Misplaced Pages

Reviewer question

I saw your question go by about "Is it OK to accept you own edits as a reviewer". May I suggest, (by experience) that it would not be wise to accept your own edits during an edit war with another. It gives time for both parties to discuss it on the talk page first. If you are editing on a page where differences of opinion occur, let someone else with a neutral point of view see first. We all get involved in our editing that sometimes we can get blind. How Hope that helps...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits I was talking about were made before being granted the reviewing rights, that is what the problem had appeared. Now my edits are automatically accepted (Iaaasi (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

Thanks for the note. I moved the discussion to the article since it is relevant to it and others can pitch in. I added a few observations there. If you wish, please reply there. Regards! Codrin.B (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Place Names

I have a question about wiki policies. I was accused that this is a "tendentious-looking change", but I don't realize what I did wrong.
By my opininon, this edit was made according to WP:PLACE. The settlement is in a region (Transylvania), which was at the moment under the rule of the Austrian Empire (with German as official language). So I inserted the German name of the village. Is it correct what I've done? Did I misunderstand the guidelines? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Look, no one wants to get involved at your AN/I, but, "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names)" so whichever is more widely excepted.  JoeGazz  ▲  16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All of your edits will be reverted in regular basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Iaaasi

You started the edit war. You are incapable to preclude that. God bye chauvinist agressive teenager-boy! :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.184.250 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution regarding general conduct, sockpuppets and edits

Hi, I'm trying to resolve a dispute with you. You were blocked indefinitely for hate speech and disruption as Iaaasi and later indef blocked many times on various accounts for creating and operating numerous sockpuppets. During your block you actually edited more as the period when you were not blocked, so for the purpose of this dispute resolution I will treat all periods the same. Also we are in the same dispute since you used many of your sockpuppets to edit according to these kindof "manifestos" placed proudly on your user page: Which can be summed up as generating and fueling some sort of ethnic based hatred. Interestingly the very same attribute of the suckpupeteer account user:Bonaparte. During the block you were also in contact with other editors, who edited on your behalf in at least one case. You did not reveal any remaining sockpuppets even though explicitly asked by an administrator to do so. I am concerned that you denied the administrative request to reveal any remaining sockpuppets at that time leading to the conclusion that you had more of them. Also problematic that IRC canvassing took place in that discussion as noted by T. Canens You were in part blocked for hate speech (your user page), yet your current actions as analyzed by an IP editor from the USA here show signs of focused attention to the exact same topic area that was the problem all along with all 15 of your confirmed/claimed accounts. In short I see a problem with your edits being governed by this during the past year, IRC canvassing, and non-disclosure of sockpuppets. As required by dispute resolution process I am first attempting to resolve the long standing (more than a year) issue here on your talk page. I'd like to ask you to conduct your editing and interactions with other users in a manner which doesn't remind them of , stick to NPOV and to refrain from using sockpuppets once and for all. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly you are asking, be more specific.(Iaaasi (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Also, during the time you had been blocked for indefinite time, you had made a promise that if you were unblocked, you would stay yourself away from engaging in controversial issues in the future. And in addition, the aforesaid Ip editor, who lives in the USA, also told you to "try to stay away from this nationalistic stuff." But you joined the WikiProject_Hungary and put a photo onto your userpage with a caption of "The Union of Transylvania with the Motherland.".Do you think that it is a sign of staying away from the controversial issues? And if this is your opinion about the Hungarias , your participation in the WikiProject Hungary is nothing more than a cheap provocation. Hereby, I would like to ask you to delete your name from the name list of the participants therewith. --Nmate (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)