all sides. --Elonka 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To learn more about the Gdansk/Danzig discussions, see:

• Talk:Gdańsk/Vote
• Talk:Gdańsk (and the years of archives where this argument went on)
• Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion
• Talk:Gdańsk/Naming convention

--Elonka 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once the proposal is ready it could be attached to both WikiProjects as sort of a special type of page sort of like a MoS, only protected. These could be linked in disputes for smaller cases. With many pages and not that many editors sorting it all out in practice will be a slow process anyway only thing that's needed for this to work is some admin asisstance in case mass edits happen contrary to what was agreed. Hobartimus (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Danzig/Gdansk template, I have to say that some users, who seem to dislike having the traditional German name established in the history of "their" city, seem to take revenge for it, trying to abuse it for other purposes, eg. disrupting many articles by adding "Krolewiec" to Königsberg/Kaliningrad even though this city never was part of Poland nor had a Polish population. On the other hand, they oppose adding the German names of cities that indisputably were in Germany or Austria and had a German-speaking population for centuries, e.g. Breslau, Stettin, Karlsbad. As admins seem to have no interest in the issue, and let edit warriors play their ugly games as long as the limits of civility and 3RR are not stretched too far, I'll occasionally play with them, pointing out the other side of this medal [13]. So, whatever guidelines are adopted, admins are needed to prevent them from being abused by POV warriors. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthead, glad to see you back, and I'm very pleased to see you participating here, as I know that you have a wealth of experience on these issues. On the Gdansk/Danzig situation, it seems that you feel that administrator assistance has not been sufficient. How are problems usually reported, and do you have any suggestions on how these situations could be better handled in the future? --Elonka 04:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Matthead is hardly neutral in Polish-German matters, so I don't consider his statement accurate nor objective. Wrocław for instance always had Polish population and history, even when it became minority. Likewise Królewiec had significant Polish minority and history. However I can't due to past beheaviour of Elonka towards Polish topics and editors consider her objective in those matters. A more neutral admin is required. Also the Gdańsk template is not precise enough nor does it explain what it means. Warsaw was under German and Prussian rule for periods in time of history. Does it mean it should be Warschau as it shares history ? Where do we use bold letters and wikilinks ? Also is troubling the admission of Matthead that does not edit Wikipedia for its benefit but to play with other editors. This is an sad statment and needs intervention. I will inform concerned editors.

--Molobo (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposed naming convention for places in Slovakia. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles)) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:

• Between 1000 and 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
  • In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
  • In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, the name should be used in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively
  • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence
• Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
• For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively
• For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence.

I made a draft naming convention, based on what we discussed under "Gdansk template". I propose that we edit the proposed naming convention until we're satisfied, and explain the changes we make here, under "discussion". If there are parts we can't reach agreement over, name them here, and we'll have to make options to vote about (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote for an example). Markussep ^Talk 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Petržalka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please explain what the dispute is, at this article? Why is there an edit war? There's nothing at the talkpage, but editors have been pulling the article back and forth for a long time. What is going on? --Elonka 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my reply at the talkpage. To the other points, sorry, but I don't think I'm too aggressive; I just want to keep the accepted status quo (ante bellum), not some creepy propaganda, if I got to tell it this way. Unfortunately, I believe their sins aren't exposed much yet; how come a comment suggesting that someone is a Nazi follower could go unpunished? (I've seen it somewhere) Why, why, and again, why? I'm asking thrice to emphasize. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it is warring about whether there should or should not be included Hungarian and German name of Petržalka in the first sentence. Namely whether it should sound "Petržalka (Hungarian (Pozsony)ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." or "Petržalka is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UE#Include alternatives, the common practice is to include other versions of names by which the article subject is commonly known. --Elonka 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think key issue is that both Engerau and Ligetfalu are historic names, but probably are not used anymore, perhaps except German and Hungarian sources. I have never seen Poszonyligetfalu however. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key issue is rather the fact that due to poisonous attack messages some now see even minor disputes as "war" and want to protect the "status quo (ante bellum)" (as things were before the war). Hobartimus (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there edit warring over the sentence? Yes. I have just given the description of situation and try to explain to uninvolved Elonka probable reasons why the edit war has emerged. Personally, I would rather prefer inclusion of both names in the article per WP:UE#Include alternatives. I have also checked the good example of Basel that is internationally known Swiss town quite far from Italy, nevertheless, its preamble lists also Italian name that is most probably not used in any except Italian sources. So in my view the sentence should look "Petržalka (Hungarian Ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruziklan: it's spelled Pozsony (zs is pronounced like the g in the French name of Geneva), since it's meaningless if spelled like Poszony (where sz is pronounced like s in English).

