User talk:Rob.HUN

Welcome

Hello, Rob.HUN! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. 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 using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username 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! Hobartimus (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

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 • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Warning

Hello, I'm TheDacian. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Magyarization without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! TheDacian (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

FYI, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob.HUN. RashersTierney (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
The nice warning has already been given. You've been reported to the 3RR noticeboard and you need to stop. Consult the talk page and engage in consensus - otherwise you risk being blocked. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake, interest, or care in the page. You have been warned over your edits and repeatedly asked to take place in discussion on the talk page with those who are interested in the page and who have been editing the page. Your lack of respect for their requests and POV pushing is what will end up resulting in your block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusti (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as those reporting can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.

@Rob.HUN: That is, for better or worse, not how it works. Multiple experienced users have undone your edit and told you to get a consensus before making it again. You can not continue to revert everyone like this regardless of your belief on their lack of reasoning. That is what the talk page is for, I do not care what the end result is but it's going to require consensus on the talk page before it happens at this point given the back and forth that has already ensued. In order to give you as good of a chance of seeing this and not doing something that will get you blocked I'm going to take a couple actions: First I'm leaving this now, Second I'm going to start a conversation on the talk page about your edits to the cause section, Third I'm going to come here and link you to that discussion, Fourth I am going to undo your last two edits too Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. After that if you revert me you are going to be immediately blocked for at least 24 hours. If, before I undo your edits, someone else does that then you must not revert them again or I will indeed block you. We can not allow this cycle to continue, I strongly encourage you to engage on the discussion I am about to start on the talk page and to wait until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached before you attempt to edit that section of the article again (and to respect the consensus that is reached, whether it is in your favor or not). James of UR (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this thread on on the talk page , I'm going to revert the last edits as well now. I see (below) that another admin has actually already blocked you while I was doing that. I'm going to alert him to this discussion but if he wants to keep you blocked (which is completely reasonable) I'm not going to challenge it. If that's the case I urge you to take the next 48 hours to calm down and then to engage on the talk page thread when your block expires. James of UR (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Dusti (Result: ). Thank you. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as those reporting can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I'm at three reverts on the page that's being edit warred on - would you be willing to revert to the last stable version prior to Rob's edits so talks can begin/continue on the talk page? Thanks :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I blocked and that's all I'll do. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert, looks like Acroterion was faster then I was on the block :) (see the ... 2nd... September 2014 notice above). James of UR (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:D--Rob.HUN (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Though @Jamesofur: finally managed to open a section on the Talk page, being blocked I surely won't be able to discuss anything there. So much for the spirit of WP. :D --Rob.HUN (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't justify reverting six times. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will be able to take part in the discussion when your block runs out (it's relatively short). Please remember that in the end it is NOT necessarily the 'other sides' responsibility to start the discussion. They certainly can but it is not mandatory. The idea is Bold, Revert, Discuss, you were bold and made the changes, they reverted the changes and then it was time to discuss. Either side could start that discussion on the talk page but the discussion part was necessary. It is not ok to continue reverting back and demanding that they give you a reason not too, that will always get you blocked in the end sadly. James of UR (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I commend your efforts to instill some objectivity into this article, it was never going to happen. It's too tightly controlled by half a dozen system-gamers. Any attempt to divert from the official narrative was always going to be stomped on. Meanwhile, during your enforced down-time you might like to look at an alternative version here 82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Orbanomics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Orbanomics. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Economy of Hungary. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Economy of Hungary – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. crh23 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history at University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Târgu Mureș shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Iptycenes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Iptycenes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia: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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of the definiton of "stub" according to WP: A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. Thank you! Rob.HUN (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for for persistent edit warring on European migrant crisis. Given your history of warnings and a prior block for this very thing, you really have no excuse. This was aggravated by your use of personal attacks in accusing another editor of acting in bad faith, contrary to our Assume Good Faith behavioral guideline. It is important to focus on content, not contributors, and not to further inflame disputes with such accusations against fellow editors in good standing. I recommend you take some time to review WP:COOL and WP:APR, as well as the previous links in this message. They're all important.

Block length: 3 days
The Guide to Appealing Blocks

Regards, Swarm ♠ 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Swarm Referring to the earlier warnings, you as an administrator of 3 years, should be more aware of the overheated debates surrounding Central and Eastern European articles. I am certainly focused on contribution, that is why I find it suspicious on part of Castncoot insisting on mentioning The NYT by name. Castncoot also didn't give any reason or reference for adding "refugee crisis" and did not try to explain his stance on the Talk page in either case. It looks like usual American Arrogance strikes again - on both of your part. Rob.HUN (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Accusing others of arrogance when the blocking admin noted that you should assume good faith is not helpful. You should focus on your own conduct instead. Huon (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Refugees vs. migrants

Your contribution: "A refugee is, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention, any person who "owing to a well-founded fear" of persecution is outside their country of nationality and "unable" or "unwilling" to seek the protection of that country. To gain the status, one has to go through the legal process of claiming asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

As soon as someone fleeing persecution and mortal danger gets into a country where he/she is no longer persecuted but still caries on "fleeing" without invitation by a third country, he/she is no longer a refugee but a migrant.

The only real refugees in Europe Schengen Area are Lybian citizens whose country is a direct neighbour to the Schengen Area."

The second paragraph is mendacious. Nowhere is mentioned that a refugee must apply for asylum in the first safe country.[[User:Zlobr 007|Zlobr 007] (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zlobr 007 "Nowhere is mentioned that a refugee must apply for asylum in the first safe country." That is not what I wrote. Furthermore it is a the Schengen Area regulation, that sy from a non-Schengen Area country aplying for refugee status (that is something that has to be decided and granted if appropriate through a legal process) must do so in the first Schengen state he/she enters. Rob.HUN (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orbanomics

You've created the Orbanomics article, which is very important issue, but remained stub. Could you expand with reliable sources? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rob.HUN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to log in when you edit. Otherwise people may think you are trying to conceal your edits. Deb (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]