User talk:Squash Racket: Difference between revisions

As far as I know 'See also' section is not for mentioning whole Categories' names AGAIN, but for specific articles related to the subject. See Magyarization 'See also' section. Squash Racket 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's correct. DrKiernan 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I managed to write Bucharest instead of Budapest at my RFA. Thanks very much for fixing that! Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wp:rfa#About_RfA: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections." -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words! It's been a bit stressful, but not too bad. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to define the part of Csepel island belonging to Budapest is to call it the part belonging to Budapest, any other circumscription makes it less precise :)

I change it to a more encyclopedia-conform wording.

--peyerk 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing to do with your edit - the problem was further up the page when someone had used some bad coding. DrKiernan 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You meant 'that will secure'? I mean instead of 'as will secure'? Squash Racket 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant "as will secure". It's a direct quote so you can't modify it (in the same way this was not permissible). -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't want to interrupt anything. It was just a bit strange to have 'Palestine' three times in one sentence as I wrote in the edit summary. Squash Racket 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and just rolled back all the edits because it was easier than spending an inordinate amount of time just to correct some very minor details. Feel free to add the inner links--I think they are a good idea. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Treaty of Trianon, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits keep infringing on 3 Wikipedia policies I mentioned on the talk page of the article. Moreover, you keep caling me a vandal, which is vandalism by itself. I assume good faith and warn you, but the next time I will report you.Dpotop 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing referenced material, I have already reported you to the administrators. Squash Racket 09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, guys. Neither the removal of referenced material nor personal attacks constitute vandalism in themselves (though the latter is always a bad idea, and the former also if the references are proper). KissL 10:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the POV flag that I placed on this article. Tegwarrior 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered you on the talk page of Israel. Squash Racket 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, rules are rules. Both users violated WP:3RR policy. Thanks for letting me know about the situation, though. I did not of Tegwarrior's intentions. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that part of 3RR policy, but from what you've told me, I feel that Okedem is still responsible for his actions and his rule violation. I believe that part of the policy refers to people who revert to remove vandalism, clearly libelous material, and other stuff (it's all mentioned on WP:3RR). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up this issue at the Israel FAC as you can see. Frankly I need to know this. Once I got reverted for using Britannica and now I think maybe the one who did it was right. Britannica is perhaps the best way for finding info on something but is it acceptable as a reference? I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica? Is it good for us in the long term if we can't trace all information to its roots? Squash Racket 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may use Britannicia and other tertiary sources. I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica - the same could be said of any source of information. Raul654 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use them only as last resort, of course—secondary sources are still the preferred. Marskell 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. Squash Racket 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my solidarity with you because of this block. I'm quite sure that your are not VinceB but you touched some of the "dangerous" articles that he edited. It seems to me that anybody who is trying to present the Hungarian point-of-view in this group of articles will be accused by sockpuppetry and blocked. I hope that you will be unblocked soon because your example is certainly an intimidating one for new users. Best wishes, Zello 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not VinceB, so please unblock me. I respected Wikipedia policies, so I don't understand why you had to immediately indef(!) block me without a warning.

That was not Tankred's first accusation with bad intention (see Checkuser) and now he is angry, because I asked for an RFC on including the Benes decrees in the article Slovakia in which he is involved (see his comments at Talk:Slovakia).
Please at least give me an email address or let my REAL account communicate with you. If I was VinceB, don't you think I'd just create another sockpuppet instead of fighting for an account? Frankly, it's pretty bizarre and strange when you are being accused of being someone you are not. Everytime Tankred does not like someone's editing, he accuses him of being a sockpuppet.
Please check ALL my contributions and not just the ones mentioned by Tankred. And if you decide to unblock me, please mention in the edit summary it was just a mistake. Thank you. Squash Racket 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most shocking is that you bought into his accusations so easily and did not even try to talk to me before taking action. Even vandals get warning before a block.

