User talk:VinceB

Archives: 1

Blabla starts here:

VandalProof

I was just using VandalProof when I realized that you are on the blacklist. :) So take care with your edits. :) NCurs e _work 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

szia

Wow, I just looked at that link to the Magyarization talk page you sent me. I don't even want to think what it's like to try and make some positive contributions to a hot-button article like that! :) Again, all I can figure out is, our best "weapon" against various nationalist brickheads from all countries is just to be as well-informed, reasoned and (usually) calm as possible--then the brickheads are the ones that look like idiots. :) LOL As for that 56 flag "userbox", I guess we (I think half the Magyars here put it on their pages!) should be taking them down now, as it is post-Nov. 10. :( I think Istvan was the one who started the "trend", and he's taken his down now, but I can't bring myself to delete mine. I want that flag to fly forever! :) Cheers! K. Lastochka 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to take down the 56 flag and my computer kept freezing up. I don't think it wants me to take it down. :) And of course, I didn't mean we should ignore the various bullshit that gets posted, not at ALL. I just wanted to make sure we remember to be civil--because you know them, the slightest hint of nationalist sentiment or the slightest instance of some Hungarian losing his temper, and suddenly we're "deranged fascist chauvinist propagandists." :) K. Lastochka 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 56 project isn't completely over yet--we're still occasionally coming up with ideas to expand the whole thing with links to "sister articles"--the anecdotes one that's up for deletion review, some stuff about cultural representations (movies books memorials etc.) of the revolution, and one of these days I will probably start reading up on my general C. Europe history for an ambitious article all on the political repercussions of 56 up to the present day. As for other projects, nothing really big yet--although I would love to see us repeat our 56 success with 1848. EnWiki doesn't even have an article specifically about the Hungarian 1848 events, for heaven's sake! We should all probably wait a bit before jumping into a big new project though. Right now I'm just sort of wandering around various Hungary articles (and other interesting stuff as well) making some minor clarifications and yelling at immature name-callers on talk pages. Such as here: '[1]' :-) K. Lastochka 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Szórakozz!!!

Olvasd csak el a diszkumat Comediannal (Pannonian új neve) a Talk: Sajan (village) pagen és szórakozz egy jót!!! (az összehasonlitásom biztos nagyon fog tetszeni!!!) --Öcsi 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigyázz ne ess háromerreres csapdába függetlenül, hogy neked van igazad. A pacák óvatos nem hiszem, hogy az ő száma az a keresett. Bendeguz 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names

No, it is you that started revert war. I recently started a huge NPOV-ization of Vojvodina related articles, including placing foreign names into appropriate "name" sections. Foreign names are not so important information to be in the first sentence of the article. By the way, your Hungarian friend suggested this anyway, see: Talk:Baja, Hungary for more details. Also, I removed these names only from places with Serb majority and left them in the places with the Hungarian majority. If that do not look like fair compromise to you, then I suppose that you are ready to have full scale revert war with me and several other Serbian users in all Vojvodina related articles. Have a nice day... PANONIAN (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you can put all foreign names for Hungarian towns into separate "name" sections, I do not object to that. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I told you is that he (another guy on that talk page) suggested that names do not belong into first sentence and I accepted his view. These names used in the first sentence are POV and if anybody search for them, he can easy find them in the name section where they belong. So, if you want, accept compromise that I offered to you, and if you do not want to, then it is your own choice how you will waste your free time. PANONIAN (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell you talking about??? It was YOU that started to writte Hungarians names for places in the whole Central Europe. And if you want, I promise that I will create these name sections in the articles about Hungarian towns as soon as you stop this ridiculous revert war here. PANONIAN (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Please, read some ETYMOLOGYCAL divtionary before removing some data. 1. Paprika is of Serbian origin- you can read that in A magyar nyelv tortoneti-etimologiai szotara, or any other Hungarian etymological divtionary 2. Vampir is undoubtfully of SLavic origin, and the first mention of vampires is conected to Serbia- sf. the artivle on vampires on wikipedia.com 3. Sliwowitz is derivred from Serbian sljiva "plumb"- sf. KLUGE, or any other German erymological dictionary, or DUDEN.

So please... samo polako :) --82.117.194.34 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagyon rossz vicc

Látom mi történt a elmúlt orákban a vitalapodon - és csak szörnyülködni tudok. Milyen világban élünk mi? Ha valakinek más véleménye van rögtön beverjük a fejét?

Én remélem ez csak egy nagyon rossz vicc volt, és nem lesz semmi következménye. Mindenesetre minden jót kivánok neked, és hogy ez maradjon csak egy rossz vicc.

