User talk:Tankred: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Halloderek (talk | contribs) →Just thought you may like to see this: new section |
no longer around |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[User:Tankred]] |
|||
==Disputes== |
|||
I have created a centralized discussion page at [[User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment]]. If you have concerns about the behavior of editors or the way that certain articles are being edited, please post them there. Thanks, [[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of editing restrictions == |
|||
[[Image:Yellow warning.png|left|20px]] '''Notice:''' Under the terms of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren]], any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking. |
|||
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction|here]]. |
|||
[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Just FYI, what other editors do, does not affect ''your'' restrictions. So ignore them at your own peril. :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I fully understand that. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Userpage== |
|||
Tankred, I went ahead and removed the top section of your userpage, since I felt that it was targeting specific editors. There's a fine line between what's acceptable as a "general rant", and what is a personal attack or harassment, and I felt that though your post was in the grey area, so I opted to remove it. Please do not put it back. If you do still have other concerns about Wikipedia editors or editing practices, please bring them up at [[User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment]]. Thanks, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 09:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Rembaoud== |
|||
I have told Rembaoud that he is on an editing restriction where he is not allowed to make any further reverts for 30 days (reverting blatant vandalism is still alright). To be fair, I am asking the same of you as well. Please, continue discussing things on talkpages, and making normal non-controversial edits, but these back and forth reverts must stop. Work things out in discussions instead, build consensus on how to proceed. Thanks, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for your prompt reaction. But I kind of do not understand the second part of your message. I did not revert any of those Rembaoud's edits. In fact I hoped you would revert [[Ľudovít Štúr]] to its previous version and that the article would remain unchanged until a compromise is reached at your page. I respect my editing restrictions and I do not bypass the discussion on your talk page by creating separate attack pages against other participants. Although I welcome a CheckUser that will clear my name, I protest against personal attacks at [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/78.99.something & 84.47.something]]. I do not see much difference between that page and the deleted previous version of my user page, except for the fact that the CheckUser pages are even more public than userspace. Although it was Rembaoud, not me, who has broken the rules, I respect your new request not to revert for 30 days. I did not intend to do any reverts during the dispute resolution process anyway. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks for understanding. :) And yes, I agree that over the last few days, I have seen you working very hard to edit in a more constructive manner. I can sympathize that things were very frustrating for a long time! |
|||
:: As for the L'udovit article, I am afraid that I am not allowed to make any reverts, otherwise I would risk losing my status as a neutral "uninvolved" administrator. As soon as I get involved in any kind of controversial content editing, unless I am ''strongly'' backed by policy, Administrator policy would forbid me from using my administrator tools on any articles in the range of that dispute. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]. And I think that many here will agree, that my having access to the tools, is of more benefit to the dispute than anything that might be gained by me going in and actually editing the articles. Sometimes it is frustrating for me, because I do a lot of article writing (see my userpage), and sometimes I ''really'' want to wade in and edit. But for this experiment to work, it's important that I stay neutral. I am here to guide and teach and explain, and, where necessary, place restrictions and enforce them. But the guiding and teaching is more fun. :) Hope that helps explain, [[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Re:New naming convention== |
|||
Thank you for the notification; can you announce it at [[WP:PWNB]] and at similar boards? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Poznan family== |
|||
Squash seems to have some concerns with your edits. I haven't seen you make an actual revert, but please be very careful about explaining any controversial edits at the talkpage, thanks. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Sources say these are Hungarian families of Swabian (Patzmann) or Italian (according to Karácsonyi's research) origin who settled in Hungary in the 10th century, not that they originally come from Hungary. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I am sorry for that misunderstanding. But your edit can be understood as if the family could be Slovak of Swabian or Italian origin. The sources arguing for the Slovak origin also refute the idea of the German origin. Since you do not like my version, please correct that sentence yourself. And, by the way, do not use misleading edit summaries. I did not make a revert. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::A revert ''means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors''. You even changed the meaning of the referenced sentence, so that clearly was a revert. My edit summary was NOT misleading (interesting accusation from you anyway). |
|||