Besides I don't know any native German speaker in person, so I don't know whether it's used. However I know many Hungarians who do use the term (usually not the rural people, but most of the original inhabitants of Bratislava do). Therefore I don't think that it's a historical name. Especially since it's still used in present-day Hungarian newspapers. BTW I've encapsulated the word Pozsony in parentheses because of the fact that it's Bratislava's name in Hungarian (where many village names near a bigger city have been created by adding the city's name as a prefix, like Budakeszi, Budaörs near Budapest, and the same naming convention has been followed throughout the whole Kingdom of Hungary, hence the Pozsony- prefix), but it's only formally called Pozsonyligetfalu. Informally it's called Ligetfalu/Liget. CoolKoon 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misspelling. The term historical name I have used in a sense that Petržalka probably was referred to using these names widely in the past, probably even as official names, both Engerau and (Pozsony)ligetfalu. Currently these names are used almost exclusively only in original languages. Many similar examples exist worldwide. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree with you again. Take for example Geneva. It's German name is Genf, the Italian one is Ginevra. Does this mean that these are "unofficial"? No. And even if in English the French form is used, Hungarian for instance prefers the German form. Which means that all the three names can be used simultaniously. Another example is the German name of the villages/cities in South Tirol. Or the Catalan names of the cities in Catalonia, which is actually part of Spain. CoolKoon (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand with what you disagree. Have I written that Engerau or (Pozsony)ligetfalu cannot be used? No. The question could be however, whether these names actually are used in languages other than German and Hungarian. Probably we do not know, or do you?

And finally, I just want to restate that I prefer including these names in the artcile preamble as per above. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't seen your latest comment above. But this still doesn't mean that Svetovid and the "Anonymous coward" (viva el Reg) whose IP address begins with 78.99..... will stop the revert war. CoolKoon (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hold my position that in this case, a double is completely redundant. If anything, keeping 'em separated prevents the lead clutter, regardless whether there are 2 or 10 alternatives. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some people don't want Petržalka's Hungarian and German name to appear at the headline. I don't know the reason of that since I'm on the opposite side :P CoolKoon 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From here: "has been declared on October 28 in Prague, the leaders of Bratislava (where the majority of the population are Germans or Hungarians, see below) want to prevent Bratislava from becoming part of Czecho-Slovakia and declare the town a free town and rename it Wilsonovo mesto (Wilson City) after US-president Woodrow Wilson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembaoud (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is ... ? I think nobody denies that both Bratislava and Petržalka have had different names in the past than they have today. (By the way, I do not think Petržalka was a part of Bratislava in 1918.) --Ruziklan (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slovaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This thread has been archived, and copied over to Talk:List of Slovaks#Inclusion criteria. Please continue discussions there, thanks. --Elonka 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category of the Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia belongs into the category of Hungary's history inevitable because all these churches important parts of the medieval Hungarian culture. St. Martin's Cathedral was the scene of the Hungarian kings' coronation.

Bratislava was parts of Hungary for 1000 years and Bratislava was the Hungarian capital city for 300 years so it belongs to the History of Hungary Category.Nmate (talk • contribs)

You still don't understand the basics and mistake Kingdom of Hungary, the multinational and multilingual kingdom, with today's Republic of Hungary.--Svetovid (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the edit-warring on Category:History of Bratislava was from an anon. I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks, so that anons cannot edit it. Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia I have left alone for now. But again, I must point out that there was edit-warring going on, without corresponding discussion at the talkpage. Please, if another back and forth revert war happens again, even if you are sure that you are in the right, please start a thread at the talkpage to explain why you think you are right. This is not necessary for cases of blatant vandalism, but for these kinds of content disputes, talkpage explanation is essential. --Elonka 09:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T=True R=Revert W=Warriors - The True Revert Warriors:

Block logs cleary reveals whom are the "real revert warriors".

