.

To better understand your point of view, if in your opinion Walachian equals not Romanian (as generally accepted), what Walachian means? Please elaborate.--Bluehunt (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the difference is that Walachian was the term used by the source in the 1400s context and Romanian was the term used by you in the 1400s context. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 195.xxx you mean?

Anyway, I'm really frustrated at the inability of coming to terms with an intelligent version in thosearticles. While Romanian nationalism has been promoting the most unintelligent sophistry about how the Hunyadis represent Romanians (the inverted logic one finds in jingoism), the Hungarian nationalist response of removing info about their roots even from several possible accounts is ridiculous. I also supported and will support the Vlach/Walachian/Wallachian terminology for cases where it refers to a vague medieval ethnonym.

In any case, the blind revert war not only damages the texts as is, it prevents them from moving on - and they desperately need better sourcing, proper formatting, much more detail, more neutrality etc etc. I have once tried to deal with at least one of them years ago, and, having been alienated by both sides, I have given up. Interestingly, the superficial changes I made still survive largely in both, outside the fragments "at stake" - which probably means that I did do a good job back then. Still, is there really no way to stop the nonsense and help turn these articles into something informative? Dahn (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting this mistake. I'm not sure how I let that one slip through. Regards, Hayden120 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobartimus. I see that you are the submitter of the most recent sock case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte, so I hope you may know his pattern. There is an editor who showed up at ANI who appears to be a nationalist POV-warrior. He favors Romanians at the expense of Hungarians. If you have a moment, could you take a look at User talk:EdJohnston#User:John.Edwards.1967 to see if this pattern is familiar? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I might be so bold, what exactly was the problem with the version that was currently up? It was a consensual wording and also edited to follow WP:NCGN, could you please abstain from reverting to previous versions without stating a valid reason? Thank you  wlad 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What IAR argument? Now do you get it? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new article Language law of Slovakia, if you have time, expand it a bit more. Let's not exaggerate anything, the whole thing speaks for itself, so let's quote respected and known sources. We need more info on the exact terms of the law and which points (plus the philosophy) are being criticized and how. Qorilla (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in a block request. Best to block the vandal 203.217.31.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) than to protect several pages! Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW (Talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Why? Feketekave (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobartimus. Someone has complained about User:Aradic-es at ANI. At first sight, he appears to be pushing a Croatian POV, but it is hard to get a complete picture. I am wondering if some of his changes might be justified. At Habsburg Monarchy, I see that you made this edit. So is all that stuff basically unsourced and incorrect? This material is repeatedly added by 195.29.221.170 (talk · contribs), an IP based in Zagreb. It seems possible that this IP is the same person as Aradic-es. Thanks for any knowledge you can provide on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobartimus. Firstly, this edit [1] must be annulled, because it cancels many informations (we can easily find sources about IOC statement, from Slovakian OC website, which speaks about Slovakia's membership in IOC during WW2).
Generally speaking, there is a lot of confusion in wikipedia about many statehoods during WW2. CZE situation was a clear situation of debellatio, because Germany not only occupied CZE but (differently from Norway or Greece) it also disbanded that country. When we speak about "debellatio", we speak about a concept of international law. Later, surely, an important POLITICAL fact occurred, the recognition of Benes Government by UK & Co in 1941. This was a very important political fact, but we must distinguish law from politics, the position of a part of the world (even if very important) from the position of general international community.
I saw wiki pages about history of CZE, an I found very few sources. I found pages about first, second, third, forth, fifth republics, but outside wiki, I ever heard only three phases of CZE history: a democratic CZE from 1918 to 1939 with a restauration from 1945 to 1948, a communist CZE from 1948 to 1990, and a federal CZE from 1990 to 1992.--Cusio (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hobartimus, could you please read this article's lead *thoroughly*? Thank you. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I get other villages started in same way in a week or so.Starzynka (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not dead then, just resting. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me more details about what i did wrong at the 2 uploaded files? I wanted to replace the previous image with the legend in Dutch with the same picture where the legend is in English. PS i've never uploaded files before so I don't know very good how to work with files —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue over that map showing Hungary under Louis I is still pending. I have answered you in the talk page of Hungary that none of the successors of Ivan Alexander was a Hungarian vassal or had anything to do with Hungary as that map suggests. --Gligan (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i presumed that you are Squash Racket, because i already sent him a message. My mistake. I have written an explanation in the discussion page. iadrian (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you remove my

form from the article ? iadrian (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