:::You also placed a "citation needed" tag on a fact (the family's Swabian origin) that had been referenced just in the previous sentence. So please don't pretend that everything was just well and OK with your edit. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Blocked - 48 hours== |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{#if:48 hours|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''|You have been '''temporarily [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and other violations of Digwuren ArbCom case editing restrictions|'''edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and other violations of Digwuren ArbCom case editing restrictions''' |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tankred&diff=206517581&oldid=206410898][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tankred&diff=206197115&oldid=206191259][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levice&diff=prev&oldid=207326694][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kom%C3%A1rno&diff=prev&oldid=207326554][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=207324369][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nov%C3%A9_Z%C3%A1mky&diff=prev&oldid=207326864]|[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)|[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> |
|||
:Since I explained my edit in advance on your talk page, I expected your inevitable reaction and I have no intention to dispute my block. But I wonder if it would be possible to block the participants in your experiment in a way that they could edit [[User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment]] in addition to their own talk pages. This is not only may case, but also the case of Nmate. I do not mind taking a break from that time-consuming discussion, but it will be harder to catch up after two days. Cheers. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Giving it a second thought, please forget about it. I am not sure if my contributions to that discussion have had any value. Some users interpret anything I say there in a negative way. I will spend the next two days thinking about my future in Wikipedia in a broader sense. Working on Slovakia-related topics has recently become really unpleasant. Even if your experiment succeeds in clarifying basic rules, it can hardly heal personal hatred. And the recent example of introduction of fascist data from 1941 in order to "prove" the alleged Slovakization shows that there are too many issues in the history of Slovakia and Hungary that are unresolved. Even if we discuss twice as many issues at your talk page as we are now doing, other seeds of conflict can always be found if one wants to find them. Maybe I should leave for a couple of years. Hopefully the level of chauvinism in Central Europe will decrease by then and editors, whose agenda is to prove how inferior other nations are by removing all the references to their history, will disappear. If I decide to leave completely, I wish you good luck with your experiment. On the other hand, if I become more optimistic in two days and decide to return to your discussion page, I will surely be able to catch up. So, I do not need any exceptions. Please disregard my previous comment. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi, Tankred. I hope you will stay on the optimistic side. Seemingly almost everyone participating in the experiment has hard time to assume good faith of all edits of all editors, not speaking about obeying set rules everytime. What I have learnt, however, is that with reliable sources it is always possible to contribute positively even to most disputed articles. If you manage to build rock solid base of references, no one trying to edit war with that base can "win". However, I sincerely hope that for most editors editing Wikipedia is not about winning any war or pushing agenda, rather about organizing and making available the vast knowledge. Disruptive editors of the former kind will single out themselves "and will be assimilated" / (c) Borg :-). Constructive editors of the latter kind have a chance, especially now, when there are neutral admins helping. --[[User:Ruziklan|Ruziklan]] ([[User talk:Ruziklan|talk]]) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Tankred, I have given some thought to your request. I could arrange things such that you would be able to edit the experiment page, but I'm afraid that I still have a concern about civility. Your above comment violates [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] with comments such as "level of chauvinism", "introduction of fascist data", and the "agenda" of other editors. So until I am convinced that you will be able to participate in the discussions in a cooperative and collegial way, the block stands. If you wish to appeal my decision, place the {{tl|unblock}} template on your page with your reasoning, and another admin will be by within a few hours to review the situation. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:No, thanks, as I have said, I do not wish to appeal. The word "fascist" refers to the source of the data. Southern Slovakia in 1941 and 1945 was occupied by the then fascist Hungary. Slovaks and Czechs were expelled or fled and the demographic data were manipulated to confirm Hungarian territorial claims. That is why they are highly unreliable. I did not use the word "fascist" to refer to any particular editors. As to the words "agenda" and "chauvinism", I did not name any editors here either. It is a more general long-term problem of Wikipedia, whose population of editors is not immune to political radicalization in the "real" world. Since it is a long-term problem, I do not think articles on Central Europe will become a more pleasant place to work anytime soon. At this point, I think I will rejoin your discussion page. But after the dispute resolution process ends, it will be a good time to leave. As I have said, new issues are likely to be raised in the future and new users with narrow agenda are likely to come. The whole process is likely to repeat itself all over again, until nationalism weakens in the "real" world. Moreover old users (including myself) carry too much baggage and the way how we still interpret actions and comments of other participants in your experiment makes me skeptical about the prospects of future cooperation after your discussion page is gone. That is what I wanted to say in my previous comment. I did not mean to be personal. If you think my description is uncivil, well, tell me what I should strike out and I will do it. