Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:46, 23 April 2008

Archives

Archive 1 ☺ Archive 2 ☺ Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello Svetovid! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Misplaced Pages is not • Deletion policy The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Slovak Paradise National Park

Nice work. Tankred 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On May 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slovak Paradise National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for that Svetovid. This article was kindly nominated by Bbik. In the future feel free to self-nom like the majority of our entries. It certainly is ok, and we definitely could do with Slovakian stuff on DYK more often. I actually went to Bratislava for a day....back in ol 2001. See you around, Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tatra chamois

Hi. In this edit, which I have reverted, you place an image (Image:Tanap.gif) in the image gallery. This image is not freely licensed. It is included in Misplaced Pages under the fair use policy. Under that policy, you can only include fair use images on pages where the image directly relates to the subject of the article. Thus the logo is suitable for illustrating Tatra National Park, Slovakia, but it is expressly not suitable for illustrating Tatra chamois. Please do not keep readding it. Thanks, Sam Korn 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your individual explanation of that policy, which I disagree with.
The Tatra Chamois is an important symbol for the Tatras and the image and its caption help the reader understand this perfectly.--Svetovid (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fair use policy is as it is for two main reasons: 1) it is legally safer; 2) it makes Misplaced Pages more free and thus easier to fork or whatever, which is important. I do comprehend your frustrations, however. Best wishes, Sam Korn 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I already knew that. I am not frustrated since your explanation in this particular case is IMO wrong.--Svetovid (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:THEY from Games Convention 2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:THEY from Games Convention 2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

added back--Svetovid (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosice

Ahoj Svetoid,

Why did you erase the Ulaszlo I. name in the Kosice article? He was a Polish'king as Wladislaus III. but He was a Hungarian's king as Ulászló I. He had 2 thrones : Poland and Hungary.

All the best.Nmate

I think you answered your own question. He was Polish so his original name applies.--Svetovid (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wladislaw III. Ladislau I.?

Hi Svetoid! I dont know why is It important You this Polish-Hungarian king's Polish name? in Kosice and in history of Bratislava articles that would be better if He is there as Ladislau I. because Kosice and Bratislava were part of the Hungarian kingdom.His offical Hungarian name was Ulászló or Ladislau and as first on the Hungarian throne not third (He was third Wladislaw or Ladislau on the Polish throne). Although it is true that his nationality was Polish but if You want to use his name so historical in context It is wrong. Because He was a Hungarian king there (Kosice Bratislava).All the best.Nmate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See my previous answer.--Svetovid (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetoid! I can not understand your answer but It is a little thing so I am not going to argue more You in this case. Nmate

Mole (animal) "layout chabges"

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Deleting_images "Contact (through their talk page) the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns. You may be able to resolve the issue at this point."

After removing images from the article, you made no effort to contact me or get any consensus before deleting images from this page "(layout chabges)" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mole_%28animal%29&diff=187151769&oldid=186190738

I have restored the images and placed a note on the talk page. Please be considerate of other people's work in the future. Thank you.

You are confusing two totally different things. I just improved the page layout by removing some of the low-quality pictures and moving ext. links.
I didn't delete any images. I can't anyway. I am not an admin.--Svetovid (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, you are right that my reference is incorrect, and the truth is I thought my image was the best anatomical representation on the page, and that a picture too many was better than a picture too few. You of course wanted to set a threshold of quality for the article, and used copy editing skills to smarten it up. Both positions are well intentioned, and I apologize for my indignant behavior. Knowing the sensitivity of this issue, I thought a good source of existing picture dogma would be at the cat page. It meows the issue perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cat#Too_Many_Pictures I don't think the mole article had too many pictures. One thing is for certain: it takes considerably more effort to insert a photo into an article than it does to remove it. You have made many contributions to Misplaced Pages so I am interested in your opinion. Thank you. Zettix (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not only about the number of images but also about quality. Each image should be somewhat unique, should add something new to the article and should be of high quality when possible.
And you don't have to apologize. I don't take these things personally :-).--Svetovid (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant

Dear Svetoid! what does it mean irrelevant? Nmate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unimportant (use dictionary).
Only important things that happened in history of Bratislava should be in the article. Also, try to use English sources.--Svetovid (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at sources in Waldorf education article

I hope you can see that the article is seeking to accurately report sources. Verifiability suggests that sourced material not be removed. Please respect this. Hgilbert (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. I gave you an example on the article's talk page to understand my position.--Svetovid (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to your Elvis example? An evaluative statement (Elvis is the greatest) is a very different kettle of fish from a descriptive statement (Waldorf education has a particular aim). We have been very careful to eliminate citations of evaluative judgments from the description; they belong in the reception section, and to some extent arise naturally in the studies section as well.

