Talk:Hedvig Malina/Archive 1

This article is not a biography
Although this article pretends to be biography (WP:Biography), it is only the description of a single event (WP:BIO1E). Additionaly, it probably violates WP:NOT. I request to move this article to the event description or to move it to Wikinews, until the cause is closed and resolved by police and courts. 147.175.98.213 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to nominate it for deletion as soon as the 2 editors stop removing tags and so on.--Svetovid (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:Biography template has lately been inserted, the article does not 'pretend' anything. Move it to The Hedvig Malina case? Why didn't you start with that proposal? That is not a deletion, but a renaming process. Squash Racket (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read what you comment. I wrote: "I request to move this article to the event description" just a few lines above. So that is the answer to your question "Why didn't you start with that proposal?" I did start with that proposal.147.175.98.213 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Slovak Neo-Nazi attack
Another attack happened, this time in Besztercebánya. Source. I guess with more and more of these attacks coming it will be harder and harder to deny their existence or claim that the victims attacked themselves. Hobartimus (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is relevant b/c  1. It's a very similar attack to the one described in the article (hate crime) 2. Early in the case the Slovak government made the claim that such an attack is impossible and now this is direct contradiction. With more attacks happening it will be harder to deny them which they tried to do for a very long time. 3. extra sources are always good to have on the talk page in case they needed. Hobartimus (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the linked article describes an attack of skinheads on Roma people, which is, unfortunately, not that special. Point 1: doesn't make sense. I am not gonna talk about Clinton on Bush's talk page because they were both US presidents. Point 2: The Slovak government never said that skinheads/neonazis/racists don't beat people. It wouldn't make sense and you made that up. Point 3: That's not an extra source. That's just you linking two independent cases to promote your agenda.--Svetovid (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. It can be very relevant, also on the Clinton page its possible to talk about the other Clinton. 2.I am waiting for proof for your nice statement that the "Slovak government never said..." since you made that statement so easily and definitively you must have proof. Its funny how you did the same thing you say "wouldn't make sense" in making a strong negative statement without proof. Since you don't even read carefully the things you reply to, this will be hard. First just familiarize yourself with the case before making blanket statements about never did this never did that, also read the actual comment you reply to. 3. Did you actually read the source? Hobartimus (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. How is it relevant here? 2. Please learn the basics of logical debate. You said that: "Early in the case the Slovak government made the claim that" and the burden of proof is on you. I am not going to try to prove negative. 3. Yes, I've read the source. Also, what you and your source failed to mention is that the attack was done by 1 Slovak and 3 Czechs, so your xenophobic agenda focused on Slovakia is exposed again. Also, it didn't happen in Banská Bystrica but in Krupina, which is another inaccuracy on your side.--Svetovid (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was really uncalled for. First "you and your source" and then you even go one lower with "your ... agenda .... exposed" instead of just writing, well... "your source" or "the source you quoted" in both cases. "Your source said x but I've read a different source that said y." Thats how it should've sounded without the despicable personal attack. Hobartimus (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that these kinds of things don't happen elsewhere, but if you want examples: Why is this relevant here? Because most of these articles discover some kind of connection between the radical right wing party being in the government and the spread of radical right wing violence in Slovakia. They also talk about the Slovak police not doing much to capture the attackers. Squash Racket (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * eleven Slovak Neonazis travelled all the way to Serbia to participate in beating up antifascist protesters in October, 2007 (even if you don't speak Hungarian, you will probably understand the title)
 * 20 skinheads were beating two Greek and a Lybian student to unconsciousness in Bratislava in November, 2007; police says not racism was the cause
 * Daniel Tupý Bratislava student beaten to death by Slovak Neonazis in November, 2005, that's an older case, police identified the attackers, no arrests yet allegedly because of problems in the witness protection system


 * As you say, "these articles discover some kind of connection". I would go further and say, that the articles manufacture these connections.
 * There is no link between the neonazists and the slovak government. Slovak government initiated (and completed) the process of making the neonazistic organizations in Slovakia illegal. That is more than the hungarian government ever did.
 * Anyway, until you give us the translation of these articles, they are useless in this discussion. This is an english discussion.147.175.98.213 (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hedviga Malinová vs. Hedvig Malina
The current name of the article is a Hungarian translation of the real name Hedviga Malinová. The name Malina is used in Hungarian media only, including English translations ((e.g.:Magyar Nemzet, Budapest and Hungarian News Agency). Moreover, the current article was vandalized by editors removing tags without explanation. The page should redirect to the real article so it can be nominated for deletion as non-notable without problems of inaccuracy.--Svetovid (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When you mention English language sources use this name, even quoting such English language sources you hurt your case quite a bit as this is the English Wikipedia, not the Slovak one. If you want a move, request a move. If you want deletion request a deletion, what is so hard about following Wikipedia processes? What you want here is completely insane, first rename then delete? What good will the rename do if deleted? Care to explain? Hobartimus (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may try to disrupt the delete process claiming that the article is inaccurate and only needs to be corrected, not deleted.-Svetovid (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial request by an unregistered user
NOTE: for a real request please follow official WP process. Squash Racket (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

''NOTE: This is just the request to share your opinions. I apologize to user Squash Racket if I made him think, it is something else.''147.175.98.213 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a pro-contra discussion. Feel free to add comments and new points between my lines.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro Hedviga Malinová
- it is her official name, written in her documents like ID card, passport, state registry.

