User talk:Bizso

Re: WWII Revision

Because this is a dramatic oversimplification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

The new map is acceptable to me, thanks. I still think 4 ethnic maps is too many though. On the right side you can see three other ethnic maps, the second one of these seems to be redundant now and can be replaced with yours. But that's not urgent. Squash Racket (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bizso for this map and Squash Racket for cooperation. Carpaticus (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One (important) thing: which moment this map refers to? it is important to know if it is ante or post WWI. Many thanks Carpaticus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

I've erased some of the border line at Slovakia to depict the state post WWI, based on this map. The other map refers to post WWII state, as it's only an overlay of two maps, and I didn't redraw the borders. I might redo it later with a more accurate blank map with frontiers after WWI.--Bizso (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ethnic map is according to 1910 census.--Bizso (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Croatia Hungary

Yes, it's not POV, it's incorrect. Croatia was part of Hungary after the 1867 agreement and division of Austrian Empire into two parts. Before that time, Croatia and Hungary had the same status. You should keep in mind that the sovereign Hungary no longer exists after Mohács in 1526. Even during the personal union, Croatia was never part of Hungary. The only extent to which Hungary had power over Croatia was having kings bearing both crowns being chosen primarily from Hungarian dynasty and Croats reatained a right to choose their own king in some circumstances. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You insist on references and yet you claim in a very vague way how "personal union was more than a personal union." After 1526, there were no more Hungarian kings, except for the brief period of Austria-Hungary with its dualism (which I'm not discussing BTW). There was the Habsburg monarchy and I don't think I need references for this. Anyone can look up a history book and find a list of kings who ruled Croatia and Hungary during the 2nd millenium. Also, Habsburg Monarchy#Territory lists Kingdom of Croatia as one of the four parts of the monarchy, and the image you linked on my talk page doesn't prove anything, as it doesn't delineate borders between countries, but borders between territory acquired in different timeframes. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To admin

I'd like to report User:Ps3network for several instances of manipulation of data.--Bizso (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hi, I am having a report on User:Rjecina, because he is accusing me and other editors of being everything evil (disruptive, SPA, vandal). It has to do with his natioanalistic POV and altering history of Croatia and neighbouring countries on Wikipedia. As you have also come accross him, I thought that you might be interested. Please, if you would like to leave a comment, you can find a link to the report on my talkpage. Thanks--Bizso (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter between you two. The dispute resolution process is to resolve your dispute, hopefully in a way that both of you are relatively happy with the outcome. The manner in which you are contacting me and other editors counts as WP:Canvassing, which can actually result in you being blocked from editing. You should stop doing this and instead, before responding to any comments made by Rjecina or any other editor, you should read over WP:CIVIL (if for no other reason than to read the funny essays it links to) --Carbon Rodney 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

it's not between us two. it's to do with more people. The reason I contacted you is to get more people to discuss this issue on the board because I saw topics that were there for more than half a year and nobody cares about them. This is a quite complex case, not just 4 Revert edits, but a lot more. I hope that people at least bother reading through all the text (just one of my concerns)--Bizso (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Also, Rjecina has an ongoing thread on me so if you want to you could leave a comment there, too. There's a link to those on my talk page as well. All I want to avoid is that this initiation die off in 1 or 2 days due to lack of discussion.--Bizso (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

