User talk:Iaaasi

Article merg/deletion

I've asked for deletion the article 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania. My action was contested and a merge was proposed, but I still think that a deletion would be better, because the discussed article has only a sentence which does not tell almost anything.

What solution would be better here?(Iaaasi (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Since your PROD has been declined, your only option is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Purple Star Award

		The Purple Star
		The Purple Star given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Yopie (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not

Call editors/ips socks unless you're ready to file an SPI. This edit summary is not in good standing. And if you're sure the ip is a sock, you still cannot call the ip a sock unless you file an SPI. Please consider this a note and not a warning as I believe you will take this well. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, you have a reply. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just leaving another link for your benefit. Just go through the 3RR rule to ensure that in the future, you do not by chance break it. You have not broken it right now, but just about. Also please note that the 3RR does not apply while reverting clearcut vandalism. Yet, what is important to know is that Disruptive editing is not the same as Vandalism; and the 3RR cannot be broken while reverting disruptive editing. In case you need any assistance in the future, feel free to contact me. Take care; kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP ANI

Hello, You are being discussed at [1] --Nmate (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Resilient award

		The Resilient Barnstar
		The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. Since you have made a change (to the better) I give you this barnstar. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates

Rollback

Sorry for that, but now I have rollbacked it and undo that written form. I was mis-understanding review that.--—just feel it ^(talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - John Hunyadi

Hello, Iaaasi. You have new messages at Chaosdruid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer question

I saw your question go by about "Is it OK to accept you own edits as a reviewer". May I suggest, (by experience) that it would not be wise to accept your own edits during an edit war with another. It gives time for both parties to discuss it on the talk page first. If you are editing on a page where differences of opinion occur, let someone else with a neutral point of view see first. We all get involved in our editing that sometimes we can get blind. How Hope that helps...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits I was talking about were made before being granted the reviewing rights, that is what the problem had appeared. Now my edits are automatically accepted (Iaaasi (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Iaaasi. You have new messages at Talk:Cluj-Napoca.
Message added 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the note. I moved the discussion to the article since it is relevant to it and others can pitch in. I added a few observations there. If you wish, please reply there. Regards! Codrin.B (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Place Names

I have a question about wiki policies. I was accused that this is a "tendentious-looking change", but I don't realize what I did wrong.
By my opininon, this edit was made according to WP:PLACE. The settlement is in a region (Transylvania), which was at the moment under the rule of the Austrian Empire (with German as official language). So I inserted the German name of the village. Is it correct what I've done? Did I misunderstand the guidelines? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Look, no one wants to get involved at your AN/I, but, "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names)" so whichever is more widely excepted.  JoeGazz  ▲  16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution regarding general conduct, sockpuppets and edits

Hi, I'm trying to resolve a dispute with you. You were blocked indefinitely for hate speech and disruption as Iaaasi and later indef blocked many times on various accounts for creating and operating numerous sockpuppets. During your block you actually edited more as the period when you were not blocked, so for the purpose of this dispute resolution I will treat all periods the same. Also we are in the same dispute since you used many of your sockpuppets to edit according to these kindof "manifestos" placed proudly on your user page:[2] [3] [4] [5] Which can be summed up as generating and fueling some sort of ethnic based hatred. Interestingly the very same attribute of the suckpupeteer account user:Bonaparte. During the block you were also in contact with other editors, who edited on your behalf in at least one case. You did not reveal any remaining sockpuppets even though explicitly asked by an administrator to do so. [6] I am concerned that you denied the administrative request to reveal any remaining sockpuppets at that time leading to the conclusion that you had more of them. Also problematic that IRC canvassing took place in that discussion as noted by T. Canens You were in part blocked for hate speech (your user page), yet your current actions as analyzed by an IP editor from the USA here show signs of focused attention to the exact same topic area that was the problem all along with all 15 of your confirmed/claimed accounts. In short I see a problem with your edits being governed by this during the past year, IRC canvassing, and non-disclosure of sockpuppets. As required by dispute resolution process I am first attempting to resolve the long standing (more than a year) issue here on your talk page. I'd like to ask you to conduct your editing and interactions with other users in a manner which doesn't remind them of [7], stick to NPOV and to refrain from using sockpuppets once and for all. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly you are asking, be more specific.(Iaaasi (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Also, during the time you had been blocked for indefinite time, you had made a promise that if you were unblocked, you would stay yourself away from engaging in controversial issues in the future. [8] And in addition, the aforesaid Ip editor, who lives in the USA, also told you to "try to stay away from this nationalistic stuff." [9] But you joined the WikiProject_Hungary and put a photo onto your userpage [10] with a caption of "The Union of Transylvania with the Motherland.".Do you think that it is a sign of staying away from the controversial issues? And if this is your opinion about the Hungarias [11], your participation in the WikiProject Hungary is nothing more than a cheap provocation. Hereby, I would like to ask you to delete your name from the name list of the participants therewith. --Nmate (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both of you to file a report against me if you think I've broken any policy (Iaaasi (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I can`t believe this harassment that it is going on. Hobartimus, you should really let it go WP:LETGO , I think by now, everybody on wikipedia knows that you were against unblocking this user...and he got unblocked..live with it. What is controversial about "The Union of Transylvania with the Motherland." ? No comment... Iaaasi you should really consider filing a report according to the Wikipedia policy because it looks like this is the only way you can edit wikipedia free from intentional frictions with these 2 users.. Since you were unblocked , you have problems only with these 2 users, who from the looks of it , would do anything to get you blocked again than to be constructive with you. Adrian (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting, if Nmate or Hobartimus will fill note to ArbComm. As member of Czech ArbComm, I know, that is not uncommon, that accuser lost his cause with punishment against accuser. --Yopie (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Romanian localities

As far as I remember, the discussion were on the inclusion of the Hungarian name for Romanian towns and villages. I believe consensus was that where the location had strong ethnic Hungarian connection, the Hungarian name may be mentioned as an alternative.