• User:Svetovid: 3x blocked for edit warring, look at his contribution list[14]. When he was unable to manage Nmate blocked, he eventually attacked the administrator wich tried to mediate between them. See this:[15] and this oddity[16]. He made some other funny "steps" against this "biased user", but I dont wan't to turn this summary into some cabaret even more.
• User:Tankred:4x blocked, all during edit warrings, twice he was paroled due to bad WP:3RR policies, wich punishes the more agressive. Stop here, and think a bit, while looking at his contribution list[17] that how disruptive this user can be, if he can make many users such angry that they can be even more (!) agressive. Tankred is under general restriction since April 17.
• User:PANONIAN: 3x blocked for edit warring. There's a note on his(?) userpage wich shows that when he "finished editing" on nov 6, there was a discussion about him on the Hungarian wikipedians noticeboard, that they fed up with PANONIAN's behaviour[18] and want(ed) to take it into some higher "court". It seems, that he created and uploaded misleading and even false maps at large. This should be investigated for good. When he "came back" for some edits, an IP told him, that there is a community ban proposal written for PANONIAN[19], and will be posted, if he "dares to come back". Not the best way of informing about a proposal, true, but it can be fully uprehended, looking at this list.
• User:MarkBA - no blocks but mass uncivility and multiple attempts to manage Nmate blocked wich all fall back on him[20], since he was way more uncivil to Nmate (and others in general). Probably he got, what he gave, and Tankred vs Nmate possibly the same. Mark now seemingly edit warring from at least one IP [21] if true. This is possibly him too[[22]], if the previous was, since both are 78.99.(...), and WHOIS are the same. Pretty sure that there is more of his IPs out there, probably breaking 3RR, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and eventually everything else. Massive general attacks: "couple of mobs pushing their crazy political propaganda", "being chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "fight extreme nationalist and chauvinistic edits" (see the favourite words? "chauvinistic", "propaganda", "nationalist" :)) ) - obviously referring to Hobartimus, Squash Racket and - probably - me. Indirect personal attacks. It should be deleted as well as Tankred's such attack was[23], for good.
• User:Tulkolahten:3x blocked for edit warring. Posted also multiple misleading edit summaries. When it is revealed[24], he goes into edit warring and a lame dispute[25], trying to prove that red is indeed, not red, just seems like red. Tulkolahten's edit summaries are also lacking credibility. See the latest:[26] and try to find when did Hradec Kralove became HK (aka a non-german town) (some wikiclues:Expulsion of Germans after World War II & [27]). This edit is what I call history falsification. Tulkolahten is under general restriction since March 30.

Favourite words they used describing Hungarian users: "chauvinist", "propaganda", "joining co-ethnics"[28], "nationalist" etc. See many links above and elsewhere on this page. General uncivility, constant abuse and accusations ("chauvinist", "vandal", etc, guess what else). Mass and general uncivility, many of it on the edge of personal attacks or even being personal attacks.

• User:Hobartimus:No blocks.
• User:Nmate:[29] One block for "disruption" for 12 hours, despite the constant and huge and etc etc. you already know all. 1 block for 12 hrs despite being the "public enemy no.1." for Tankred, Svetovid and co. I would be intrested who could get less while being under constant heated attacks from multiple (usually 3 editors) and posted twice a day at WP:ANI, WP:VANDAL and whatever community page where admins block users, everywhere being described [Nmate] by them [Tankred] as the evil himself. A wish for blocking Nmate is posted here on this page too. What a suprise. :) Are you still wondering why Nmate posts such comments as this:[30]
• User:Squash Racket:blocked once for edit warring, during a dispute with guess who:[31]. Yes, Tankred. He obviously flurred him up, as he did with me, when I asked for the deletion of my account. If it wouldn't sound funny I would say this is his "tactic". Driving ppl to madness, edit warring and mass uncivility. He's doing it well btw.

• User:Rembaoud. No blocks, and nothing else, and won't be. I asked for the deletion of my account solely as a protest against Tankred's mere existence on English Wikipedia. I believe from my full heart and from what I saw and linked, that the Wikipedia would be a much better place without Tankred, and that without Tankred and Svetovid, the cooperation between Slovak and Hungarian users would not be a funny utopia. Or at least I hope that they were not able to burn up all bridges between Slovak and Hungarian users, despite their constant agressive attempts during the years to create a "frontline" and create a "fortress" from where they can "shoot" at Hungarian users.