conflict

I have had issues with User:Rjecina before and even have threatened to block over allegations like this. However, your canvassing (and especially your demands for blocks and bans) are not helping and frankly making it difficult to take you seriously. If you had just focused on the sockpuppetry allegations and the conduct that way, instead of arguments about the content disputes themself, you may have some better luck. The fact that you have links to five reports posted on your talk page about Rjecina does not inspire confidence that you are being honest or even remotely calm about the situation. In fact, while you said on my talk page it was about allegations of sockpuppetry, this has little discussion of that. You are going to have few admins willing to read walls of text from you complaining that someone else is POV pusher and debate that, especially one who has gotten into these disputes before and now frankly doesn't trust you at all. Nobody (and I mean this), nobody is interested in getting into those idiotic nationalist fights that results in nothing but harassment and vandalism everywhere. I would suggest asking to archive the sections and write a new one, focusing only the sockpuppets allegations. Dump the content dispute arguments, do not quote huge chunks of text, add some diffs with specifics, and let others discuss it, without being so aggressive. If you want to focus on the content disputes, (which I suggest not to) be honest when you ask people for advice on that. Otherwise, I will block you if you continue this pattern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Point them out, with diffs. Also realize that it isn't entirely wrong to remove those. They are at best tertiary like Wikipedia and so other sources may be better. Are you discussing that issue? Calmly and civilly? However, focus. Think about every word, every diff. Make sure that you are not fighting over an attempt to remove a third citation or something idiotic. And don't pick on old crap from months ago. At that point, you look like you are being vindictive and trying to win POV fights via removing your opponents. And in this area, that's the biggest concern, because, frankly, everyone is doing it and it's aggravating to 'outside' admins. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not doubting your diffs. I didn't even care to read them. There's too much there and too many allegations at the same time. Focus again and you'll get a response. And again, let's the admins figure out punishments or solutions. Do not make statements like "they should be banned." Have some humility and ask for something reasonable, like a mentor or even a topic ban on the most crazy stuff. Come on, stroke our egos a little bit. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the point. It's a matter of impression. Seriously spend some time on this. I'd say write something down in notepad and sleep on it overnight. Look at it with a calm demeanor and reconsider. Realize you are trying to convince someone with no background in the dispute to do something admins really, really hate to do: get involved in an extremely controversial debate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

kings and kingdoms of hungary

• replies: User_talk:Dvatel#re:Vandal, User_talk:Dvatel#titles
  

I think that User:Bizso should be blocked or banned from English Wikipedia because of vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Says who?--Bizso (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary is Kingdom of Hungary and Lands of St Stephen comprises: Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary with vassal kingdoms and counties.. --Dvatel (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

True- Croatia was governed by a ban responsible to the Apostolic King of Hungary and Croatia [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. --Dvatel (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here - Kingdom of Croatia (Medieval) --Dvatel (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Until 12th century, king of Hungary was crowned separately as king of Croatia, until 12 century. Where do you see Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you why the other 145 is not there? Yes. Because you said "Croatia wasn't a vassal..." That's why! However I agree - they should be listed under a separate section called Titles. Stop acting on Your emotions. --Dvatel (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes,

Encyclopedia Britannica is commonly seen as the credible voice of science whilst Wikipedia is often talked of as the less reliable source written by lay persons. "Yet, Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries," writes the journal.

Encarta may not be as elaborate or easy to access as Wikipedia, but it is certainly a much more reliable source. --Dvatel (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't belive? That study was conducted by the scientific journal Nature. [3]

May I ask you why the other 145 is not there? Because you said "Croatia wasn't a vassal..." That's why! I made my point so please do not remove titles! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My appologies for Subject/headline. You should add those 150 titles. I will help you! --Dvatel (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Influence?? Bizso you are disputed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here [4] I'm Hungarian from Croatia, but you're definitely not Hungarian. --Dvatel (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso and Dvatel are different. Hungary and Croatia = one history, same destiny. :) --Dvatel (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso what do you think about Nikola Šubić Zrinski could we improve this article? --Dvatel (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacta conventa (Croatia)

I started to improve the article Pacta Conventa. Take a look. there are reliable sources, why don't you cite them? Squash Racket (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you are using the best sources available? I used Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, ABC-CLIO etc. sources. Have you tried using Google Books, Google Scholar etc.? Squash Racket (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Just wanted to inform you that some of us admins are discussing possible restrictions for you and Rjecina at WP:ANI, under Proposed solution section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

note

Following your comment at my talk page, note that our banning policy explicitly allowing for reversion of all edits by anyone. A ban indicates a community consensus that said user's edits are prima facie unwanted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check

Don't. I've been working on a few other items on my watchlist tonight. Give me a second. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For case 2, I see going from no source to a source for the population figures. Am I right in you are saying, for example, the Bosnia CIA factbook which claims 14.3% Croatian population of a total of 4.59 million or about 656k Croatians while Rjecina posts 982k? For case 1, are you saying that the sources in this edit explicitly say the opposite of the claim? If so, forget posting it at WP:ANI. I'm demanding an explanation right now and will indefinitely block if a good one is not forthcoming. Falsification of sources is beyond the pale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Rjecina#Explanation_right_now. I have a long memory, so if there is a single edit without explanation, inform me and I'm blocking indefinitely. That's enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

accusation

I'm sorry, what seems to be the problem? I couldn't find the related pages.

