User talk:Samofi

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Samofi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I undestand my ban. I agree that I was guilty. I have not used sock puppets for a significant time. In the past I was offensive, I have not read Wikipedia´s fundamental rules. But I had a half year for a study of Wikipedia´s rules and for the studying English. I understand that Wikipedia is not battlefield and it can exists more opinions. I would like to contribute to less controversial topics and more discuss about my edits. I think I had a enough time to understand my faults to not make it again. I would like to have a chance to edit Wikipedia again

Accept reason:

Well you managed to generate quite some comments here. I thank you for your replies. It appears that your English is not so bad as to cause problems - but of course you will expected to be careful, as it's not your first language. I would have asked the blocking admin User:Ricky81682 to comment, but he's not been around since July, so that's not an option. You have waited more than the "standard" six months for a block for socking without any clear evidence of any more socking, I am therefore going to assume that all your answers were true and complete and unblock. You will advised that there will be many eyes on your future edits - maybe from some on this page, so be sure to always try to follow the policies - when in doubt, don't edit, ask first - nothing here needs to be done immediately. Note that User:CsabaBabba is now totally disabled. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You are only allowed one account. It is thought that you have used (at least)

• User:MartinMagera
• User:Tobar888

Will you confirm / deny those and can you list any other names that you used back in the past.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Samofi was honest when he rejected the sockpuppetry accusations. For example the accounts User:MartinMagera and User:JanVarga were mine... (Iaaasi (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Maybe - but only he can confirm / deny, and "I have not used sock puppets for a significant time" - suggests he might have.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have used only User:CsabaBabba and my old IP from student campus. I would like to use only this one - Samofi. User:Tobar888 was my friend from student campus I invited him to Wikipedia and he became of victim of several Hungarian Wikipedians because he agreed with my opinions. He was disgusted from their bullying and stopped to contribute to Wikipedia. And about Tobar888: "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Samofi." But he is not my sockpuppet, you can check it. Thank you.

I do not think that it can be true. I am certain if User:CsabaBabba and Samofi are two different people on the ground that CsabaBabba's English is much better than that of Samofi. Perhaps it is possible that they know each other in real life but in this case CsabaBabba is a meatpuppet of Samofi. Just by reading this unblock request [1], everyone could see that Samofi is unable to write in English without making multiple grammatical errors with which it is impossible to contribute here constructively. However, the latest unblock request is better written regarding grammar. [2] And in addition, it is likely that User:BBorbely also belongs to the group of CsabaBabba-Samofi and if anybody says that"I invited him to Wikipedia and he became of victim of several Hungarian Wikipedians because he agreed with my opinions. He was disgusted from their bullying and stopped to contribute to Wikipedia.", it displays a strong bettleground behaviour. --Nmate (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand what is Nmate talking about. User CsabbaBabba was mine, I have still pasword to this account, but I will not use it coz I want be unblocked. I have written above: "I have used only User:CsabaBabba and my old IP from student campus" and Iam worth it. About my English its also written above: "I had a half year for a study of Wikipedia´s rules and for the studying English". About other sockpuppets I dont know, for example Iaaasi confessed that few sockpuppets of Samofi was his sockpuppets. About the imputation of strong bettleground behaviour because of Tobar888: I honestly wrote what he told me - there is no battleground, and user:Tobar888 was not certifiably as my sockpuppet.--Samofi (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, you do not have to convince me that your unblock is auspicious. It is interesting that you accuse Hungarians of committing genocide against Slovaks under your username Samofi. Then emerge as a new user, CsabaBabba, that strongly suggests that you are of Hungarian and try to pretend that you can speak Hungarian...and if you are of Hungarian ,verily, it is even much more despicable. If I were an admin, I would never unblock you but my opinion is not of much importance here.--Nmate (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nmate for opinions. Everyone can change and to study a new informations. I am Slovak with basic knowledge of Magyar language. I have admitted my mistakes and disruptions and changed my expression. I have not used Sockpuppets for a significant time. --Samofi (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may have basic understanding of the Hungarian language, but you don't have basic level English that's for sure. You should continue "to study a new informations" a lot more before even asking to be able to contribute here. Doing so is disrespectful to the other editors who would be relegated to cleaning up broken sentences if you contribute to articles. Other than that I really don't think the project would benefit from more displays of open ethnic hatred such as the case here, because they tend to generate a reaction and a then a counter-reaction to that and wikipedia is a lot worse off in the end. Hobartimus (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you User:Hobartimus but my English level was not a reason of my block. I have stopped with the ethnic hatred stuffs a long time ago. So Iam able to contribute to Wikipedia with the clean sheet again. --Samofi (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Samofi. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You should revert yourself on Martina Hingis