Vis a vis NPOV: Many people feel various ways about Elvis, and it would violate the policy to claim one of their views as the correct one. In contrast, every author who has treated the subject - and their are many - agrees that Waldorf education has as a primary aim aiding children to unfold their destiny. (Whether they are successful in doing so is another question, of course, and if such a claim were to be made it would have to be backed up by a different kind of evidence.) Hgilbert (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a claimed aim, period. People claim a lot of things. It doesn't mean they actually do it. Why do you want to make it sound like an universal truth instead of a claim, which it actually is?--Svetovid (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having said this several times already, I'll try once more: it is not a claim by the Waldorf movement! I have now listed all the sources on the talk page (they were already there in the article for anyone to see); all are independent, peer-reviewed descriptions the education. Their descriptions are as objective as Misplaced Pages gets: verifiable sources of the highest quality. By your standard, anything stated anywhere is a claim, and every line of every article should simply say that someone somewhere claims something. BUT IN ANY CASE IT IS NOT THE WALDORF MOVEMENT CLAIMING THIS, BUT OTHER AUTHORS. Look at the citations.Hgilbert (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to make it sound like an universal truth instead of a claim, which it actually is?
There are critics of the education, which apparently shows that the claim is not universal, nor objective.--Svetovid (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A whole range of verifiable sources say it; no verifiable sources have been cited that in any way dispute it. That's truth sub specie Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, I have tried to provide wording that makes it clear that this particular "truth" is drawn from (the cited) studies of the education. This still seems superfluous; is this not what citations are meant to indicate (that they are the source that supports a given claim)? Hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not trying to suggest that the claim is a kind of a scientific fact.--Svetovid (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just verifiable: WP:Verify states that "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Hgilbert (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ecotourdirectory.com Ecotourism Resource Centre

Hello, Noticed that you removed the link we added to Misplaced Pages on the 'ecotourism' page.

I was just wondering why you felt that this was not a valid resource?

Kind Regards Karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.97.98 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:External links.--Svetovid (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Athiest Delusion Link

You removed an external link to atheistdelusion.net from the wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins. I believe this link to be relevant as it is a site set up in response to the works and literature of Professor Dawkins. Snalwimba and myself have already had a discussion on this matter and it was agreed that the link was relevant. I will thus revert back to the previous edit if I hear no compelling arguements to the contrary by 18:30 GMT. 81.110.35.69 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is relevant, it doesn't seem notable.--Svetovid (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, none of the other external links are to opponents of Dawkins, and so for the sake of objectivity and uniformity if nothing this link should be included. Secondly, atheistdelusion.net has links to many interesting and relevant articles, including one on Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion" (probably the best publicised response to Dawkins' God Delusion) and audio links to debates/discussions between Dawkins and various prominent and notable theologians including John Lennox, Alister McGrath and David Quinn. I hope this answers your reservations about the inclusion of the link. Pete g1 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on the subject doesn't give it credibility, nor notability.--Svetovid (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was objective in my comment, other than my perhaps unnecessary use of the adjective 'interesting'. Notability, however, is inherently, intrinsically and inextricably linked to opinion, though opinions formed from unbiased observation rather than personal taste. Opinions aside however, I stand by my point that atheistdelusion.net provides a portal whereby users of Misplaced Pages reading the Richard Dawkins article can find articles and talks detailing what Professor Dawkins' opponents have to say, as well as some of his own debates. Given the details above, and that this is the first such external link, I maintain that the link is a useful addition to the Dawkins article, filling in a previously empty hole in this small sub-section (i.e. External Links) Pete g1 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Stúr, Bernolák

Ahoj Svetoid!

I did not intend this comment for you! I intend it for MarkBA because he removed what i wrote to the Nitra article yesterday.

Nmate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Ahoj Svetoid!What is your problem?Nmate (talk • contribs)

You'd better watch out

Hi Svetovid

I just wanted to tell that you'd better watch out for the above user's actions. MarkBA 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these nationalists are ridiculous. They polarize every issue, attack everybody and then play the victims. It's easy to spot if you are neutral and intellectually honest though.--Svetovid (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And we see quite often what's happening when... Just take a look at his contribs now... One alone cannot fight against idiotism. Unfortunately, I have enough of English wiki at this time due to the several circumstances combined in one... though you won't like this, I think I need a Wikibreak for some time. If something isn't done quickly, well, our golden, silver and whatever ages are gone... what we see now is the age of hell. I already have a fear that all articles which are already developed will be goners soon. MarkBA 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, mate. Good luck to you and enjoy yourself. You've done loads of great work here.
And don't get upset about idiotism too much. We can reduce it by exposing people's fallacies, bias and irrationality. And believe me, fanatics are usually depressed, esp. when their attitude is exposed.--Svetovid (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava Castle

Hi Svetoid!Why did you remove the NPOV dispute templates from the Bratislava castle article? Nmate (talk • contribs)

I corrected the wording.--Svetovid (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please avoid reverting any article more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. Thanks for your work. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Random warning FTW?--Svetovid (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This was raised on a message board, so it was not a random warning. Anyway, I have sent your request for help to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard -- see the index for Hedvig Malina. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Per the links Squash provided at the noticeboard, do not claim other edits as vandalism when it is just a disagreement about the content of the article. I also see that your first comment on the talk page was accusations of hijacking which again is not civil. Comment on the content of the article and be respectful or you could be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish with one last remark. Do you honestly think that this comment ("Do have a look at the following articles: Fallacy, List of fallacies and specifically Ignoratio elenchi, Straw man, and Poisoning the well.") was remotely useful or productive? Take this as a final warning; do not attack an editor like that again or you will be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was productive. If you are aware of the fallacies, just read his comments.
As for your warning, please assume good faith.
BTW, you can challenge me on the fallacies and I can list them.--Svetovid (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be civil if it wasn't a long-term observation of the article's history and talk page, which it is. It's not just a disagreement on the content when the editors revert everything by proxy, even edits that correct sentence structure, grammar and wording!--Svetovid (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, your attitude if ultimately your choice. I'll ignore it this time, but take it as a final warning to stop with the insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So why were the edits reverting correct sentence structure, grammar and wording justified?--Svetovid (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

from talk:Ricky81682

He continued his accusations on his talk page (being disrespectful to you too), although an administrator already clarified this for him while declining his unblock request. Basically he repeatedly mixed some copyediting with deletion of relevant information and reliable references, messing up the structure of the article etc. After a time we got tired of analyzing his edits, and sometimes simply reverted his edit asking him to be constructive. You can see in the page history that for a long time I tried to keep his constructive edits, it's just tiring to always clean up after him in the long run. Squash Racket (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've just seen this one:

Yes, these nationalists are ridiculous. They polarize every issue, attack everybody and then play the victims. It's easy to spot if you are neutral and intellectually honest though.--Svetovid (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He simply doesn't want to stop. Squash Racket (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"we got tired" --> You and Hobartimus.
Editors that reverted your edits but left the article because you reverted everybody: 147.175.98.213, Tankred, 78.98.139.19. That's 4 editors with me. Suddenly, it's 2 against 4.
"deletion of relevant information" - I asked 3 times to list those relevant information that was removed. Not once did you answer.
As for that quote: What does my opinion on fanatical nationalists have to do with the article? It is just another red herring - "informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question."
Ricky81682, sorry about the off topic comment, but I need to defend myself.--Svetovid (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Answering Svetovid's really off topic comment:

• Tankred has two edits in the article, a number of different IPs edited the article, 147.175.98.213 seems to have left Misplaced Pages altogether. This is the other IP you mentioned?
• If you want to delete reliable sources, it is polite that you give reasons for it, as I asked you a number of times. Or I should?
• For this one no need for any answer, you received your final warning...

Sorry for this comment, but there were too many false statements. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Which statement was false? Name it and say why it was false.
BTW, that's fourth time I asked you to list relevant information that was removed without any answer.
Also, again no answer: What does my opinion on fanatical nationalists have to do with the article?
My comment was a direct reply to yours. So if you called my comment "really off topic" what does that say about yours?--Svetovid (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Dispute resolution

Svetoid, I'll say this every time. Use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Frankly, I'm very close to simply blocking you for continuously reverting the article with as minor edit with a misleading edit summaries. Administrators are not here to deal with these petty arguments, but in one sentence, can you tell me what exactly are you disputing? I see you removing tons of sourced statements, then complaining about it being unsourced, and then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source) in the article. Respond on the article talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you answer this please?

"then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" - please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement?

"I see you removing tons of sourced statements." - can you list them please? I challenged Racket 4 times to do so, yet no answer still.--Svetovid (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

After I told you not to insult other editors, you again starting to go on complaining about "they are two and I am only one", and called them nationalists again. Take the time off and learn to stop attacking others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I said nationalists are ridiculous to me (statement I'll repeat whenever the topic comes up), but didn't call them nationalists in the linked comment so you obviously misunderstood it.
That they are two and use it as an advantage is a fact for me. If you have a problem with that, try to explain why. Also, that was a general point about how Misplaced Pages works.
Anyway, you still haven't answered my questions, nor backed your claims by evidence:
"Take this as a final warning; do not attack an editor like that again or you will be blocked."; "And again, do not attack other editors, no matter what."
Does the same apply to Squash Racket's calling me a disruptive editor?
"then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" - please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement?
"I see you removing tons of sourced statements." - can you list them please?
Why were the edits reverting correct sentence structure, grammar and wording justified?--Svetovid (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments at my talk page

Do not mess with other people's comments at my talk page. Everyone is allowed to speak there, and it is my choice if I want to rearrange conversations. You can do whatever you want on your talk page but leave other people's alone. For your other complaint about Nmate, I'll repeat what I'm told everyone:

If you are annoyed with some else's edits, use the warning templates on their talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. If it is appropriate, the person will be blocked. Be prepared that if you are the one who initiated it (or it is equal), you could be blocked as well.

If you feel I am biased against you, then follow the procedures above and have some other admin review the situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you finally explain and answer the above questions?--Svetovid (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've complained about him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ban_a_biased_user, like suggested. Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to ask what this above is about, but I'll just say that comments like this are not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your actions without explanation are not helpful either and they preceded the comment.--Svetovid (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since it is obvious that I have become too involved, I have asked for other admins to comment at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in continuing discussions with you. I believe I have made my views clear. If you wish to report me on a separate report, please feel free to. In fact, I would suggest an RFC if you really want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to be sure that the sentence "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." was aimed at me. I do not have the habit of accusing people of things they didn't say.--Svetovid (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Per Elonka's advice I started a talk section here you are invited to participate there and explain your edits. Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 08:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Petržalka

Preco to robis? CoolKoon (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical names are in the History section.--Svetovid (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First: as I said earlier, it's still in use (i.e. it's not historical). Second: then you should hurry and remove the German name of Gdansk, and don't forget to delete the Hungarian names of Nitra, Trnava and Komárno as well. Like why does bother you that its Hungarian and German names are written after its official name (just the way they are written in the aforementioned articles)? Because they're historical names? So what? CoolKoon (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is English Misplaced Pages. Alternative names that are not used (widely) in English don't belong to the lead. If applicable, there should be a link to alternative names in the lead. Thanks for notifying me about Nitra and Trnava.--Svetovid (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn......I forgot the basic rule of internet: never feed the trolls.......

Anyway how about this rule?: WP:UE#Include alternatives You think that it doesn't apply, right? CoolKoon (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, your calling me a troll is rich.--Svetovid (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian disputes

Hi, I noticed that you'd been involved in some edit wars involving Hungarian articles. I have created a centralized subpage to discuss some of these disputes, and invite you to participate: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 08:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, hi, thanks for participating in the experiment. Now, I see that you are involved in some revert wars on certain articles, but that there is not any corresponding discussion on the talkpages. Please, if you make any edit that could be regarded as controversial (especially a revert), you must explain your edit on the article's talkpage. Or, you may choose to place a link on the article's talkpage, which links to the central "Hungarian-Slovakian" page. But please stop reverting without discussion. Thanks, Elonka 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the editor making an edit should explain their edit and back it up with sources first. If they haven't done so and the edit changed some information that has been in the article for some time, it should be reverted. The editor that added the info should then explain why they want to make that change.
Anyway, I always am willing to discuss reasonable propositions. For example, you can see it in the thread Petržalka above.--Svetovid (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Svetovid, as you have already been cautioned, when you engage in a controversial edit you are to participate at the talkpage, not just in edit summaries. Today, you again got involved in a revert war at Talk:Bratislava, and again, without discussing your change. As such, I am placing you under editing restrictions. Please work harder to talk about controversial changes, rather than just reverting. --Elonka 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did one revert so how can that be a revert war? Also, I explained my practice in the above reply to yourself. I will not change this practice because it follows or guidelines and policies. Please read next time before making any hasty conclusions. P.S. Slovakia is in Central Europe if you want to be technically correct.--Svetovid (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You made a revert,without explaining on the talkpage your reason for the revert. Under some circumstances this might not seem a problem, but you have been engaged in multiple edit wars in this topic area, and cautioned multiple times before about the need to explain your changes (and not just in edit summaries). I strongly encourage you to change your editing practices, so that further administrative action is not required. By explaining your edits at talk (instead of just in an edit summary), it makes it easier for other editors to understand why you made your change, and it also opens a dialogue so that other editors can offer their own comments on the matter. As I'm sure you have seen, there have been multiple failures of communication in the articles in this topic area. The Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee has acknowledged that Eastern European topics can be an area of disruption on Misplaced Pages, which is why they have authorized uninvolved administrators (such as myself) with wide latitude to address these problems and impose editing restrictions. The editing restriction that you are under is minor one: You are not to engage in edit wars, and whenever you do make an edit which could be reasonably construed as controversial, you are to explain your edit at the corresponding talkpage. This is actually not much of a restriction, it is standard practice on Misplaced Pages. See WP:DR#Discuss. I think that if you learn to use this practice on a regular basis, you will find that it decreases the quantity of disruption and edit wars. Best, Elonka 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I cited a universal reason. You can see where I was coming from here and here, for instance. It's up to the editor that introduces something new that goes against a long-lasting consensus to explain his edits on the talk page first not the editor reverting such edits. (Edit summary for a revert should be necessary though.)--Svetovid (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's up to both editors to discuss. Either one of you could have started the thread. --Elonka 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit needs to be reasonable for the editor that reverts to start a discussion. The way you put it, everyone can make almost any kind of edit now (except for obvious vandalism) and I can't revert it with just using the edit summary, which can be more than enough to state my reason for the revert.
If you talked about a series of reverts, I would agree with you. But for the first revert an edit summary should be enough.--Svetovid (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted (to) Tankred here, but I saw no explanation, and no discussion from you on the talkpage. Please explain? --Elonka 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I reverted to Tankred's version, not Tankred. 2. There is an explanation in the edit summary: "I didn't notice there was any (finished) debate about this." Ironically, this explanation also follows your advice not to make any changes before the debate about names is finished.
Please analyse carefully read next time before making any hasty conclusions.--Svetovid (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the "to" Tankred. However, the fact remains that you made a controversial edit, without engaging at the talkpage. This is disruptive, and you have received multiple warnings about disruptive behavior in the past. Please consider this your last warning. If you do this again, please be aware that you could be placed on some other type of restrictions, up to and including have your account access blocked. --Elonka 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit based on you very suggestions to wait until the debate is finished so make up your mind. Either the edit I reverted shouldn't have happened in the first place and thus I was correct to revert it. Or this universal suggestion is not so universal after all.--Svetovid (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it simpler. You are on a "no revert" restriction for 30 days. If you see obvious vandalism, you can still take care of it, but it has to be something really blatant such as a page blanking or inserting of profanity. Anything else, no reverts, it doesn't matter if you engage in discussion or not. If that's not clear enough, then I can simply put you on a "no article editing" restriction, but I'd rather go with the 30-day "no revert". Does that seem clear enough? --Elonka 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not the one who is gonna miss anything out.--Svetovid (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Svetovid. How are you? I hope you are doing well! I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Your contributions and comments will be helpful. Take care! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit at Pilisszentkereszt

We may use the very same formula in the lead for places in Slovakia with a Hungarian majority? You think that edit was uncontroversial and you shouldn't discuss on the talk page first? Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)