And I haven't summarized the constant misuse of warning templates, however Tankred usually collects and links them all as "evidence" despite that they were at least once asked to refrain from posting false warnings or misuse of them. I cant find the link so please link it here, if you find:[ ]. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not blocked 3 times, only once. Please read it properly, the first block was quickly unblocked by another administrator. I assume very uncivil to bring block that is one year old to get down my arguments. As my summary about Hradec Kralove, look for this in the diff In 1840, he returned to Bratislava via Prague and Königgrätz and I changed it to this In 1840, he returned to Bratislava via Prague and Hradec Králové. I changed it again and I started a discussion on the talk page per Elonka's advice. The summary by Gene Nygaard was explained by Wanderer and some other editors that may assume word falsification in a very offensive meaning. I don't see any point here from you. And your comment about Hradec Kralove as a German city, I think it is just a misunderstanding by you that can be very easily corrected in the close library where you should go and borrow some book about history of Central Europe, sometimes it helps, believe me. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, you will not win if you call us all as edit warrers, uncivil creatures etc. etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General restrictions I am placed on require me to stay civil and I am civil. Nothing more, nothing less. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do these descriptions lead to any dispute resolution? I believe these are against the spirit and aim of this talk page. Elonka has cleaned the table for everyone, all older actions were under kind of amnesty. Please, concentrate on discussion of the content of disputed articles. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Tulkolahten's comment and minne, that Tulkolahten was blocked for edit warring multiple times, so calling him an "edit warrer" is nothing but writing down pure facts. His block log is the source for ths claim. Tankred, Svetovid the same. But it is enough to look at your contribution lists. 4/5th (or even more) are "undid revision..."

I didn't call anyone "uncivil creature", but simply uncivil, BUT I provided many links also to prove my belief that what I see and call "mass uncivility" is - in fact - mass uncivility, and I am absolutely convinced about it, as everything I stated about you. With links proving it. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to think that you are unable to read, but have you read the blocks in my block log? I don't think so. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - then immediately unblocked as not 3RR at all. The last block for 3RR was valid and is 1 year old. What has to do with the current situation please? Are mine arguments worse then yours because of that ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed[32], that all the IPs were MarkBA's. --Rembaoud (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to be fair, you should put a restriction notice also to Hobartimus' talk. He has been edit warring against several non-Hungarian editors for months and he reverted several articles to Nmate's version without any explanation. Tankred (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything specific instead of unsupported blanket statements, bring it up on that page for disputes so others can comment on it. You could also explain your statements relating to "dealing with" Hungarian editors. Hobartimus (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing or very recent edit warring at Hedvig Malina, List of Slovaks, Petržalka‎, Trenčín‎, Banská Bystrica‎, University of Trnava‎, Černová tragedy‎, Category:History of Bratislava‎, Peace of Pressburg‎, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Slovakia‎, Zilina‎, Gömör-Kishont‎, Bars county‎, Liptó (county)‎, Sáros county‎, Hont‎, Komárom county‎, Category:Castles in Slovakia‎, and many other Slovakia-related articles. Isn't it enough? Tankred (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that I was on your "hit list" of named editors as descirbed of an earlier version of your user page, but it still amazes me that you would attempt such things that you attempt. Let's see listed first, Hedvig Malina, my edits to the talk page number at "62" my last edit to the article, more than two weeks ago(not that recent), and operating at the article was a three times blocked editor [33] with all blocks relating to Hedvig Malina who insisted on deleting 8 reliable references at the same time while putting up a refimprove tag [34]. Or List of Slovaks where I had 21 edits to the talk page a good part of them recently while you were satisfied with simply reverting me without meaningful contribution to the latest debate there so I sse that you list your own reverts of me above as well. Shall I continue and address the list of edits where you were stalking me to articles about Historical Hungarian counties reverting my edits 6 at a time? Including Gömör-Kishont to which your very first edit ever is one reverting me? I guess constantly making false claims to defame others is part of "dealing with" Hungarian editors? Hobartimus (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Trenčín‎, you have been edit warring against Markussep, Svetovid, 78.99.121.251, and me from April 14 to April 16. After Nmate changed the official name of University of Trnava on April 6 and was reverted by me, you appeared there and reverted my edit without any explanation.[35] You did not provide any explanation at Talk:Petržalka despite the fact you joined in an ongoing revert war (btw, I have never participated in that one). At List of Slovaks, you have blindly reverted to Rembaoud's version in broken English without any explanation on the talk page. When you changed the dates of formation of Czechoslovakia from 1918 to 1920 en masse in a number of articles (with a deceptive summary :fix"), you did not discuss it with anyone. And you kept warring until Markussep found a compromise solution. You are clearly involved in this case. I welcome the dispute resolution process initiated by Elonka, but I think all the participants of the previous large scale edit war should be put under surveillance until the process brings results. Although I refrain from any editing of mainspace since I got Elonka's notice, Hobartimus is still edit warring against other users.[36] Tankred (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel the need to attack me since I made a report about you to ANI but there is no need to constantly resort to blatant lies. At University of Trnava the only edit on the talk page to date is from me, I did not change the official name but the "native name" which is quite natural if the infobox includes "the old" university since in this case the period since 1992 is a very small fraction of total existence. Anyway you present a single revert as "edit war". Also the fact that you gathered numerous blocks for edit warring and disruption before is a good indicator of your general "discussion as a last resort" attitude. You even encouraged others not to discuss but revert in a few seconds, remember? Just re-read the whole thread here [37]. Presenting your own stalking and harassment of others as if they were involved in a content dispute will not fool anyone after your great speeches about "dealing with" Hungarian editors. Also let's not confuse the issue here you should not be banned because of a few edit wars you participated in, you should be banned for relentless promotion of conflict and ethnic hatred between groups of editors maintaining attack pages etc. Hobartimus (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, these speak for themselves:[38], [39]. --Rembaoud (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other recent Hobartimus' unexplained reverts with obvious bias: [40] and [41]--Svetovid (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slovak National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have protected this page for 24 hours. And again, I see that it has been the subject of ongoing edit wars, but without any attempt to discuss things at talk. Can someone please explain what the dispute is on this one? Thanks, Elonka 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly. I had a look at it and it seems one side is constantly adding the image and the other removing it. Image in question is quite controversial in multiple senses.