This edit is controversial, because the WP:RSN discussion has not ended, and neither has ended the discussion in the talk page. Please revert yourself.Divide et Impera (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

hi. nope, the discussion still continues on the WP:RSN. bye. --Samofi (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make edits such as this in the future, which go in the opposite direction of what everybody is saying in WP:RSN, and please discuss your thoughts in the talk page, before making such controversial edits,.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Natio Hungarica

Please see Talk:Natio Hungarica. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, pasting book searches isn't really useful. Use a sandbox (e.g. User:Samofi/Natio Hungarica) to write up an article with actual proper references to some of those books, and then submit that for review. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Urls of google searches as sources

You often give urls of google searches as sources (cf. [3]), which is clearly not good enough, since it is absolutely not guaranteed that in the future the results of the searches will be the same for the same queries. Therefore, they cannot be accepted as sources. I undid an edit of yours based on this, but you reinserted the url the same way. Naturally, I will not undo your new edit, since we are not in kindergarten anymore, but this time, I will correct it for you. However, please, in the future do not add urls pointing to search results as references, add only valid sources. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

When you cite a source, please use the citation style already in the article. See WP:CITE. Never (even if that's been done in the article) just use a Google link. You need to add the page number also for books. Using snippets as sources is not satisfactory as it is out of context and you need to have read the source. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I could not believe

Now I know who is the disruptive user. I did not want to believe your editing at page of Principality of Hungary or Page of Hungarian invasions of Europe.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppet and Vandalism

Dear Samofi, on the Administrators' noticeboard you called me a "meatpuppet" and accused me of vandalism. I expect an apology from you and, please, restrain yourself from such personal remarks and unfair accusations in the future. Thank you, Koertefa (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Dear Koertefa, you put for a 3 times a same warning to my talkpage, i have read it, accepted it and answered. It was a uncivil from you. 2. I will cite the clerk for sockpuppet investigation: "Clerk endorsed - From doing an analysis of the contributions, there is a large overlap with regards to editing areas... I think that based on the similar style of edit summary usage as well as similar areas of editing that a check is warranted here." So I have a reason to think that you are a meatpuppet. But if you are not, than sorry. --Samofi (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi, your opinion about me couldn't be less relevant, keep your personal remarks for yourself. About the "vandalism": we both know that you did not answer or accept my warning, unless you call the comment on my Talk page: "I hope that your warning about personal attack was a joke :)" an answer and your deletion with edit tag "rv - it was not a personal attack" an acceptance. I put back the warning twice, since you simply denied its validity, but after you deleted it with the edit tag "removed accepted", I did not put it back anymore. I hope that helped to refresh your memory. All the best, Koertefa (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

result: keep

Cited from the page:

• -- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --
• Article for deletion/dated|page=Principality of Hungary|timestamp=20110905210939|year=2011|month=September|day=5|substed=yes
• For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Principality of Hungary|date=5 September 2011|result=keep
• -- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --Fakirbakir (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning

This edit could fall under WP:CANVASS. Please revert yourself and don't do it anymore. Running to notify an unrelated wikiproject for an article to get more votes is something you shouldn't do.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

its related project. it also covers of slovak history. Fakirbakir wrote to the wikiproject of hungary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary&diff=448936971&oldid=448009488 --Samofi (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a dispute resolution, canvassing is not a good idea. And the fact that fakirbakir did it, doesn't exclude you from having breached WP:CANVASS. I warned you both. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But you reacted to hiss canvassing and you are of the same conviction as he is in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Hungary&diff=448956727&oldid=448925721 So you are an accomplice of this canvass affair :) --Samofi (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am involved, but that doesn't mean I can't give warnings. A warning is to make an editor aware that he is breaching a rule. And btw, after the sources you brought, I actually changed my vote into a comment. And my intention is to help and mediate without you guys go to WP:MEDCAB, since I am completely uninvolved in Slovak-Hungarian issues. I tried to do the same for Martina Hingis, believe it or not. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You were reported.

Here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_can_not_write_a_proper_comment_anymore_because_of_user_SAMOFIFakirbakir (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

links to google searches.

I have noticed that you are copying and pasting the url of your Google searches for others to look at. This can lead to formatting problems since the urls are so long. A simple fix for this is to use the wiki language for an outside link. It looks like this [www.google.com/stuff your text here]. Use one bracket on each end, and simply put a space between the url and whatever you want the link to say. Thanks. Cliff (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hunčík

Please look at the edit history of the article before you template others. If you had checked the edit history, you would notice that I reverted your addition, which had no source at the time and that an edit summary was provided. With regards to the article, the reverted edit was irrelevant since it was already stated that he was a Hungarian living in Slovakia. However, if you have found a source for his ethinicty, then all is well. I have also done a small amount of copy editing to the article to correct some of the grammar and make the text more encyclopedic. I have no issue with the article as long as it is properly sourced and the text is well presented. If you have troubles with writing in grammatically correct english, feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you would like me to help with that in any way. I have watch listed your talk page, so if you reply to this post, please do so on your talk page and leave a talk back template on my page. The template is {{tb|<your username>}}.

I have reverted your template on my talk page, but am assuming good faith since I understand that english may not be your first language and the wiki template system is not the easiest to work with. However, please read WP:DTTR as it is considered impolite to template editors who have been around for some time. Regards --Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ganxsta Zolee

The article Ganxsta Zolee has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jac16888 ^Talk 19:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop this attitude/WARNING

Could you please stop this attitude. "Iam disgusted from your blameing of me and crying here - you are an adult person Fakirbakir." It is personal attack against me.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

do you know why I have said it to you fakirbakir? look what have you written to me at talk-page of principality of hungary. --Samofi (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

you were reported again

[4]Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the continued battleground mentality is what lead to your indefinite block last year. If you resume edit warring and antagonistic editing when this block expires, this account is likely to have the indefinate block reinstated. Kuru (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User Fakirbakir

Chcel by som sa ta spytat na tohoto Fakirbakir-a, ze ake mas s nim skusenosti. Co si vsimam jeho upravy ohladom Slovenskych clankov, tak su 100% negativne editovane. Je to zaujimave, ze tento uzivatel sa sprava coraz agresivnejsie, aj ked on sa svojim zmyslanim ani netaji: The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society.1 --Omen1229 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tercia pars regni

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tercia pars regni. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. If you think that the article should be deleted and replaced by a redirect, then propose this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and then live with whatever the consensus is.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions notice re nationalist edit-warring in Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Another admin has determined (above) that you were edit-warring about Principality of Hungary. It seems that your edits may have been motivated by a nationalist standpoint regarding the history of Eastern Europe. I recommend that in future you take special care to see that all your editing of Eastern European topics is completely neutral, so that nobody can tell from your edits which side you favor. If you don't believe you can do that, then you should limit yourself to commenting on the talk pages. This warning is being logged in the WP:DIGWUREN case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)