Ha mégis valami történne... isten ments! --Öcsi 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Van egy fontos infóm neked a vitalapomon! Öcsi

Ideírom: Tudod, hogy a nevezetes fehér sasok a újvidéki (szerb) focicsapat "címerállataji" (asszem úgy is hívják a klubbot). Na, és ki lakik Újvidéken? A mi barátunk.... User:Öcsi

Még valami: úgy tünik ez a Tankred nagyon bele van zúgva Panonianba, nézd csak az írásait: "he has done a great amount of work", "he has made ~27000 edits (és még a pontos számokat is tudja?!)", etc. Hát nem furcsa? Szerintem az eléggé részrehajló, ha valaki valakit ennyire "istenít". --Öcsi 10:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

Per a recent request at WP:PAIN I have reviewed your recent contributions and seen mild violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. While I have deemed a block inappropriate at this time, the behavior would be blockable if it continues on a routine or habitual basis. Please consult with your mentor or per this essay try drafting comments in a word processing program and reviewing them an hour or so later before posting to the site. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fontos!

Megvan mit írt:

There is an old Balkanic saying (it is not Serbian one) that say that "to be free you have not only to liberate your own village but also to burn the village of your neighbour who belong to other ethnicity or religion". What is a point? When one Hungarian irredentist say that Vojvodina should belong to Greater Hungary and some Serb in Vojvodina heard this, the Serb (not every one, but there are those who would) will go out, find some Hungarian on the street, beat him and force him to leave the country - the logic of that Serb is simple and has much to do with Balkanic saying that I mentioned: if he force Hungarian to leave, then he will ensure that his town and village will never belong to Greater Hungary, i.e. he will ensure his own freedom. So, mister Öcsi, do you see what actually I done here on Wikipedia? By removing irredentist stuff from the articles, I also prevented that some Serb who read that stuff go out to street to beat Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lásd: Talk:Demographic history of Vojvodina

You have been blocked

Regarding this edit, your recent warning, and incident history, I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Please take care to remain civil and avoid personal attacks whenever possible. You may wish to start a request for comment or make use of the dispute resolution process, when the block expires. Please take this chance to think things over and calm down -- I encourage you to resolve disputes as calmly as possible in the future. Sorry. Luna Santin 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Giving cited statements are honored with a block. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary

I explained several times on the article's talk page that your edit[2] contradicts the conventional wisdom. Unless you provide evidence that Hungary has remained recognized as an independent state by other members of the state system since 896, your edit is simply a vandalism. You cannot compromise quality of this encyclopedia by pushing your POV and ignoring the standard lists of independent states compiled by political scientists and experts on international law. You have got your last warning before and your last block just expired. I am going to revert your non sense now. If you continue vandalizing that page, you can get blocked again. Please, be reasonable. Tankred 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince, your personal attacks against Tankred on Talk:Hungary are completely unnecessary. I don't see what he has done to warrant such abuse. On that thread he is being very logical, rational and reasonable, you are the one displaying an apparent lack of understanding and/or knowledge. I suspect you're smarter than that, so please try to be more civil tomorrow. :) K. Lástocska 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Új módi

Úgy látszik eggyre többen tetszést találnak a bejelentem-azt-hogy-otthagyom-a-wikipédiát-de-aztán-két-nap-mulva-visszatérek-módiban. Nemde? :))))) --Öcsi 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali

Kedves Vince, szerinted az a rész egy enciklopédiába való? Elég egyértelmű, hogy sem tartalma, sem formája nem megfelelő. Nem minden nagy törlés, amit anon csinál, vandalizmus.--80.98.188.165 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Pontosabban Mathae 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ha így jobban tetszik.[reply]

Igaz, bennem is felmerült, hogy be kéne lépni... de érdekes kísérlet volt ;)--Mathae 11:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent personal attack

Please, provide a diff proving that I "encouraged" "disruptive and higly biased work". If you are unable to find any such evidence, your accusation is just a personal attack and I must ask you to remove it from your user page. Tankred 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to remove your personal attacks

Upon encouragement of a respected admin,[3] I would like to ask you to remove (strike out) your accusations (such as "You are agressive, hostile, and highly uncivil, and seemingly you have some personal vindictiveness or whatever childish thing against me") that you left at [4] You did not provide any diffs proving what you said in this and your previous comment[5] about me and you even did not say explicitly in your "request" what kind of my alleged behavior should be "investigated". Therefore, I consider both comments just a personal attack and a kind of retaliation after I filed a regular request for investigation. Hoping that our relations will become less antagonistic in the future, I am ready to accept your apology on my talk page if you strike out your attacks against me and User:PANONIAN at WP:RFI and delete your attacks against me from USER:VinceB. Tankred 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added many difflinks, became explicit, and removed the last line. shortcut to RFI#Tankred. Lets discuss it after that one. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've run into trouble before for compromising quoted text from cited sources. You've done it again. I have blocked you. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hi, you blocked me due to untrue reasons. Tankred simply lied, when he reported me as "vandal", since I just reverted a sockpuppet's action. We have a long polemy between us. He simply lied to you and you accepted it, everything is here, in this difflink down there, with the clear denial of "vandalism" also. Therefore, this blocking should be deleted from the block history of me. Or unblock reason should contain that vandalism was a false accusation.}}

