User talk:Azure94

Welcome!

Hello, Azure94, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

I have reverted your image addition there, because those are fair-use images, and may be used with several restrictions outlined in WP:FAIRUSE. It is especially difficult to justify addition of such images to WP:FA articles. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Böszörmény - Kniezsa's ethnic map

Hello. You have removed a reference to the Kniezsa's ethnic map of the 11th century in the Böszörmény article. In my opinion, your change was correct. I have opened a new discussion Talk:Böszörmény#Kniezsa's map, maybe you will be interested in the further discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:CERN official logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CERN official logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:European Court of Justice.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:European Court of Justice.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

EDIT WARRING NOTICE

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

It' extremly ironic for someone with a very long history of Edit warring notices to suddenly threaten other people with it. The pot calling the kettle black... Azure94 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, the many baseless warnings are ironic in my talk page, but I really do not wish to care about your uncivil remarks, I warned you earlier about our policies.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Good Joke, this won't help you... Excuse me, this one baseless warnings is ironic in my talk page, but I really do not wish to care about your uncivil remarks, I warned you earlier about our policies. Azure94 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Copy-pasting again? Well, you know what, I wish you to have peace in your soul and have a calm day.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

After inspecting your contribution for the last couple of days, I decided to block your account, since all of your recent contribution in the articles is edit-warring. If you continue after the block expires, your account may be blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please review this? It concerns KIENGIR's modus operandi. He's not seeking "consensus", he's trying to tire out anyone who dares to edit "his" pages. Azure94 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review WP:Edit warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with KIENGIR's editing, WP:ANI and WP:AE are that far away.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As was said in the talk page I linked, KIENGIR's modus operandi is to exhaust people by forcing them to go trough lengthy arbitration, consensus building and polls, even though he's the only person opposing the change from the start and everyone else is in consensus against him and even for the most mundane of edits. He knows very well that most editors don't have all the time in the world, like he does, to fight over the smallest changes. When KIENGIR forced everyone to go even through a weeklong poll for the pettiest of reasons, he proved that trough sheer persistence he can force his POV against small time editors. Azure94 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Azure, don't tyre yourself, the case you ride on have been already debunked as a bad faith, injust lame loop against me, you just missed the most important details, which was censored by inconvenience on that page. But feel free to waste your time, believe me it won't help you.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

I see you're already forcing multiple users to fight off another one of your attempts to overrule the consensus. You realy intend to get into a fight over every single thing. Azure94 (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah so you still repeating the already refuted arguments. The case you linked in fact shows another user's mistaken conduct, even literally described, however you should abandon these trials until yourself do not understand the rules of consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Nah, it is you who doesn't understand consensus. Calling sources you don't like "lame sources", like you did in the linked talk page, will not work here. Deal with it. Azure94 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

So I don't understand consensus, and not even NPOV :) I finished this strange discussion, these boomerangs are really tyring.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Your edit to Gabriel Bethlen has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Zakarpattia Oblast

Hi Azure, I tend to agree with your position on this page, as it seems to me that you are following the correct policy on naming conventions. Unfortunately, I can't just start turning up everywhere that KIENGIR is arguing with someone and take their side, especially when it is outside of my expertise, as there would be legitimate grounds for complaint. However, in this case, there are only two users in disagreement, you can take it to the 3rd opinion noticeboard. It is probably the only way to get past the WP:STONEWALL. Make sure you concisely and clearly state your case, and don't get dragged into discussion of "I said this" "you said that". Once he has forced his POV into an article, he thrives on making it impossible to clearly understand the discussion, thus avoiding the contribution of third parties which will likely go against him. State your case, respond to his point, briefly, then get a third opinion. Any other way will lead to months of pain, as I learnt to my cost.

I think you were extremely hard done by to get blocked, especially when you had the consensus on your side, and in most cases the one instigating the edit-war was not yourself. You have to box smart with KIENGIR, but there are quite a few editors willing to help out, and you can always drop us a line when you need help or advice. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have added a link to the talk page on the 3rd opinion noticeboard. Azure94 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you are welcome. However, now Bruitorul is involved, there is no need for a 3rd opinion. It's only used for two person disputes. The protection expires after two weeks, after that Mukachevo can be re-added to the text as a consensus of two users exists. DO NOT revert anything more than once, you do it once, then if it is reverted user:Biruitorul can do it once. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Azure94 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you have been following, but KIENGIR is banned. You can do whatever you want on those pages now. The 29th of march is now the national day of Upper Hungary.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been following it and even commented once there, though I avoided voting on it due to not wanting to make it seem like I'm seeking revenge. I regret getting into an edit war with him, and receiving my first temporary block. Hopefully, more people will now come out and freely edit articles about Hungarian history, without worrying about getting into endless, mentally exhausting and circular debates over even the smallest and most inconsequential edits. Azure94 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the edit-wars, everybody gets into one at some point. You now know how to avoid it, so that's progress. I agree, the degree of aggravation KIENGIR caused was a time and energy sink for so many people. All the best, and happy editing. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hungarian Spectrum. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mad Jim Bey (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• It also looks like you're involved in one on Kim Lane Scheppele. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Logo of CERN.png

The file File:Logo of CERN.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:CERN logo.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Szabados

Hello! I read that monograph, and Szabados does not promote Gyula László's fringe theory. Unfourtantely, the blogger did not read Szabados' book. The book's title reflects that - according to Szabados - the Hungarians lived under the characteristics of (quasi-)statehood already in Etelköz (last place before the Carpathian Basin). If you have any doubts please feel free to contact me via talkpage (it's true, I'm going on a week's vacation right now). Norden1990 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Norden1990 OK, let me quote Szabados's own words:

Ezért is helyeztem hangsúlyt arra, hogy László Gyula régészprofesszor szellemisége erőteljesebben érvényesüljön az előadottakban. Hitem szerint az identitástudat szellemi alapjait a László Gyula-i „termékeny bizonytalanság” elv jegyében lehet a régmúltat eredményesen vizsgálni és bemutatni a diákok számára is, különben a gondolkodás elveszítheti az önreflexió biztosította mértéktartást és rugalmasságot, s így a fejlődést gátoló dogmává merevedik.

Yeah, no. This is him blatantly advocating in favor of inserting Gyula László's pseudohistory into schools. Also, Szabados's belief that Saint Stephen wasn’t crowned in Esztergom but in Székesfehérvár is just some ludicrous bullshit that would disqualify any serious historian. Azure94 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a problem here. Gyula László was a reliable and prominent archaeologist and historian, who contributed to the knowledge of Hungarian prehistory in many ways, and he should not be judged only on the basis of Avar-Hungarian continuity theory. Regarding the second part of your comment, I don't think academics or scholars should be judged by your profane opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sopronbánfalva

Hi. I'm actually surprised that copyleaks didn't pick that up when I put it through that, since that does seem overly similar to me, but re-reading the copyleaks report (glad I saved it!) I can definitely see the similarity. Can't speak Hungarian unfortunately, I only put the text in a machine translator and got enough hits in the comparison that I figured I had gotten it all. Anyway, that sentence is gone and hopefully that's clean now. Wizardman 21:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)