User talk:Odbhss

Hello. You have reverted my edit several times, returning to a wrong version of an article.[1] First, you changed a correct spelling of Balassagyarmat to Balassa-Gyarmat, making the whole link dead. Second, you added a Hungarian version of the name of Bratislava, which is against WP:NCGN. Moreover, Bratislava was known under its Latin and German names in 1572. Third, you erased a link to Eger. I do not know why you are doing this, but I would like to ask you to stop it. If you have any strong reasons for your edit, please use a talk page. Thank you. Tankred 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers Historical names can even be used in the lead, not just article body so stop it. Also it is very poor form to cite guidelines which are so numerous and so fast changing that they are close to meaningless to most editors. Next time cite a core policy not a guideline that 'anyone can edit' esp. if you brag on your user page that you wrote a good part of that guideline. Odbhss 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the whole convention. Although alternative names should be listed in the lead of the main article about a town in question (and they are in the case of all the towns from your revert), a different rule applies to the content of articles: "The same name as in 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." WP:NCGN also lists evidence required to identify a "widely accepted English name": especially consensus among main English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, Google Scholar and Google Books hits when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question, and consensus among other standard histories and scientific studies (such as Cambridge Histories) written in English. As to the rules of discussion, WP:NCGN states: "If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question."

This convention was authored by many different users in a long process of deliberation and it was approved by consensus. It is not true that anyone can edit it. It can be changed only by consensus and after discussion. I know there are many rules in Wikipedia and that is why I encouraged you to read WP:NCGN in my edit summaries. Now you have read it, so please stop reverting me. Thank you. Tankred 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: "Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers" this is the essence of this guideline. the end. Odbhss 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop immidiately, your harassment your spreading lies without any basis is going too far. I asked you to provide sources for your controversial claim that Slovakia existed for more than 900 years, and you failed to provide such sources and references. Yet you continue to make such claims repeatedly on your talk page and you edit based on those claims and I am yet to see a single source about this. Where would the southern border of this ancient Slovakia be? What would be the exact start date of such a state? Why isn't a single source that would back up your claims? And more importantly why would you start a harassment campaign and constant spreading of lies instead of providing sources as required on Wikipedia?Odbhss 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood what I've wanted to say. I don't state that the state of Slovakia existed in the 11th century, I would be plain wrong with that, as the Great Moravia, if that can be considered as a state, disintegrated in the early 10th century. However, I meant that land inhabited by Slavs/Slovaks was part of KoH until 1918. The statements in central Slovakia are used in reference to today's Slovakia. And please be careful with use of Upper Hungary/Felvidék phrase, as it is quite controversial and for most Slovaks quite offensive term. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either, i.e., you can insert lands of present day Slovakia or present day Slovakia. I hope we cleared up this issue and reached compromise. And I'm sorry for my occasional edit summaries, hot blood... as we surely have different POVs for some sensitive issues. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your cooperation. Odbhss 11:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Hungary during the Second World War. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. You deleted a {{fact}} template without providing any citation. You have repeated your vandalism after it was reverted.[2]

Tankred 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intrestingly enough I noticed your nicer message first but whatever. You repost this obviously false information to my talk page after being warned multiple times that it was false. At the article in question you first you used the edit summary to attack me multiple times, then edited the article without even reading the changes [3]. You continued to complain about the fact template "Rv. If you do not like a fact tamplate, provide a citation." even after being explicitly told that I have no problem with it whatsoever "fact template is not the issue here". And even neglected the fact that the template was already there in my edit that you reverted. During the whole affair you repeatedly reverted to an incorrect version of the article. Your version stated "Hungary eventually started participating in the Axis military activities before the end of June", if you bothered to actually read the article you edited you could see Hungarian participation in the Invasion of Yugoslavia, in April alongside the Axis. Anyway the only thing that happened in June was the fact that Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union (entered the war with the declaration). So to sum the issue up so we can put this behind us, You 1.repeatedly attacked me in the edit summary of an article 2. edited the article without reading it or knowing much about the subject 3. edited the article without even reading my edit summary and edit 4. repeatedly inserted incorrect information into the article 5. repeatedly posted this bogus "warning" to my user page even after being told that it was nonsense.

You also further prove my harassment charge by following me to this talk page repeatedly posting false information. This is exactly the type of stuff I must warn other users about, attacks from you must be discounted. Odbhss 02:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff provided in my previous message shows that you have removed a fact template. I clearly did not make it up. You say you have no problem with that template and you have removed it by mistake. All right, I believe in your explanation and I stopped reverting your edit after I realized that you have finally reinserted a template into a new version. As to the so-called attacks in my edit summaries, I guess you means the word "sockpuppet". Well, you have given me very good reasons to believe you are a sockpuppet of a banned user VinceB. Tankred 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In particular, you have called my edits "ultra nationalistic" and my editing "very tendentious and troubling/distressing".[4] Another issue: I appreciate that you have stopped calling me "ultranationalist" on your user page, but the present state of your user page is still unacceptable. I recommend you to remove the rest of your personal attack from there as well. Tankred 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns about my user page because this gives me an opportunity to explain a few things. First I indeed removed the term "ultra-nat." exactly because I felt I made a mistake and it would be unfair to you. I removed it within a few hours of the time of posting myself. I had problems with certain edits of yours not with you. My intent with my current user page is not to attack anyone but to call attention to the fact that I am constantly reverted by Juro and yourself. Not only that but you also use false edit summaries to attack me during the reverts, and usually berate me any way you can. I want to alert other editors to the fact that if I was reverted by Juro or Tankred, it's likely part of this campaing and the revert propably has no legitimate basis. At the same time if I was reverted another editor likely my edit sucked and it probably has some sort of justification for the revert. I consider your combined actions harassment (I guess that's the word you object to) so that's what I wrote without going into much detail about all this. I wanted to keep the message brief. I will remove it if the constant false accusations and reversions stop. Note that I have no trouble with a couple of reverts here and there, I have issues with excessive reverting and using numerous article histories as battlegrounds for attacking me. I appreciate the tone of your above message and I think we could work stuff out if we continue to talk to each other. Odbhss 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have solicited official administrative help in this case several times. Although I am confident you are a banned user, I decided not to revert your "ordinary" edits until administrators intervene because there might be still a very slight chance you are innocent. But I will certainly keep reverting all your POV edits (such as the ones against the naming policy). You can call it "harassment" on your user page, if you wish, but I think it is quite offensive. Tankred 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do it with a neutral edit summary(the reverts), I have no problem with it. I was wondering about something earlier could you review this edit? [5] As I recall we had issue with the "political dominance of..." part, I wrote the edit summary for you but Juro reverted it so you probably did not see it. Odbhss 02:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

This user is not a sockpuppet of me, User:VinceB, just an impersonator. Recently contracted me, and revealed, that he sent such e-mails, while I edited here, like "chaffing the opposite" - After unblock, please do a chechuser on this, User:Pannonia, User:Norman84 accounts, I'm pretty sure, they are all the same. This user also commented here on similar IPs, like mine, and under IPs starting with "91..." and signed them in my name. Block for that, just to be correct. I fed up with Tankred's continous POV pushing, and lying, wich managed to block me, and I don't edit here at least a month ago, and never ever EVER again. Tankred can calm down, he can spead his political porpaganda and lies freely, with the helping hand of vandal User:Juro (check his block log) User:VinceB 16:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As a banned user, Vince, you're not welcome to edit Wikipedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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