| Revision as of 13:10, 5 February 2006 editAlensha (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,401 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:24, 29 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,214 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (56 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
==NPOV== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology|portal=November 2006}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
Though I am not an expert in this area, it seems that the writer(s) wish(es) to push a particular point of view, one of somewhat fanatic (if fervent and heartfelt) Slovak nationalism. |
|
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Coat of arms of Slovakia/Archive |
|
|
|
|
|
|format= %%i |
|
Referring to the double cross as coming from the Byzantine tradition (ultimately true enough) without mentioning that it was adopted by 'Hungarian' ruler Bela III, who was brought up in the Byzantine court, seems to have no other purpose than completely ignoring Hungarian presence and rule in the area of modern Slovakia, as does referring to "Bratislava", which was not called that at that time--it actually had many different names. |
|
|
|
|age=2160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchsize=150000 |
|
Also, is the info on the patriarchal cross better placed in the article ]? |
|
|
|
|numberstart=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|archivebox=yes |
|
Please refer to the article on the ] for a better example of a neutral toned article.] 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is incredible. It is the Hungarian article that is a huge infantile mess and you dare to put this tag to this article, although it mentions all the connections to Hungary that exist??? This is the most anti-Slovak version of such an article that can be written, not one single word is a POV. In addition, you last steps show that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing here, so please stick to what you know and stop this primitive campaign. The tag will be deleted immediately.] 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As for Bratislava - it had many different names, really? And which town in Europe did not have different names? And do we use the various unindentifiable 9th century names because of that? We don't. But if this is your main "concern" you are free to change that. ] 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your own words on this talk page demonstrate the point I was trying to make perfectly: That I "dare to put this tag on this article..." references to my allegedly "primitive campaign" and your granting me permission to make an edit on the article: "...you are free to change that..." |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am sorry you are angry. But are these kinds of inflammatory statements about another Wikipedian 'really' the best approach? If you were trying to communicate any helpful message, it has been lost. What I heard instead is that you have no respect for Hungarian users; you have no respect for me as a person and for my point of view, which may differ from your own; and you are either unwilling or unable to address the concerns that I brough up by my edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You own words demonstrate the kind of POV pushing that I am trying to point out in the article. If Misplaced Pages is to function, we have to be able to have rational debates. Using inflammatory rhetoric helps no one and contributes nothing to the article nor to Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I stand by my recent edits, and in a spirit of friendship challenge you to directly address the issues I raised. ] 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Juro, can you please explain what makes the ] article "a huge infantile mess" in your opinion? I'm asking it not because that article happens to be written mostly by me, but because maybe you can find ways to improve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think InFairness made good edits to this article. And please don't start this "using modern names for medieval towns" again... |
|
|
|
|
|
] 13:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