Rjecina is accusing you that you are my sockpuppet? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: admin

Took a quick look over the thread, don't think I've got anything to say which hasn't been said already. As an aside, I am not an administrator at all, so I might not have been the best person to contact, but yeah. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 16:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely no problem at all. Have a nice day! :) — neuro^(talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide a diff

Show me something recent. Not something done months ago. Recent. And something that shows Rjecina is specifically doing something. Not Rjecina reverting a vandal removing a source with a source that's equally bad. Frankly, I'm of the mind to follow the proposal from before and block you if you report to ANI again. Do you really think after the results you have been getting, that it would be wise to go on because I didn't respond after half a day? You don't think I could possibly be doing something else during half a day? I mean, keep it up on your own if you'd like but I'm going to be honest that I'm at the end of my patience with you as well. The other admins are much less forgiving than I am, but it's up to you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to my post below!! Do Not Block Me! Instead Reply!--Bizso (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ricky

First

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers. (Case 2)

Third

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me? (Case 1)

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.--Bizso (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your response, what do you mean provide a diff? Could you please reply to my points in second and third?

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I've given you a short block for ignoring the proposal suggested here (and please stop with the "you didn't respond in 12 hours therefore I could do it"), general conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Manipulation_of_data_and_citation and the other ANI proposal and now Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjecina (1st). This disruption needs to stop. If you have an issue, discuss it civilly and calmly. Forum-shopping at WikiEquitte as well did not help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, I do not accuse anyone of sock puppetry in the air. Yes, I made a new case there. What? Is it forbidden? Then say, it isn't him. That's all. Why block me?--Bizso (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, that proposal hasn't passed!! Is that right? Because then you should block Rjecina too, becuase he has accused my of sock puppetry again!--Bizso (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What forum shopping? I was sent there! Read the comments!!--Bizso (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing the issue civilly and calmly. You have blocked me to end the discussion!

This block is clearly unjustified. I left a message on the admins talkpage (Ricky81682) which he replied with a block. I copy pasted the message above--Bizso (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Following the last ANI discussion, and this whole set of issues, the proposal was that you ask for admin review beforehand. You posted a note on my talk page, I did not respond within 12 hours, so you went and posted at WP:ANI. Admins there questioned you, you started Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attack_by_User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, you were told to stop at ANI, you were told to stop here, you then started sockpuppet investigations, all over edits made at best months ago. You have been on an almost daily campaign to eliminate an editor who you disagree with. At some point, this is disruptive enough to require some time off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MAde at months ago??? They were made yesterday!. And I WAS TOLD TO GO TO WIKIETIQUTEE!--Bizso (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign? I posted two thread on him! I archived the others, because you said to me they were too long! So I archived them!

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't understand, one admin doesn't wish to continue the discussion so he blocks me. I didn't do any disruptive editing.

Decline reason:

No need to unblock editor who says he's leaving. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

I would ask that any admin who unblocks also post a follow-up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Bizso_block. Shorten if you wish but I really, really think there has to be some stop to this. Rjecina, myself, ANI, reports everywhere every day, all following edits from months ago, and little if nothing actually done on articles. It's simply not productive. See my talk page as well for further comments from him if you would like. If someone else is willing to mentor him and guide him, then unblock and leave me out of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing done on articles? I added an entire section on the Economic consequences of the treaty of Trianon, in addition to rewriting the whole article itself!--Bizso (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I've had enough. My last edit --Bizso (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bizso !

Thanks for your nice work! There is already somebody who is interested in history and writes the truth. I see, you are blocked, but do not worry. It is not shame to be blocked because you wrote the truth. Toroko (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

funny

Then that should say more about themselves, rather than you or me. ;D

Seriously now, what do you want me to do? To tell the persons who are accusing you of being my sockpuppet that you in fact are not? Uhm, did I get this right? ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)