See:[6] Everything is written down in here. User:Piotrus has also reviewed the case, and decided that I'm right, it was not vandalism. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find any Piotrus' comment supporting your vandalism. I found only the opposite.[7] I provided all the diffs in my request and I believe your block was needed. Citations should never be compromised. Whenever they are, one of the pillars of Wikipedia's reliability is threatened. Tankred 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this unblock request for another admin to act on, but edits such as [8] can probably fairly be described as vandalistic. A block based on this, looking at the user's prior block history, doesn't appear to be prima facie inappropriate. Sandstein 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of concern

Although I've been busy with other matters I haven't forgotten about you. A couple of months back I shortened a one week block because you entered WP:ADOPT. The outcome of mentorship ought to be improvement. Since then you've been the topic of additional noticeboard requests and you've collected additional userblocks. You've also been the subject of three checkuser requests. These are not the characteristics of someone who's adjusting to Wikipedia and becoming a productive editor. I recommend you have a serious look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing because a mounting history of problems could culminate in a community siteban. I don't think you're at that point yet, but I do think you're at the point where a strong caution is in order. Consider the direction you're headed and adjust your course. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beszélj angolul

I noticed that you have posted comments on an article or user discussion page in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you are addressing your comments. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —Psychonaut 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As common, on enwiki, especially amongst non english users :-) bah...--91.120.109.177 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: religions in Hungary

Hi Vince, in fact I didn't care much about what we call the other 25% – to me "agnostic/atheist/Jew/other" is just as good as "mostly not affiliated" or something similar. What I find ridiculous is the breakdown of "other Christians" – a total 1%! – into "mainly Unitarians, Jehovah's witnesses, and Hit Gyülekezete". I agree these three communities are remarkable in some ways, however to mention them in such an infobox is a joke. (And I'd apply this to hu:wiki too, if I were a regular editor there.)

In fact, I've been thinking about simplifying the list even more, into something like "Christians 76% (the majority Roman Catholic with various Protestant minorities); Other 24%". There's no need for anything more detailed than that: interested people will find their way to Demographics of Hungary, or Religion in Hungary if it is created one day.

Now that I look at it, there is yet another problem: we're talking about the article Hungarian people, not Hungary, so it is highly likely that these numbers are incorrect (I guess there are no exact data about the religions of Canadian Hungarians, for example...) One more reason to prefer something less detailed.

I hope that's enough of an answer, tell me if you wanted to know something else.

Happy editing, K issL 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a lot better than the previous version. I've just changed the formatting a bit. K issL 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your personal attack

Please, cross out this comment of yours.[9] You called another user a "fascist" and a "racist". Your comment also implies that I somehow support racist and fascist views. This is really offensive. Tankred 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Clash of Civilizations

Please try to comment only on article content, rather than making remarks directed towards specific users. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thanks, Khoikhoi 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of references

You included a reference in History of Slovakia in order to support your claim that the first Slovak National Party was "stongly pan-slavic" (by the way, the typo is yours, not mine).[10] I have checked the cited article and it does not even mention the first Slovak National Party. This is not the first time you have abused citations and you have already been blocked for it.[11] I strongly encourage you to quit this practice. I would like also to ask you to refrain from hostile comments in edit summaries, such as "WOW ! You're emotions and prejudices getting defeated by your brain! Walk this way, and maybe we'll be able to talk normally once" (again, quoted with the original misspelling).[12] You can find the most recent NPA warning by an admin just above this comment. Please take it into account. Tankred 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply wrong link copied. Right one: [13]. WP:FAITH buddy. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough

Your last comment clearly violates WP:NPA. Please stop attacking me. You accused me of supporting and encouraging "anti-Hungarian 'very far-right' ultra-nationalist ppl., such as Bonaparte". Those are serious allegations. And your advise "Maybe you should start to think first" means what? This is enough. Find yourself another hobby than harassing me. Tankred 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to you. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Vince, it is you who attacking Tankred, and you also started to attack me. You really should stop this behaviour - it is too much even for you. PANONIAN (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had better clean up your act