Firstly, its copyright was questioned.

Secondly, the image appeared recently in the press and it was apparently taken from internet forum of Slovak National Party. It is said to promote national hate against Hungarians by showing the area of current Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria.

Generally, I think the inclusion of the map on the Slovak National Party does not serve encyclopedic purpose as unfortunate mostly anti-Hungarian agenda of Slovak National Party is well documented by many other means.--Ruziklan (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Rembaoud has posted on talk page the explanation for adding the image combining Slovak and English language. The explanation (besides evaluating qualities Slovak National Party and it internet forum maintenance process, as well as citing some further stuff) confirms my words above regarding the content of picture in question. It also proposes mentioning this case in the Slovak National Party article as controversy. In my view, knowing the extent of other controversies of Slovak National Party in the past and the impact of this current controversy in the press, one properly sourced encyclopedic sentence would be just fine. The would also avoid copyright issues of the image. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be claimed as fair use or can be simply redrawn(as illustration of the original) or even described in text as the concept is simple the Danube is used as border. Copyright issues (which do exist) can be resolved in a number of different ways here. The sources brought on the talk page show the significance of the controversy and some newspapers even chose to include the map itself. It's understandable that if you want to report on something comment on it then as a service to the reader the picture itself should be provided if possible. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of controversy is just like that of any scandal of the Slovak National Party - and there were quite a few in the past as you surely know. It stays in press for a few days and is again submersed by new scandals, in other words it has mayflies' life expectancy. The character of Slovak National Party seems to be reflected enough, giving disproportionate amount of space to current issues does not seem to be preferable approach. One sentence should be enough. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proposals for such a sentence? Hobartimus (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider new section Controversies, where sourced controveries may be placed, some from the past may be even more notable than this one and therefore worth adding. Sentence for this one might sound: In April 2008 a map of Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria was discovered on the forum on the webpage of the party, then promptly removed and the party has denied responsibility, referring to forum free access policy.^[1] --Ruziklan (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this sound, "For several months a map of Europe with EU and NATO member Hungary completely erased was available on the SNS party website. After the map, depicting Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria, gained wide media attention the party promptly removed it while stating that it was in section freely editable by readers (forum)." ^[2] Hobartimus (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds excessively. If someone is interested in Slovak National Party, most probably he is well aware of the fact that Hungary is member of EU and NATO, thereby providing disproportionate place to only one controversy of many, as per above. Further, Hungary was not erased, that is technically impossible, just divided. The only new part sounding reasonable is "For several months ...". Better not pushing wording too far. :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erased as in erased from the map, let's give it another try, incorporate several months then into your version, also mentioning forum once instead of twice and let's see how will that look. Hobartimus (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it and was unable to make sentence mentioning the forum only once as the key points are: the map was on forum for months and after media attention it was removed with forum access mentioned as excuse. What about: "For several months a map of Hungary divided between Slovakia and Austria was available on the forum of the party website, then in April 2008 after receving media attention it was promptly removed and the party has denied responsibility, referring to forum free access policy. (+ref)" --Ruziklan (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a short passage about the Benes Decrees was inserted and removed, I'm opening this thread to discuss if something to this effect should be included or not. The addition, which was sourced looked like this (small modification by me)

