User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 7
|
|
Tip of the moment...
 How to fix unsigned comments
If someone forgot to sign a message they posted on a talk page, you can do it for them by using the {{unsigned2}} template. Simply place the template at the end of the comments, and include the user's name and, if possible, the timestamp (which you can get from the article history}. For example: {{subst:unsigned|MyNameisForgetful|21:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)}} would look like this: – – Read more: To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}
|
Croatia in Union with Hungary
I have asked Squash_Racket to remove himself from further discussion because he has been writing false statements which are in clear contradiction with sources which he is using.
Like evidence I will use his first statement in article Croatia in personal union with Hungary. My first statement is writen against copyright rules because words are taken word by word from his source. Second his statement which I have changed is again having smaller problem which has been discussed on pacta conventa talk page so again it is no mistake, but this is not important.
I do not want blocking or anything similar, but only that he is removed from futher discussion about this--Rjecina (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rjecina completely removed the Oxford University Press, Manchester University Press, Cambridge University Press references and the country study of the Library of Congress. That was basically vandalism, that's the issue here?
- If you cite several sentences, you have to change the text a bit to avoid copyright violation. The first sentence always contains the title of the article which Rjecina has just removed. I don't think I changed the meaning of the sentence at all
- "The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary" -> "The concept of <article title>" That's the big deal?
- With the third revert he removed these:
I found both of these sentences in the reference, so I have no idea what Rjecina is talking about. He only removed the Hungarian and Serbian point of view, because he didn't like it.Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered. The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim.
- Further problems: R. added an awful lot of tags in the article Royal Hungary instead of adding a single "unreferenced" or "refimprove" tag at the top. Reason: R. is "tired of attacks by hungarian users on article about Croatian history", which to me seems like a classic case of WP:POINT. (Sidenote:I only remember editing the Pacta Conventa and the Croatian union articles, both of which are obviously Hungary-related articles.) Squash Racket (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)