Vince, listen to me. You have GOT to start behaving in a civilized fashion here. You have been acting like a bad-tempered little child in your "conversations" with Tankred and Panonian, always assuming bad faith, calling names, accusing your fellow editors of everything from stupidity to outright fascism, and deliberately perpetuating and continuing angry arguments. Worst of all is your habit of always turning the topic of conversation to your antagonist's political views. That is unacceptable, Vince, that's what trolls and POV-pushers do. You want to be better than that, don't you? A person's political opinions are their own business and nobody else's, and to assume certain things about a person because of political views they hold (or ones that you just think they hold) is no better than to assume things about someone simply because they are Slovak or Serbian or Hungarian or whatever else. You are engaged in exactly the same methods of "debate" that you accuse Tankred and Panonian of, and you wonder why they don't get along with you? You wonder why you have such a bad reputation in certain circles?

Vince, I'm telling you this because I think you can do better. Also, since I am neither Slovak nor Serbian, nor even Romanian, I hope you might actually trust me instead of just assuming that I too come in bad faith. :)K. Lásztocska 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 month block

Two months ago I posted here to remind you of my ongoing concerns about your conduct. Per WP:NPA I have issued another userblock and this time it's a long one. Numerous warnings and previous blocks have not stopped the problems. I hope this gets your attention because you simply cannot go on insulting other people at this site forever. The alternatives I chose between were this or proposing a community siteban against you. A siteban probably would have gotten approved, but you're still part of WP:ADOPT and I've chosen the more lenient route. Most problem editors don't get this many chances, so make the most of this one. I won't offer another. Durova^Charge! 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. You do not read my proofs. Never did. No wonder, you act like this. You've promised several times before, you check my edits. Well, you didn't. I've proofs for all my "accusations". I put a lot of difflinks, but no, you were not intrested. No wonder, enwiki is getting always in trouble. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 11:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you've gone astray

either behave or go away

or you won't come back in May. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Vince, that rebuttal tramples WP:AGF. I certainly have looked into your edits in considerable depth. The bottom line here is that Wikipedia doesn't allow you to construe citations and diffs into a license to be rude. I had hoped that your editing would mature into an understanding of that distinction. You've had nearly six months to turn things around, which is far more patience than most disruptive editors receive. When I finally issue a long block you promptly violate WP:SOCK and WP:POINT on my own user talk page. I warned you months ago that you were headed toward a siteban. In the last day you've made that decision very simple. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CN#Community_ban_proposal_for_VinceB

A community ban proposal is under discussion for your account. If you wish to make a statement in your defense you may do so at this talk page. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nice that you go over the content, and just look at formality. He's personal? So what he says is evil also, or bad. I've apologized for many many times, fo my behave, ony my userpage also, accepted adoptery or what, also presented many evidents, proofs, or however you want to call it for my "accusations" before. Slovan is still my roommate, he's go another account since, so I'm not loggin in from his PC anymore. But of course this is not true, wich is really not an accusation, oh not. Not a personal attack, oh not. Not a derogatory thing, no not. You're judging with total perfection. You know, that Slovan does not exist, and you have proofs for that. No matter, that he's sitting besides me and laughing. The bad guy is the personal guy, as usual. Maybe a mentor, who mentors me, not just put a nice userbox on my userpage would help. Otherways, notorious sockpuppeteers can be lifted from indef ban [14]? Noone took the time not the click, to check evidents, what I presented, check the refs, what I ALWAYS added to my edits, no. I go personal? REVERT! I'm the bad one, not those, who give ridicuolus or none or unverifiable, or recently: POV sources, like at Miklós Horty. No. Personal? Ban at sight. The content of his words behind personal things? Hey, this is not that place. This is Wikipedia. Speak nice with liars Tankred caught 4 times lying - read the last comment by me, and swallow their actions without a word. For ex I've got death threats immediately, when P started a lame edit war with me from a Serbian IP address (P is Serbian also), [15]. Maybe I got frustrated a bit? No I can not be angry, I have to swallow it, and speak nice or I got banned. Content of his words? Who cares, this is Wikipedia. Speak nice or die! I've leart it. Yeah. Ave wikiprocess. Nice. Thank you. Negligency will kill (already killed) this organization. --91.120.82.124 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In summarized form, and shortened: You stuck in formalities, and you never got deep into the dispute. This higly negligent approach to my problem led to my previous bans, and also to my angry behave. BTW. I make only statements. When I say about somebody, that he/she's a liar, I can prove it (see abouve). Whe I say abt somebody, that he/she's negligent, and do not even click on it, what I link in, I can prove it. (see above). Everything, I said, I can underline with evidences. I'm not stupid, just fucking angry about the wonderful wikipedia, that these scumbags (oh, trillion years for this, twice) build. In fact, this word is a test, if you reply to that, of to the content. Since I've rarely seen that. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]