On 27th September 2007 the Beneš decrees were reconfirmed by the Slovak parliament which legitimized the Hungarians and Germans calumination and deportation from Czechoslovakia after World War II.^[3]

, so should we include something similar? (reference in a clickable format [42]. Hobartimus (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus' suggestion does not seem to be good idea. The main reason is that Slovak parliament makes many acts monthly and there is no reason to emphasize this minor act on the overview page of Slovakia. As far as my knowledge of the subject goes, it was just a declaration having no legal power whatsoever. There are other reasons, but this single reason should be enough, otherwise we could demand remark about any single law passed by parliament, not speaking about constitutional laws, as these all are more important. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify it's not my suggestion I just brought it up here for discussion after I saw the edits to Slovakia and also to preserve to cited reference in case it's being removed from the article. One plus I see however for inclusion is that this way the Decrees themsleves are mentioned this way in the article which completely omitted them previously. Hobartimus (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the suggestion is highly controversial, whether you stand by it or not, I propose to remove the material from the page... uhm, I have just found it was already removed by anonymous editor. Please, do not add it again. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never added it once so I can not add it again, please watch the indents and what you reply to. It's fine by me that it's removed we are already discussing this, but the IP referencing this discussion as if he were participating looks odd. Hobartimus (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks suspicious.

Terminological explanation: I assume your good faith and I really appreciate the way you discuss issues. I did not say you have added the material in question. It was added by someone else, but if you have added it after removal, writing "added again" makes sense. I am sorry if you feel offended. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, pardon me? I saw you're debating 'bout some ip and all I want to say is: for such overview such controversial recentism doesn't belong there, especially when it's just a declaration with no power like many other, just on controversial topic, not a law. Or do we want to list all acts made since 1918? 91.127.19.182 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seemingly you 91.127.19.182 and me Ruziklan, we do share the view about the substance of issue (at least partially) and the importance of the issue for the page. However, what is probably not encouraged and may raise suspicion, it is the situation when anonymous IP starts editing out of nowhere AND starts his contribution by simple revert (of otherwise controversial edit) without contributing to appropriate talk page - edit summary is no enough as we have been taught by Elonka. --Ruziklan (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benes decrees constitutes the Slovak state' legal system foundation so it is very important.I would like to request a semi protection to the Slovakia article.If the Tranava article comprises the Strong Magyarization statement then it is just if the Slovakia article comprises this information also. Nmate (talk • contribs)

Beneš decrees cannot constitute the foundation of Slovak legal system as firstly Slovak consitution is the foundation of Slovak legal system and secondly, virtue of Beneš decrees has ceased by accepting constitutional law No. 23/1991 (Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties) at the latest, if not earlier ([43], [44]). Please, stop making such strong statements, they do not help. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"virtue of Beneš decrees has ceased" can you explain what this means in simple terms for those of us who are not familiar? Hobartimus (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very roughly said: you cannot apply Beneš decrees anymore. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know that act by the Slovak parliament was a non-binding declaration, not a law. It perhaps belongs to the article on Benes Decrees, but not to the main article about Slovakia. Also, why is Nmate and revert warring there instead of proposing and discussing such controversial changes here? Such incidents undermine our effort here. Tankred (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a suspicious IP removed it referencing this discussion without contributing here. I honestly don't care if it stays in the article or not for the duration of discussion but I don't think IP-s should be allowed to participate in this dispute resolution or should be regarded as part of the Wikipedia community for this purpose. Anyhow if all of this is true that you cannot apply them any more and all the above, what was the point of the reconfirmation actually? Can anyone check which party proposed it who voted for it or other circumstances? I don't know if it should be this specific act to mention it but I don't think the the decrees should be omitted from the article completely it should be mentioned somewhere in my opinion. Hobartimus (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this removal too... the point of declaration? Honestly, I do not understand it, just as I fail to understand many other actions of Slovak politicians. Maybe it was just muscle-showing?