With regards to BLPs, and BIOs generally, the link should be to the title of the location article, with piping to avoid a dab should this be desired. There is generally no need to mention the Hungarian name for a Romanian place in a BLP (although there just may be the odd occasion where this is necessary - e.g. Hungarian name given in a source). Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (Iaaasi (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

Golden Team

Coopuk had completely vandalized my article, 'Golden Team' that I put 5 years of work into. Please don't revert it back to his format, he completely gutted 95% of my writing. I am giving you a simple warning before I take this matter up with administration and have you blocked. Consider this fair warning. Coopuk's act was pure vandalism pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Greetings, i have recently changed back your edit to the golden Team article as seen here [12]. I did not see a edit summary for your revisions made to this article.Please feel free to change it back with a edit summary of why you reverted the article so that other editors know why any changes were made,

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 09:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments in summaries

Hi Iaaasi

I am asking you to try and refrain from using the edit summaries box to post comments on actions. The summary is for the edits you are making, rather than commenting on behaviours etc., and is there to help other editors to see what changes have been made without having to compare diffs - a "trusted" editor's summary is often enough to let others know that their diffs do not need to be compared.

Also - "A website is not a trusted source" ?!? Really, that is news to me lol, so I shouldn't be using the BBC, National Geographiv, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, New York Times etc. etc. websites ??

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Undoing of revert

Hi

You should not come to my talk page to "Warn" me of something like that. You obviously have not read the policy in WP:TOC.

Please do so and consider that this accusation is simply that at the moment, an accusation - it could even be considered defamatory, and is awaiting action by checkuser.

It is also off topic. I asked you to delete it and continue any discussion on my talkpage. Instead you chose to say "I think it is interesting", it is not. I removed it as per policy and any revert will be a 2RR on your behalf. I suggest that if you do not understand why I archived it and cannot discuss this in a sensible fashion, you should go to dispute resolution.

I would recommend that you end this confrontational attitude, it is not good for a healthy cooperative editing environment and it certainly does not credit you with any positive aspects.

You seem to forget that I am a neutral editor - do not forget that. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"What is wrong?" - The fact that it is only "suspected" sock. The fact that it is not to do with the topic in the discussion.

The discussion is of the sourcing of the addition, not who made it or why they made it. Another editor, CoolKoon, has agreed with Ronaldka and the addition of the material, as well as saying that the sources are valid. Normal procedure would say that the consensus is for the addition 2-1. I am agreeing with you that the source used was incorrect, that makes it 2-2.

Next step is to discuss the material and the sources. That is what we are doing now, in an NPOV way :¬)

There are very limited times when another editors additions to a talk page can be altered WP:TOC:

• Spam/vandalism/defamation
• Off topic comments

and only two ways in which it can be handled:

• Deletion
• Archiving manually

I decided that you comment was possibly defamation, as there is no ruling on the sock aspect, it was definitely off topic, and asked you to remove it yourself.

You chose not to and so I have to consider what is vest. I decided that the best course of action was to manually archive it.

I realise that you thought it had been deleted but your comments on my talk page warning me that your "legitimate" comments were removed by me in a "disruptive" way and was "vandalism" were extremely uncalled for.

You really need should not be making accusations of socks on an article talk page, your failure to respond quickly to my objection by deleting it yourself and your answer "his edits should not be discussed anymore" and "a website is not a valid source" show me that you were not thinking clearly, something which happens a lot with you and your Stubes issues.

I really want you to just join in the discussion on the talk page, wait for the result of the checkuser, validate the comments on Hunyadi and join in the collaborative effort that is happening there. IF you decide that you can then you would once again turn my opinion of you into a more positive one. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"In that case it is not fair to support his edits" - No-one is supporting his edits, it is the material that is being investigated, is it correct, are there reliable sources, if the answers are yes how can we not use it if CoolKoon wants to?

What if Ronaldka is not a sock? Wipe the sockpuppet thing out of your mind, we are discussing the material now, not the editor. The sock thing will be dealt with and then the appropriate actions will be taken. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Senior Arbitration, you are going to be reported and ejected from Wikipedia

I've had enough pal. I'm not a sockpuppet of Stubbes99. That's it, I'm going all the way with you brother, you're trolling me. I'm going to get you ejected from Wikipedia whatever it takes and get you out of my hair. I told you don't mess with me. You messed with and accused the wrong person. I'm going to get administrators to clear this up and you're going down pal. We'll see what happens, you pal are now in trouble. :)