Also check out Tankred's edits since he had me blocked including deletion of referenced material from Benes decrees [1]. Squash Racket 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not VinceB, so please unblock me. I respected Wikipedia policies, so I don't understand why you had to immediately indef(!) block me without a warning. That was not [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s first accusation with bad intention (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB|Checkuser]]) and now he is angry, because I asked for an RFC on including the [[Benes decrees]] in the article Slovakia in which he is involved (see his comments at [[Talk:Slovakia]]).<br> Please at least give me an email address or let my REAL account communicate with you. If I was VinceB, don't you think I'd just create another sockpuppet instead of fighting for an account? Frankly, it's pretty bizarre and strange when you are being accused of being someone you are not. Everytime [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] does not like someone's editing, he accuses him of being a sockpuppet.<br> Please check ALL my contributions and not just the ones mentioned by [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]. And if you decide to unblock me, please mention in the edit summary it was just a mistake. Thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)<br> Most shocking is that you bought into his accusations so easily and did not even try to talk to me before taking action. Even vandals get warning before a block.<br> Also check out [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s edits since he had me blocked including ''deletion of referenced material'' from [[Benes decrees]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bene%C5%A1_decrees&diff=160359695&oldid=159963451]. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not VinceB, so please unblock me. I respected Wikipedia policies, so I don't understand why you had to immediately indef(!) block me without a warning. That was not [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s first accusation with bad intention (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB|Checkuser]]) and now he is angry, because I asked for an RFC on including the [[Benes decrees]] in the article Slovakia in which he is involved (see his comments at [[Talk:Slovakia]]).<br> Please at least give me an email address or let my REAL account communicate with you. If I was VinceB, don't you think I'd just create another sockpuppet instead of fighting for an account? Frankly, it's pretty bizarre and strange when you are being accused of being someone you are not. Everytime [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] does not like someone's editing, he accuses him of being a sockpuppet.<br> Please check ALL my contributions and not just the ones mentioned by [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]. And if you decide to unblock me, please mention in the edit summary it was just a mistake. Thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)<br> Most shocking is that you bought into his accusations so easily and did not even try to talk to me before taking action. Even vandals get warning before a block.<br> Also check out [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s edits since he had me blocked including ''deletion of referenced material'' from [[Benes decrees]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bene%C5%A1_decrees&diff=160359695&oldid=159963451]. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not VinceB, so please unblock me. I respected Wikipedia policies, so I don't understand why you had to immediately indef(!) block me without a warning. That was not [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s first accusation with bad intention (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB|Checkuser]]) and now he is angry, because I asked for an RFC on including the [[Benes decrees]] in the article Slovakia in which he is involved (see his comments at [[Talk:Slovakia]]).<br> Please at least give me an email address or let my REAL account communicate with you. If I was VinceB, don't you think I'd just create another sockpuppet instead of fighting for an account? Frankly, it's pretty bizarre and strange when you are being accused of being someone you are not. Everytime [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] does not like someone's editing, he accuses him of being a sockpuppet.<br> Please check ALL my contributions and not just the ones mentioned by [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]. And if you decide to unblock me, please mention in the edit summary it was just a mistake. Thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)<br> Most shocking is that you bought into his accusations so easily and did not even try to talk to me before taking action. Even vandals get warning before a block.<br> Also check out [[User:Tankred|Tankred]]'s edits since he had me blocked including ''deletion of referenced material'' from [[Benes decrees]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bene%C5%A1_decrees&diff=160359695&oldid=159963451]. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

ONLY Administrators and me post here until block is reviewed, thank you:

I'd meant to get to this sockpuppetry report earlier today, but still haven't looked at it. Reviewing admins should look at this checkuser comment.--Chaser - T 06:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this:Community ban proposal for VinceB. If you really think based on my contributions to Wikipedia I can be identified with that person, it would be at least a bit strange... Squash Racket 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer his accusations step by step:

• There is a debate going on how to apply historical Hungarian names for Slovakian places. See Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Presenting this as a few users' 'favorite hobby' is misleading. The identical edits Tankred mentioned are not identical, because Vince used an archaic form, while I used the most widely known Hungarian historical name (Pozsony). Although now I see that in English sources the most widely used historical name for today's Bratislava is the German Pressburg, see my recent edit[2].
• I don't deny the Hunt-Poznan family any Slovak identity, but the term 'Slovak' was not used in the 12th century, so using that form there is not encyclopedic. Even though you can find different theories in the articles about the ancestry of these families, Tankred insists that they are Slovak (well, let's say Slavic) noble families. One thing is only sure: they are of Swabian origin. Stating these are extremely low profile articles is more than misleading. There are inner links to these on the page of Stephen I who basically founded Hungary. If these are so unimportant articles why did Tankred revert all my edits?
• Magyarization pushes anti-Hungarian POV, even non-Hungarian users say that. All I did to Slovakization is put some articles into the 'See also' section to make it more understandable to readers and more NPOV. I haven't actually edited that article! Please also read the loads of edits I made at 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs. I edit a limited number of articles? Please check all my contributions and decide for yourself.
• I knew the Wiki jargon a bit because I had edited the Hungarian Wiki before I had an account here.
• As far as I know, we can edit our talk pages as we want to. Don't know why is this an issue. I reported him at WP:ANI, because he didn't answer me on his talk page, just kept reverting my edit. Earlier he reported me for breaking 3RR - with a little help[3]. Since then I'm very careful with the rule and I tend to call for a third party if he is involved. Yes, earlier I made the mistake of calling another editor a liar, but stating that is such a special insult used by only a few editors and that I do this regularly is not true. Tankred talks about using the words of my 'adversaries'? Perhaps in disputes, just like everyone else in the world. "Calling other people dudes is unusual among Hungarians". That may be true, as I can remember I used that phrase only once[4], but obviously that is my 'regular' term. Our level of English is similar. Perhaps. But we don't talk similarly, just check out his contributions and mine.
  

Well, I think, that's it. Squash Racket 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: does VinceB speak German? You could all along see on my user page that I do speak German (well, not perfectly). Squash Racket 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you can contact Tankred on his talk page. Squash Racket 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you on a probationary basis. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]