Regarding Beneš decrees, they are mentioned in the article History of Slovakia in one sentence and I also do not believe they deserve special mention on main page Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the material itself OK in your opinion? Sentence structure, formulation, exact phrasing etc? Hobartimus (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are multiple subtle issues involved. The most important points are:

• Decrees has been issued in the past, shortly after World War II - their application (but often misapplication or lack of proper application) has lead to persecution based of nationality because of collective guilt usage (today understood as wrong, but not understood as such shortly after WWII) - after 1991 constitutional change has made decrees unapplicable, even if they were not repealed explicitly - but any discussions about restitutions of property seized or compensation for persecution after WWII are leading nowehere and are doomed to end in vain ... and here comes this declarative act of Slovak parliament in 2007.
• To be sure, deportations from Czechoslovakia were not made due to decrees, but were rather made as result of the Potsdam Conference as noted on Slovakia page. Decrees were intra-state pieces of law, not international.--Ruziklan (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Potsdam Conference is not relevant in the case of Hungarians, what I wanted to ask was, do you agree with the formulation of the sentence or do you only object to it being placed in the Slovakia article? If you have another proposal which is better worded or something we could at least have consensus that the sentence is fine and discuss other issues from there. Hobartimus (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Potsdam Conference really seems to be wrongly named here. That's just proof I am no historian :-) and I have no reliable sources by hand, so I cannot assess the quality of your proposal compared to historic evidence. My objection against placing it in Slovakia article was based on my knowledge of the current parliament act legal power (close to zero) and importance of this issue within scope of article. --Ruziklan (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this almost three weeks ago at the talk page:

The 1945 Potsdam conference approved the Czechoslovak government request for the deportation of the Sudeten German population to Germany but did not approve their plan for the deportation of Hungarians to Hungary. Reference: Section "The Population Exchange between Czechoslovakia and Hungary". Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No answer. So this sentence seems to be partly wrong:

More than 76,000 Hungarians[2] and 32,000 Germans[3] were forced to leave Slovakia, in a series of population transfers initiated by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference. [4]

Squash Racket (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrading such an act is very misleading. It should be mentioned everywhere it was included, and that long, as it was mentioned. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, insisting on the inclusion of something we are not sure about would be degradation of encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Further, if we know what happened, proportional inclusion of facts on history pages is recommended and maybe even on the main page is an option. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above: User:91.127.19.182 is just another attempt to play out this page, and revert. I suggest an investigation of this IP also or the blocking of it/protecting the page.

The best would be a voluntary admit that he/she was that IP. That would be the clearest way and the only to prevent a later WP:RCU or WP:RSS, if more are collected/occurs. As well as the only way to avoid any persecution for playing out the "new rules". --Rembaoud (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cautioned the account. If you think it's MarkBA, you could add a note to the CheckUser. If you think it's someone else, I'd add it to the SSP. --Elonka 10:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really see the difference between RCU and SSP. Is SSP for - as Thatcher said - "fishing"? I list it on SSP as "new". --Rembaoud (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subtle difference, and there have actually been some discussions about merging the two. Basically:

• WP:SSP (Suspected Sockpuppetry) is for community discussion about suspected sockpuppets, and sometimes consensus can be achieved and administrator action taken directly. At SSP, editors look at the publicly-available information about accounts and their editing history. Someone who files an SSP might do it for different reasons. For example, they may have filed a report to say, "This is what I've got so far, is this enough?" Or they may file a report to say, "I think there's suspicious behavior here, has anyone else found anything?" and then other editors can also add their own evidence and observations.
• WP:RFCU (Request for CheckUser) is a notification to a small group of administrators who have "CheckUser" access, and a request for them to look at IP logs. Sometimes the logs can give clear evidence that one IP address is behind multiple names, and if there is disruption, the CheckUsers will confirm the sockpuppetry. The CheckUsers are also experienced in doing other strange and wonderful things such as checking WHOIS databases and searching for proxies, to determine if there is a link between different IP addresses. They won't give out any private information that they find in these searches, but will simply give short answers such as "Confirmed", "Unrelated" "Inconclusive", etc. Though often they'll just say "Rejected" because they don't think that there's a strong enough case for them even to go digging. They receive many requests, and so have to prioritize which ones that they'll accept.

Another way of looking at it is to say that SSP can be where the community can gather information for a possible CheckUser, and then an RFCU can be filed to confirm the community's suspicions. But again, in really obvious cases, RFCU isn't even required, the SSP evidence may be obvious without requiring CheckUser confirmation.

Does that help? --Elonka 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]