Exactly. Removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason. That's what you are doing. Where is this no frivolous explanation??? There is none. And even with explanation the size of the blanking is so large that it constitutes a deletion of the most substantial part of the article and thus would require an Afd to delete the article. Hobartimus (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation is clearly given in the summaries. The current state of the article is unacceptable and it even violates the previously reached consensus. Substantial deletion is nothing extraordinary and its size per se does not make it legitimate or illegitimate. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be completely in the dark when it comes to legal issues, more so when the international law is in question. Your comparison with Iranian hostage crisis is misplaced. Firstly, there is no such thing as a threshold that must be reached for an attack to be considered a real attack. If you try to hit a policeman, you don't have to actually hit him to be charged with an attack on a public official. You can't even insult him, that's punishable as well.

Secondly - international law and customs are not rigid, an attack in an unstable region is perceived differently than an attempted attack in what is considered as the developed part of the world.

Thirdly - it's an attack on a diplomatic building, diplomatic vehicle and the diplomat himself. You are deliberately downplaying the significance of the incident by labeling it the 'shouting incident', you completely ignore the fact that there was actual physical violence involved (pushing the car to the roadside).

Please note, that although I am vigorously arguing for the incident's inclusion, I am not broadening the section beyond what is necessary and reasonable. You on the other hand still maintain the position, that several vulgar quotes by a drunkard deserve ten times more space in the article. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with using images from commons? I noticed you removed an image from an article that's used on about 15 other wikipedias. Shouldn't we wait for the resolution of this, on commons? If it's problematic it will be surely deleted. Thx for the reply. Hobartimus (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking also because the image in question (of Orbán) claims to be from the Hungarian wikipedia and it also appears there. I happen to know for a fact that they are copyright fetishist, not even allowing a single fair use image, so it is extremely unlikely that the image is a vio. Hobartimus (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian Wikipedia contains a single minor use of the Commons image (not in the Orbán Viktor article, despite the presence of a non-free image used on a by-permission basis). I found no evidence that the image has been uploaded to the Hungarian Wikipedia, and the Commons uploader has contributed numerous images lacking proper source information. —David Levy 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see the image, in their main Orbán article, it's different. It seems that's an OTRS approved image.[2] Can't we use that somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's for noncomercial use only and the source (fidesz.hu) must be noted. The image also cant be modified and manipulated and should be used for illustration of Fidesz related articles on Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia does not permit the use of such images. —David Levy 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Hobartimus, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user was the creator of at least one article about Croatian expressways, so I left him a message regarding a transition we had in that area. It's nothing critical. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your input, however there some issues to be discussed on the talk page to get consensus. im not adding anything back to the page (except the link) until we get consensus. Hope we can discuss it out without waiting for silence=consensus ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

as I understand some of the external links I added recently were removed, seemingly because "Wikipedia is not a collection of links". I only added one link for each of the pages I edited. And each link, at least in my view, is highly relevant for the specific page.

The page I have linked to is a free non-commercial provider of election statistics in European countries. I simply added the link for each country that is covered by the database (for example in the "Elections in Austria" article). So why was the link removed from the Austria article, while it is not removed from the "Hungary parliamentary election 2010"?

As I am a new user, I might have misunderstood something; can you please elaborate on why some of the llinks were removed?

