User talk:Zimmy

Archives

Be aware that I like to answer here on questions started here. / Én itt szeretek válaszolni az itt kezdett kérdésekre.

Magyar történelem

Hello Zimmy. Bocsánat, hogy egy ilyen kérdést teszek fel, de nem tudom, hogy mit csináljak. A magyar történelmet teljesen átírja és meghamisítja néhány horvát nacionalista. Azt írják az angol wikipediában, hogy Magyarország és Horvátország között 1102 ben megegyezés született egy peszonálúnióról, ezután az állam neve Hungary - Croatia, és a magyar király nem "King of Hungary", hanem "King of Hungary and Croaita", vagy valahol még rosszabb "King of Hungary-Croatia". Te hallotál olyanról, hogy Magyarország-Horvátország vagy Magyar-Horvát Monarchia vagy magyar-horvát király? A valóságban 1091 -ben Magyarország elfoglalta Horvátországot, ami Magyarország része lett egészen 1918-ig. Elkezdtem a hibákat kijavítani, először még forrás nélkül, aztán forrással, de mindkét esetben leállítottak. Pedig másodszorra 11 forrást adtam meg csak ahhoz a részhez, hogy Mo. elfoglalta Horvátországot. A horvát szerkesztők azonban messzebre mentek, és már a magyar írásokat kezdték átírni. Megpróbáltam segítséget kérni a kocsmafalon, ott sokat segítettek, aztán a WikiProject Biography - ban, de itt nem válaszolt senki. Én már azzal is megelégednék, hogyha a magyar királyokról és a magyar történelemről szóló cikkeket nem írnák át, a horvátok a saját oldalaikon tőlem azt hazudhatnak amit akarnak, már nem érdekel, mert úgyse lehet őket semmilyen forrással se megyőzni. Úgyhogy a kérdésem az, hogy mit lehet tenni annak érdekében, hogy az angol wikiben ne írják át a magyar cikkeket? Bocsánat, ha nem érdekel a téma, de úgy láttam ,hogy a Wikiproject Hungary -ben vagy. Ha nem érdekel, akkor tudsz valamit mondani arról, hogy ki az a szerkesztő, aki a hazudozásokat meg tudja akadályozni legalább a magyar támájú angol wikipedia oldalakban?

Bocs, ha nem érdekel, de szerintem ne hagyjuk, hogy ilyen nevetséges dolgokat írjanak. Toroko (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hát én se tudom, mit lehetne csinálni. Ha van forrásod, állítsd vissza és panaszold be az adminoknál. Pontosan nem tudom, én alig-alig szerkesztettem itt. Azt látom, hogy rengeteg hazugság van, Pozsonyról, Vajdaságról is marhaságokat írnak. Talán meg lehetne próbálni segítséget kérni a magyar wiki kocsmafalán. --Zimmy (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kösz a választ. Már próbáltam a kocsmafalon, sokat segítettek, de csak abban, hogy kitől kérhetnék segítséget, konkrét támogatást nem kaptam. Egyébként meg tudod esetleg mondani, hogy hol lehet panaszt emelni az adminoknál? Toroko (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talán meg lehet próbálni a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography lapon vitát indítani, lásd a lap alján levő leírást. Konkrétan milyen cikkeknél próbáltál vitatkozni? A magyar wikin mikor próbálkoztál? Nem emlékszem rád. --Zimmy (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A magyar wikin nem próbálkoztam, csak az angolon. Egyébként a "Croatia", "History of Croatia", "Hungary" , "Kingdom of Hungary" és a magyar királyokkal kapcsolatos írásokat javítottam ki, és vitatkoztam is eleget. Toroko (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kösz mindent

Mégegyszer köszönöm a segítséget és én is boldog új évet kívánok. Toroko (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meghivas

Szia!

Szeretnek egy kis eletet vinni a WikiProject Hungary eletebe, ami jelenleg teljesen ellaposodott es gazdatlan. Irtam egy rovidke vazlatot, hogy mit gondolok jelenleg es felvazoltam par munkacsoport lehetoseget, amikben dolgozva legalabb egy-egy reszet a nagy projektnek fejlesztgetni tudnank. Mivel a neved szerepel a projekt resztvevoi kozott, gondoltam erdekelne esetleg. Orommel vennem ha csatlakoznal valamelyik task force-hoz, vagy csak egyszeruen az otleteiddel segitened a projekt mukodeset. Mit gondolsz? Ha esetleg lenne valami kerdesek, azt tedd fel batran a fenti iras vitalapjan, itt (figyelolistara tettelek) vagy az en vitalapomon. Szivesen segitek!

Udv,

Thehoboclown (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Köszi, de mostanában kevés időm van wikizni. Sok sikert! --Zimmy (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koszi, hogy valaszoltal. Neked is sok sikert a wiki vilagan kivul! :) Thehoboclown (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Air Action Group moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Clean Air Action Group, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources.

The only source in the article at the moment is primary (i.e. produced by the group themselves); that is of basically no account in determining whether it is suited for an article. You need to demonstrate that others, who are not connected to it, have produced considerable coverage of the group; and almost all content, apart from the most basic and uncontroversial data, should come from such sources. Newspaper articles etc. is what we are looking for here.

I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Clean Air Action Group

Hello, Zimmy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Clean Air Action Group".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Interstellarity (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Clean Air Action Group has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Clean Air Action Group. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clean Air Action Group (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Clean Air Action Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Clean Air Action Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zimmy! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clean Air Action Group concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Clean Air Action Group, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Clean Air Action Group

Hello, Zimmy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Clean Air Action Group".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

peak rating of Egon Varnusz

Hi – thanks for adding the infobox for Egon Varnusz. You included a peak rating "2501 (July 1968)" that doesn't seem right to me. I removed it and added a detailed comment in the page source instead. It would be great if you could check this and either provide a source, or remove the comment in case the rating was indeed wrong. Joriki (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His peak rating was sourced by Chessmetrics player file, see ref. #1: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S136768000000111000000000032010100 --Zimmy (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. The ratings in the infoboxes are FIDE ratings. (The "rating" parameter generates an entry labeled "FIDE rating" in the infobox; the "peakrating" parameter only generates "Peak rating", not "Peak FIDE rating", but that's just for compactness; "FIDE" is implied.) The Chessmetrics site has its own rating system that intentionally differs from the FIDE rating system; see the fourth paragraph here. Accordingly, I've now removed the comment I inserted and added the peak FIDE rating according to the official FIDE lists instead. Joriki (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was not aware that Chessmetrics' rating is different of FIDE. Zimmy (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]