User talk:Rovasscript

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my account blocked? Gábor Rovasscript (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Rovosaman", nor "Rovasinfo" is my account. My account is "Rovasscript". I am sure that creating new Wikipedia articles with several third-party references (as I did) serves the purposes of this encyclopedia. Oppositely, blocking a user who did not violate any rules of the Wikipedia is unfair. Rovasscript (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more information about the Rovas scripts (Khazarian Rovas, Carpathian Basin Rovas, Szekely-Hungarian Rovas), please, let me know. I did not include more references, since their majority are in Hungarian (these are third party publications, not my ones). However, if it is necessary, I can insert them into the appropriate Wiki sites - if my account will be unblocked. BTW, I do not know the reason of this blocking, since I did not violate any WP rule. The main reason why the Rovas Script Family is less known in the English literature that the huge number of Hungarian publications have not been translated. That is why these Rovas articles could be useful. Please, let me know, if you are interested in the Rovas scripts, I inform you with pleasure. Rovasscript (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking my account prevents me from participating in the discussion of the deletion process. That is why this blocking is very unfair. Rovasscript (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I did not find anything, which supports blocking my account. During a Deletion process (I do not agree with it anyway) blocking my account is removing any possibility of pleading. This is not a due process. Rovasscript (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your block expires a couple of days before the AfD can end, so you can respond then. ~~You certainly broke our rules by removing AfD templates~~. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about the expiration of the block. However, I never removed any AfD template. Please, check it. In this case, the question remained open: why my account is blocked. If there was not any reason for it, in this case, the blocking is not right. The gratuitous block did me a disservice. If there was not any valid reason for blocking, please, remove it forthwith. I trust your objectivity. Rovasscript (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was an editor with a similar name, I must clean my glasses. I've added a block warning which tells you what to do to appeal.Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast response and your helpful approach. Rovasscript (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

User Dougweller acknowledged that blocking my account was based on a mistake (see his last message in this page), I never removed any AfD template. I was also abused multiple accounts, but I did not do so. Moreover, this accusation was not proved or supported by any fact. Rovasscript (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per the SPI investigation, you were blocked for using multiple accounts - either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT - and NOT for removing the AFD tag. The good news is that your mere 3 day block will expire shortly. If you have colleagues editing the same page(s) be warned that such a block will likely recur. If you have evaded a block in order to continue editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 respect the decision of the administrators. It is noteworthy that I cannot be accountable for the contributions of other people. I will not evade the block as I did not infringe any rule of the Wikipedia. Rovasscript (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covering Rovas on Wikipedia

I am prepared to work with you to get your material into Wikipedia. However, this will only be possible if you are prepared to understand and appreciate the peculiar issues and policies that are necessary for a project where literally everyone can contribute, anonymously.

I understand that there is Hungarian literature about the Rovas that is difficult to appreciate for non-Hungarian speakers. But you cannot just upload pages from your book to Wikimedia commons simply on the basis that your book is "respected" in Hungary. That's not how it works at all. You need to follow the tedious path of WP:RS and WP:DUE. Especially if it is a topic on which you have yourself published, you need to understand that people are skeptical. Understand that we get many, many self-published authors that try to push their material on Wikipedia, and that necessarily, Wikipedia needs to build a defense against this. Occasionally, valid material is filtered out by these defenses, but it is better to set high standards for inclusion and put the burden on the people who want to include it than accept the 1% valid material on good faith along with 99% substandard material. You may want to read WP:FRINGE for a longer account of the issues involved. Once you understand how Wikipedia works, you will also be able to submit your material in an acceptable format. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dab, I already declared my will to fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. I also clarified that my book is mainly summary of published results of Hungarian scholars. However, based on your critics, I minimized the number of links to materials written by me (deleted almost all of them). (It is noteworthy that previously, I included some citations to my own works, since in the scientific life it is the requirement.) The facts are the followings: the Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas scripts are well known for decades. I provided - based on the third party results - the alphabet, their sound values, some examples with transcriptions. These descriptions are much more precise than WP articles of many other scripts. The articles Hungarian scripts and Rovas Script Family are useful for comparing these scripts. Their whole contents are based on the publications of acknowledged scholars (only one reference to my book was inserted by another person, not me - delete if think so). The article Rovas Atlas is a different case: the name "Rovas Atlas" was created by me in my book. Therefore, I request to delete the article Rovas Atlas. -Rovasscript (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your rule: I cannot blank an article, which has AfD notice. However, in the article Hungarian scripts a user some hours ago deleted the clear majority of its content. Is it correct? The deleted content was supported by many third party references. Much more references that is usual in a Wikipedia content. I undid it, so the article currently shows what I edited. Thanks, Gabor -Rovasscript (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little reality, please