Guideed (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. how is his production conected with hungaria? he visited slovak elementary school, in sabinov was hungarian school too, why he chosed slovakian school? It was time of magyarization, it was because of his slovak origin (ethnicity). I never told he is not hungarian painter. but his origin (ethnicity) is slovak, like Petofi. Its true and you cant delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.9 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I wandalize to put slovak version of name of Tokoly and latin name of towns. Hungarian language was not codified in that time, so please use Slovak names or historical names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its in Samos Tomasik book from 1873 the name is Malkotenti. There is title of Tokoly the "Tot kiraly", in old hungarian it means "Slovak king", in german resources is "kuruzten konig". Folk names, same like "King of Upper Hungary". He had not official title. Its also part of Slovak history, he was probably comunicate in german, becouse "Emerich" in his signature and fact is that around him it was a lot of local Hungarus lover nobility of slovak ethnicity (Radvansky, Jánoky, Szimray, Géci) so he used slovak language too. Its reason why tot kiraly. And name of Kežmarok in that time it was in latin, so why do you change to Hungarian? Do you know when finished the lation as offcial language in Hungaria? I hope yes, and look when it was Tokoly born. So it should be latin name or present slovak name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its bad you dont know about your history, where it was 250 years the coronation of hungarian kings :) and second bad thing is you dont know maps, just look to map and there is the biggest part of royal hungary? it was ethnic slovak area with german king only name was hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my last edit.I was editing the See also section and I don't know how the page got deleted excluding the section "See also".May be it's my browser or internet connection problem.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, If I may, I would like to ask for your opinion. Since I am not sure and there are isolated examples of disputed regions(which can`t compare to Romania) and this is not a "big thing" but at Targu Mures talk page[3], there was an anomaly, it was selected as a Wiki project Hungary, which is obviously wrong. I change it and one user added the Hungary project also. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Wiki project Hungary (for example) are only for places that are in Hungary? I started a new thread there and if you could participate there[4]. Cheers. Adrian (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources to the Budapest Timeline. Further citations will be coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.11.6 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Iaaasi (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. My edits removed a great deal of what I considered to be verbosity and non-neutral comments, and also I removed "story-like" paragraphs for key matches, where I thought an individual page reference should be made (e.g. the Hungary v England 1954 page). If you look at the revision history (particularly the ones I made) you can see that several revisions were made, not just 70% changes in fell swoop. The discussion page does indicate that the original article was verbose (and as several people have commented, nearly unreadable) - my edits addressed this and removed duplicate information that I think is best suited to individual pages for each match. I hope you don't mind me posting this here! Coopuk (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for bothering you here (I should use the talk page of the article) but there is a big mess there. If it`s wrong for me to contact you here , I am sorry, we can make a new section there and talk - please let me know. I was ready to accept the version you introduced now - that`s all right by me, but if more problems appear I suggest reverting the article to pre-conflict state? What do you think? Greetings Adrian (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was OK to contact me. I deliberately put the German name first so that things can be worked out on the talkpage. I Hope this issue resolves quickly and easily from this point forward. Hobartimus (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would support this version you introduced now (alphabetical order) but if you think this could be a special case maybe we could invite more editors, present 3 options (1.pre-conflict state; 2. Alphabetical order (current version); 3. Exception (Hungarian in front of German)) and simply vote and establish a new consensus about this article - if needed. I support this version you introduced now. If you take a look at the talk page, chances of resolving this is slim to none. If the problem persists I suggest reverting it to the pre-conflict state, invite other editors to vote (Slovak and Hungarian) and establish a solution.Adrian (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any other suggestions please let me know. Adrian (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About merging the thread. It is about one person but totally different report, filled by a different user. And moving it only confuses everybody and makes this report epic where nothing can`t be solved. I am not going to insist, but I would like to ask you if you would reconsider moving it back for the interest of resolving this incident. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as far as I know it is policy at ANI. If you notice the thread has 5 subsections like "reply" "Can somebody help" etc, these could all be separate but it would be very hard to find everything so I guess this is why it is done this way. Threads are archived from time to time and it's also important that material go into the same archive, I guess. I am trying to read through the discussion now and I found this diff [5]. May I ask what lead you to believe that user:DerGelbeMann 's case was such a big mistake by the admins? Hobartimus (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am sorry, but accusations from almost a year ago are really ... no comment. To eliminate any confusion I will try to explain, even if it was so long ago. I sincerely don`t know what exactly happened there, I guess I considered his contributions constructive. I believe he helped to achieve this consensus [6]. For his contributions I considered his block was unfair, but as I said, that was almost one year ago....I can`t claim anything for sure. Adrian (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was wondering about the case of DerGelbeMann lately and I thought you may have additional information. The name choice seems very surprising. It sounds like the name of a German person. Hobartimus (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I belied that he was German also. You can look at his contributions... who would say that it was a sock-puppet.. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the latest proposal at Talk:Magical Magyars#Requested move 2, proposing a move to Hungarian Golden Team. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [7]