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thank you for your thoughts, and I agree with much of what you say. And you're absolutely right, that editors are not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] as much as they should, so some of your comments may be perceived in a more negative way than what you intended. But being aware of that, wouldn't it be easier to be sensitive to the environment, and moderate your own comments? For example, it is extremely important to be careful about certain words such as "fascist", because of the strong emotional connotations that surround them. That word in particular is often misused, per [[Godwin's law]]. I routinely see edit-warriors accuse each other or random SysOps as "fascist", as a pejorative term. So in the context that you are describing, it would have been better to qualify the term, such as instead of "fascist data from 1941", say "unreliable data from 1941". Though I see how your own knowledge of the history of the era is quite thorough, other editors who do not have that context will simply interpret the word "fascist" as a personal attack. The same with your comment, "editors whose agenda is to prove how inferior other nations are". Even if the comment is true, it's still not helpful in the discussion, because editors on the other "side" from you may assume that you are referring to them, and so your comment does nothing but escalate the dispute. Better would be for you to consider what things that you could say to ''de''-escalate the conflict. If you would like to have your own thoughts about the reason for a particular editor's actions, that's fine, but it's best to keep those thoughts off-wiki. |
|||
::For example, I might be dealing with a disruptive editor, and after I've read only a single paragraph from them, I might have formed the opinion, "Okay, here's a neglected kid, probably the victim of emotional and perhaps physical abuse. He's hiding from the world by spending as much time as possible on the computer, and the rage that he has bottled up towards his parents, is being directed towards anonymous strangers online." However, what possible good could it do for me to say such a thing on-wiki? For one, I might be totally wrong. For another, even if I'm right, it will probably just make the kid that much more defensive. For another, third-party watchers who didn't share the same insight as I did, might think I'd gone completely "round the bend" to make that kind of attack on another Wikipedia editor. One of those watchers might have formed an opinion that "the kid" was a 50-year-old college professor, and so for the watcher to see me say to the "professor", "I realize you're mad at your parents, but don't take it out on-wiki", would sound mind-bogglingly condescending on my part, and absolutely like a personal attack. And even if in a very small minority of cases, my being direct with the kid might be helpful, this isn't the right venue for it. [[WP:THERAPY|Wikipedia is not therapy]]. Though some initial good faith efforts to work with a disruptive editor can of course be tried, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to psychoanalyze other editors or to provide a support group. Our scope is to create articles in a hugely collaborative environment, and if someone doesn't fit within that environment, rather than trying to socialize them, it's better to just remove them. Which doesn't mean that we can't try at all, but there's a limit. |
|||
::So when you say "editors whose agenda is to prove how inferior other nations are", we might or might not agree on who those editors are, but the point isn't to rail about those editors' agenda, it's to protect the encyclopedia. Even if we identified every such "agenda" editor today and made them disappear, there would be a fresh batch tomorrow. So better than focusing strictly on the editors, is to focus on the ''articles''. Our policies and guidelines are focused on strengthening articles with sources, and trying to keep them as [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] as possible. Discussions on talkpages are most effective when they are focused on article content, not on editor conduct. |
|||
:: There will ''always'' be editors with an agenda on Wikipedia. But sometimes even editors with an agenda, can produce good work. Sometimes I see it like putting little orange traffic cones on a highway, and telling a drunk driver, "Okay, you shouldn't be driving, but as long as you keep your car within those cones, carry on." :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am happy that Wikipedia has editors like you. This comment of yours should be put into a template and used instead of the NPA1 warning. I am serious. It would be much more helpful than a curt warning. Unfortunately for me, I lost my patience a long time ago. Moreover, there is no way how I can convince users from "the other side" to assume my good faith even if I try to assume theirs. So, I must leave after the end of your experiment in order not to cause more problems by my mere presence here. |
|||
:::If you are thinking about how to prevent cases like mine in the future, we need more efficient enforcement. The main event that turned me from a civil and productive editor into an edit warrior was an episode of protracted disruption by registered sockpuppets and a dynamic IP, in which dozens (if not hundreds) warnings and nine blocks were simply ignored. Only a community ban and the subsequent block of all the active sockpuppets helped. Since then, it is much harder for me to assume good faith and be patient when I see similar editing patterns. I am sure this is not only my case. Many editors would never resort to edit warring and personal attacks if the rules were systematically enforced by a third party. If we knew that we would (not could, but would) be blocked after a repeated personal attack, everyone would try to remain civil. I greatly appreciate the time you spend on our case and hope you will learn something useful and applicable to other similar cases. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::There is actually an active debate among administrators as to whether it's better to "block on sight", to try and persuade, or to ignore. I'm more of an enforcer, as you've seen. I warn, warn again, warn again, and then if the problematic behavior ''still'' don't change, I block. A few admins are even more strict than I am, and block without even digging into the situation. Other admins are more in the "persuade persuade persuade cajole" category, to try and pour so much honey and sugar on editors, they're socialized into behaving. And still others have (in my opinion) very thick skins, and feel, "As long as the editor is churning out good articles / fighting vandals / doing good cleanup, who cares if they have a foul mouth?" I like to call that the "raw meat" attitude, as in I see some editors who are so feral, you should just lock them in their office and every so often throw in a slab of raw meat. ;) As long as they keep sliding good articles out through the slot at the bottom of the door, keep feeding them. ;) |