There is no evidence that a "Carpathian Basin" script existed. And kindly cease to try to inject your term "Rovas" into the English language. This is not the term we used in English for the Old Hungarian script. This has been explained to you many times, Gábor. It is remarkable that you have so little respect for the English language, and that your personal vendetta against me for calling your 8-bit encodings "naïve" some years back, has continued to delay the encoding of Old Hungarian, and spurs you on to belittle the remarkable achievement of the Hungarians by chasing wild geese like "Carpathian Basin" and "Khazarian" scripts. You and I communicated in a friendly fashion as far back as 1998. But what you have been doing since before the Dublin meeting of WG2 (after you broke the agreement made in Budapest) has been just one act of bad faith after another. It is regrettable. But I guarantee to you, I shall not support the encoding of fictions, nor the uploading of fictions into the English Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 08:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Rovas Atlas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You blanked the page and removed the AfD notice despite the clear statement that this must not be done during an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the AfD. I erasured text of the article below the AfD notice. I did not know that I cannot delete the text what I wrote. From this time, I request the deletion of the article Rovas Atlas. -Rovasscript (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check it: [1], I did not delete the AfD notice. I never deleted the AfD notice. -Rovasscript (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the article. -- Evertype·✆ 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are now creating yet more articles in an attempt to preserve the content that is the subject of multiple AfD discussions, where the consensus is overwhelmingly to delete—including three new ones in the last 24 hours. They too are are now at AfD along with the previous six. This is becoming very disruptive. Please refrain from creating any more articles like this while the content you are trying to add to Wikipedia is under discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to create any more article during the AfD process. I created only four new articles. These articles about four important - and well-known - relics. These new articles are not long, but contain important information. Their references are third party publications, results of officially acknowledged scholars. If you check the creating yet more articles articles, you cannot find any word, expression or content in them, which is not scientific. I have read that you found some materials about the Hungarian nationalism. In fact, in every country there are nationalists; however, you cannot find any nationalist thing in my works. Consequently, my works and this debate is independent from the question of nationalism. I am sure that these Rovas scripts are heritage of the humanity, not only a nation.

Please, consider that any reference to my published works in the Wikipedia are removed from the Rovas articles. I do not understand what is the problem with these articles? Especially, what is the reason of the AfD in these articles? Please, clarify me, since you did not described the reason of the AfD. Thanks.

As I understand, the Wikipedia supports the activity of the editors. In the deletion discussion the most significant critic of my activity was the inclusion of my own results. I understood this and deleted all of the references to my own publications. The remained publications refers the officially acknowledged scientists. I did not refer to any "popular" writer, since my goal is the describe the Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas in a scientifically acceptable way.

I am open for your opinion, please, re-consider these pages. Also, please, describe why you dominated for deletion these four pages. Which rule of the Wikipedia was violated? Thanks. -Rovasscript (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "why you dominated for deletion these four pages" Do you mean "nominated"? In any I case, I did not nominate any of them. Another editor did. I suggest you discuss these issues at the current AfD discussions (all eight of them). I am merely pointing out here that you continue to create articles on subjects which are already under dispute. They appear to be attempts to push your point of view and research (even if you remove the reference to it from the articles) and as such this is becoming disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was my typo. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the four new articles was simply practical. These are significant relics. Please, consider the current version of one of them: Szarvas_Rovas_inscription. This contains the earliest Hungarian poem. In this article, I do not see any violation of the Wikipedia rules. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rovás articles

Hi! I suggest you to rewrite your deleted articles presenting their content as a minority opinion. Hopefully they won't be deleted than. Jó szerkesztést! Föld-lét (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; however, I am disappointed due to this present campaign against the Rovas scripts. I was working contiguously for one week, I tried to be as accurate as possible. I think several WP articles are not so precise, and the result: these articles were deleted. During the so-called discussion, my works were qualified "pseudo-scientific" and I also got many offensive and hurtful attributes from people (e.g. "crank author"), who are definitely not familiar with the Rovas scripts and generally they do not have any real concept about this topic. Finally, they realized that my statements are based on real references. The best what they said: "This individual artefact may scrape the notability criteria". This is far from the due process. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its scientific lobby unfortunately. I was a bit shocked, when I first saw this here, but I think the main misunderstanding is not among editors voting for deletion (who as far as I am concerned are at least to say unfamiliar with Wikipedias rules concerning content) but with those scientists who try to delegitimize scientific hypothesis (or in some cases -by all means- facts) not by presenting scientific evidence, but by character attacks on the researcher. Föld-lét (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have right. The international view about the Rovas scripts accurately shows the state of the Hungarian paleography in the middle of the 20th century. In the last decades, many new archaeological finds and valuable scientific theories were created by officially acknowledged scholars. However, these are unknown by non-Hungarian people. I collected these results - and in some cases a little bit improved after consulting some linguists. The result: I cannot cite this book here. But that is OK. I seriously think if I had used this week for making a journal article, it could have been much more efficient. I am interested in your opinion, however, I do not use the WP regularly as logged in user, especially after this week. If you want, we can communicate in email as well. My address: hosszu@eet.bme.hu -Rovasscript (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Calling other project volunteers "vandals" because they disagree with you on an editorial issue is not acceptable and constitutes a personal attack. What's more, you're engaging in an edit war; this is also not acceptable. When multiple editors disagree with you about something you're attempting to insert in an article, you have no choice but to use the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am not familiar with all the rules of the Wikipedia. The problem is that all of my contributions were deleted without any real, justified reason. I do not make any edit war. I simply included some information with many references to officially acknowledged scholars. Naturally, they could make any mistake. But e.g. András Róna-Tas is member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He cannot be considered as unreliable. And my contributions based on his statements were also deleted. I simple undid this unjustified deletion and in parallel I tried to improve the text of my contributions. Please, consider these facts. --Rovasscript (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unaware of the presence of article talk pages? As soon as your edit was overturned by another editor, you should have gone there to discuss it. You still haven't. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I opened a section is the article talk pages. I mentioned that I am beginner in the Wikipedia (but not in the paleography). --Rovasscript (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]