75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you. You are a very helpful editor. It would be probably an unusual request but a commons CU giving out the country of origin, and / or the ISP on the impostor account (without giving out the IP address so there is no privacy issue), would be most helpful here. Or he could do a comparsion CU on the Impostor against a range of accounts (I have a few ideas), but that would be fishing wouldn't it? Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are more likely to pass such info to WP CU's than release it to the public. I'd consider country and ISP info to be private in general. All you can really do is tell your suspicions to the CU's and let them decide what's appropriate. I'll let MuZeMike know of this discussion in case he wants to comment. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, his talk page is semi-protected so I can't post to it. You might leave him a note. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

)

for removing the blocked sock's edit from my talk page, ironic he was asking me to look at an SPI! Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can't be substantial when WW uses phrases like pro-Albanian vandalism but we can't discuss this forever so I think that a future discussion should involve the ArbCom as it is the only panel that can impose binding rulings.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pro-Albanian vandalism is not my phrase, but by the admin who blocked one of the socks of this sock-master WP:DE vandal. Zjarri misinformed you, Hobartimus. All best. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the edit really was chosen at random, so I did not look into who made it. The only thing I've done was I reviewed a few of the following edits (clicking next revision a few times) to see if they are very different regarding the infobox styling or not. Since they were the same I thought the edit was not really an outlier or vandalism but did not look into it in detail. Hobartimus (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you've contributed to the Matthias Corvinus article and had at once conflicted with Wladthemlat on various subjects. This user is monopolizing this article. He has reverted my preamble information on the Corvinus article twice and seems bent on monopolizing the article. Is there anything you can do before I technically ask the administration to take a step in and referee. Thanks for any help. talk~

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to inform you that I mentioned your user name here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nmate If I am wrong about this, I apologize to you for that. PANONIAN 12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hobartimus,

I think page of nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary would be better choice if we have to redirect page of natio hungarica. Name of Hungary article is slighty different subject in my opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there has been a misunderstanding and if you can help. The problem is about name usage in infoboxes in Transylvania. As you are probably aware, there is a consensus when a certain minority is under 20% of the population it`s language name is not present in the infobox , but just in the lead. Can you please take a look at this Sibiu and my talk page. I appreciate your input. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobartimus, you wrote: "... to an earlier version because of apparent data manipulation (the number of Slovaks in the US is suddenly a half a million more??) free to put back other changes not concerning the sourced numbers"

What data manipulation? According to the U.S. 1990 Census, there were 1,882,283 Slovaks living in the US (http://www.createconline.com/LAA/PITT2006.pdf). So, you say that more than 1 million of them died in 20 years? No way... The source is reliable, the Bureau for Slovaks Living Abroad has contacts with Slovak communities and societies in America, so 1,200,000 is pretty fair number. About the numbers of Slovaks in other countries, how about Wikipedia article about Austrians or Czechs? They don't even refer to any source when they state numbers of Czechs or Austrians living abroad in the article and that's alright? Jasooon (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Createconline is not a reliable source for census data. The article cites the 2010 census data as 790 000. Do not change that without a reliable source which says that the 2010 census data was something else. If other articles are inaccurate and badly cited they should be corrected as well. Hobartimus (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand it is almost daily that the numbers in these articles are manipulated, enlarged etc. So when a number is sourced to a reliable source like US census source it shouldn't be changed without some proof or explanation. Especially because in this case the change is so large suddenly making it appear that there are half a million more people present in the US alone. Hobartimus (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I was about to ask for administrative action against user:LastLion but I see that he is already blocked indef as the sockpuppet of Bizvone who acted as a proxy and meatpuppet for the infamous mass sockpuppeteer user:Iaaasi. Hobartimus (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? User_talk:Fakirbakir#ABOUT THE ENDGAME OF IAAASI ALIAS IADRIAN YUFakirbakir (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted this message immediately from my talkpage. You can find the vid here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_.3FFakirbakir (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors --Samofi (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that the article Hetek is being considered for deletion. --Kerdezo (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Back in 2008, you turned this page from a redirect back into an article. I have now nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis. Robofish (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.hu/search?q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&hl=hu&client=firefox-a&hs=UuV&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&channel=fflb&prmd=imvnsob&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=erg_UI2dNYzltQbUj4EI&ved=0CA4Q_AUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=a1420eec5370c5b7&biw=1280&bih=709

626 HITS!

Go to Szapolyai article and change the name of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.118 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Neked miért nincs a wikis adatlapodon beállítva e-mail, ahol kommunikálni lehetne veled? Köszi a választ!--Balkony (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna hear what people are thinking174.239.194.69 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Media:Example.ogg[reply]

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]