|||
::::However, the problem with having more "strong enforcer" admins, is that not all of them have the judgment to do it well. The admins here aren't formally trained, they're volunteers, and some who get that "little bit of power", unfortunately abuse it. We also have the problem that Wikipedia by its very nature, is an anti-authority culture. Many of the editors here, if they liked working with "the system", they'd be out writing articles for peer-reviewed journals. So, Wikipedia naturally attracts editors who are very suspicious of authority, and this suspicion projects onto the Wiki power structure (the admins), such that the community is very very reluctant to give administrators any more power than they already have. Indeed, each time an administrator is promoted, they are reminded sharply that this does mean that they have "power", it means they have a mop. Admins are told that they are janitors, not police. That they are deck-swabbers, not captains. |
|||
::::And even if all admins had good judgment, and weren't afraid to "wield the ban hammer", we still have a manpower issue. Wikipedia has about 1,000-1,500 active administrators. For a note of comparison, consider that Wikipedia is growing at a phenomenal rate, with about 2,000 new articles ''per day''. It's easy to forget this sometimes, because editors tend to "clump" into an area of interest, and you get to know the editors there, and the articles, and the disputes. But in the grand scheme of things, all the Hungarian/Slovakian disputes are but one floating bucket in a massive raging river. The admins are doing what they can, and new admins are approved almost every day, and old admins burn out or get bored and move on almost every day. The admin community ''is'' growing, but not fast enough to keep up with everything that needs doing. See [[:Category:Administrative backlog]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog]]. |
|||
::::In terms of your own experiences, one thing you might consider is to just try to work in a different "part of the river" for awhile. Clear your watchlist, and go work on some other article that Wikipedia needs (see [[WP:CORE]]). Get to know the editors in a different WikiProject. Help with a [[WP:CLEANUP|cleanup category]]. I myself find it very relaxing to work on a few things at [[:Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup]] whenever I get stressed. It's very calming, and I get a nice "bump" of gratification at a job well done, in an area where I rarely get anyone edit-warring with me. ;) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed naming convention, modification D == |
|||
Hi Tankred, reading back what you wrote about the proposal, I think I misunderstood what you wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=207019029&oldid=207016969 here] (points 2 and 5) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=207144222&oldid=207140268 here] (point T3 and T5 and T6). I meant modification D as a representation of what you wrote about "others before 1918", but now I see (or think I see) that you meant using the Slovak name as the default '''primary''' name, and that you didn't intend to exclude alternative names at the first mention. I should have known that, since one of the first things you wrote was: "I like the idea to list "other" names at the first occurrence of the place in an article". So if I rewrote modification D to: |
|||
"D. For "others before 1918": use the modern official name (=Slovak) as the primary name ("Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively), unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that a different name is widely used in the given context |
|||
would that represent your opinion better? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, that is what I meant. No exclusion, just a consistent default version. I have also replied to your comment at the experiment's page. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== modification B == |
|||
Hi Tankred, could you give an example of an article in which an anachronistic name is or was used, and that would be affected by this modification? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:For example, there was an attempt to move [[Battle of Bratislava]] (907) to [[Battle of Posonium]] despite the fact that ''Posonium'' is as anachronistic as ''Bratislava'' for the year 907. The articles [[Ladislaus I of Hungary]], [[Solomon of Hungary]], and [[Géza I of Hungary]] call Bratislava ''Pozsony'', though this spelling is modern and was not used in 1076. The article [[Belo IV]] uses Hungarian names of [[Banská Štiavnica]] and [[Zvolen]], though these names did not exist at all at that time. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred#top|talk]]) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmm, I think these questions require the attention of specialised historians, which I'm not. I really wouldn't know how to call this battle. Question nr. 1 would be: how is it referred to in modern English literature? If that doesn't lead to any results, other questions may help: |
|||
::*was the area already settled at that time, and is there continuity with the present town Bratislava? |
|||
::*what name is generally used for the town when referring to this era? |
|||
::Two other remarks: don't focus too much on the exact orthography. Amsterdam was written as Aemstelredam in the 16th century (among other variations), but that doesn't mean we use that name in wikipedia when referring to 16th century Amsterdam. That a name wasn't written down doesn't mean that it wasn't used, you know that Latin was the commonly used language for official documents in the Middle Ages in a large part of Europe. The few writings in native languages that have survived are mainly prayer books, songs and plays, it's not very likely to find place names in those. |
|||
::Note that according to the proposed naming convention, Slovak names for towns like Banská Štiavnica would have to be added to the Béla IV article. Does this answer your questions about the proposal? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 08:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Just thought you may like to see this == |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Slovak_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Slovak-labeled_vandalism] It's a link to a discussion you entered into. |
|||
[[User:Halloderek|Halloderek]] ([[User talk:Halloderek|talk]]) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:12, 11 June 2008
Redirect to: