Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fakirbakir (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 26 September 2010 (→Careful: sorrry , my grammar/). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Fakirbakir

Replaceable fair use File:Dino_Komlosaurus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dino_Komlosaurus.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of History of Somogy

A tag has been placed on History of Somogy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GILO  _EMERGENCY 22:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Unfortunately I identified myself as vandalism on the Great Moravia article. How can I delete this? Is it a problem? Im just learning editingFakirbakir (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. All you did was mark one edit as vandalism but you undid it, so it's fine. — HelloAnnyong 19:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great Moravia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong 19:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful

When there are problems with editing you need to be very careful not to revert too many times. As you are a new user you do not know all the rules and such and must be extra careful in editing, better to leave alone an article which is problematic when you are a new editor. Once you learn how to edit and learn how to do things you can be sure that you violate the rules or not. But now you cant be sure if it's really OK or not. The worst situation you can have is when more people revert one of your edits, when that happens, as a new user you need to stop reverting immediately. The place has many rules and you are already warned by an admin, that's not good. Right now that means you should try to post to the article talk pages only and even there cautiously. Hobartimus (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have just finished with my wee contribution on the talk page of Great Moravia. I try to learn and adapt.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very good that you are trying to discuss edits, for example here but it is better to do it in the talk page of an article. For example write on the talk page not a statement of your opinion "Kristó Gyula was one of the biggest..." altough this might be very true an admin who looks at the case wont know it, you should instead ask "WHY do you think Kristó or his book is unreliable?" It might be the case that the problem is not with Kristó but the fact that the book is not available online so others might look at it, who knows what the real reason behind the objection is it might even be nothing. In any case it's better to try to find out the reasoning behind a revert. Then you can try to address it for example sometimes in these cases you can give a little bit of the original text, like quote the original sentence from the book in the original language and then give your own translation/paraphrasing. Anyway posting to the talk pages of articles and asking questions is good thing to show that you are not trying to force the issue with pure reverting, admins really dont like that. Also if there is a big disagreement in one article, you can just let it cool off a bit, and move to another article where you are the only editor, there are so many articles (millions) so that not every article has even one editor, especially true for minor /lesser articles. I just say this as a good way to learn the ways of wikipedia, by editing smaller articles first rather than the large ones that many people are interested in. Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! If I am honest I was very disappointed. First, I tried to communicate of course and I got a simple answer 'Study history and wiki-rules' and nothing else. If I was admin I think the other part would be willing to speak with me. After that while I was wandering I just realized the justice is less important for the Misplaced Pages. The rules are more important. (I was upset, I wrote a little bit huffily, you can see on the 'nobility' talk page) If they can get an admin post they can misuse from that position. In my case, The problems are rooted from the divergent aspects (Hungarian or 'chechoslovakian' point of view). In the Hungarian Nobility page, If they want to emphasize that slovakian origin, They must tell us it is just one point of view. Others have different opinion....and They have to write down that. If not, deletion is the perfect solution. Moreover that page is not an ethnic based page, they can write that stuff elsewhere. Great Moravia page is nearly the same problem. First, Gyula Kristo's work is not allowed to be unmarked who knows that topic. Secondly, That page has clashing options whether the Empire disappeared immediately, or it was a gradual process, however (what is good) it contains (opposite)theories at least. I have to be patient I know.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That happened in the same time yesterday. I had a disagreement with Yopie and Waldthelmat. I released my opinion on the Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary and Great Moravia talk pages. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)