- the official representatives of Magyars in Slovakia, the Party of the Hungarian Coalition(SMK-MKP), are using this name

Pro Hedvig Malina
- it is the magyar equivalent of the name and she is of Hungarian ethnicity


 * Please note that all the talk about ethnicity, official names and official representatives is completely irrelevant to the choice of name for the article. If you have a look at the policy, all that matters is the most common name used for her in English language texts.  It doesn't matter if the most common name doesn't match her ethnicity or official use - we just use the name with the greatest prevalence.  The best thing to do now is to start looking for English language coverage of this case, seeing which name is used and reporting the evidence back here. Knepflerle (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity has practically nothing to do with, and our rules are not based on either "official names" or "birth names", as Knepflerle says. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory added by IP 147.175.98.213
First question, should conspiracy theories be added at all, if so maybe to a separate section not to mix facts with nonsense? Secondly  the one added by the IP reads badly in English and it's not really clear what is the theory there (who committed the attack according that theory). So the main question is should conspiracy theories be added as one was added by an IP belonging to Slovak Technical University. Hobartimus (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory is a valid theory at the moment. Due to mistakes, changes of claims (on both sides) and the intervention of political parties and governments, we cannot neglect the possibility, that some of the theories are true. Therefore, it is legitimate to write about them. I think, that if you read the quote carefully, you will figure out, who commited the attack according to it. Btw. the correct name is Slovak University of Technology.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, I changed the title of this section. IP refers to Internet Protocol. All contributions here were added via IP.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IP refers to many things, quite a few other than Internet Protocol, (for a detailed list, see ) in the context of wikipedia of course it means users such as yourself represented by their IP address instead of a user name. Anyway writing "if you read the quote carefully, you will figure out" exactly outlines my point, the average reader should be able to quickly get the meaning of the text, not 'figure it out' after 'careful reading'. Still the main question is should there be coverage of consp. theories, and should there be an own section for them. Since you seem to agree that there should be coverage the question to you is, should there be a section for them at the end of the article? (before I'm adding any consp. theories I'd like at least 1-2 users opinion on whether consp. theories should be in the article in the first place). Hobartimus (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IP refers to many things, but where in your list is the meaning you use? ("it means users such as yourself represented by their IP address")
 * OK, we can reformulate it and translate it to simple english. Would "Malinova has been a pawn in a Hungarian political game." be better? Or you can come with a better formulation.
 * The article was writing about conspiracy theories since the beginning of it's existence. I merely expanded it. Anyway, I don't think, that it should be placed under the header "Conspiracy theories". Similarly, we could create the heading "Nationalist attack theories" and I think that is not what we want.
 * In the cause, there are 3 main theories. All these theories are valid (i.e. they explain the observations) and all these theories have a substantial number of supporters. I suggest to reformulate the article to list these theories, without pointing to one as "the truth". At the current state of investigations (with several big mistakes on both sides, as I wrote previously), it is not possible to discard any of these theories a false.
 * Malinova was beaten by nationalists;
 * Malinova was not beaten by nationalist (2 versions: she was beaten and robbed, but not because of nationalistic motives OR she was not beaten at all);
 * Malinova was used in a political game to blackmail Slovakia. (This theory is not mutually exclusive with the previous ones.)
 * Wikipedia is not the place, where we should decide about guilt or innocence. It is merely a place, where we can collect as much information as possible.147.175.98.213 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the concept of Wikipedia, conspiracy theories do not get mixed up with facts, under any circumstance. I'm against reporting conspiracy theories but if others insist that they get covered I will add some for which I have sources. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information "collecting as much" information "as possible" was never this project purpose and probably never will be. Information we collect has to meet certain criteria for inclusion, for example what I or other editors think of some of your edits is certainly information that could be collected, maybe even found on some talk pages, but has no place in wikipedia articles. Also the fact that you can source some garbage does not automaticly mean that it has a place in an article, this is why I want consensus first before opening the door on conspiracy theories. Hobartimus (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole article is based on theories. I am aware, that the "what I or other editors think" criteria is very important to you, especially the "I" part. Yes, let's try to achieve a consensus. But I doubt it will be possible soon, because there is a big difference between individual points of view. The least thing we can do in such case is to include all significant points of view, but marking them as points of view. The "you can source some garbage" is something, you should think about too. Not everything you find in a newspaper is true and reliable. You reacted to the "as much as possible" part of my comment. But what do you think about the "not the place, where we should decide about guilt or innocence" part?147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, that I never wrote, that the attack didn't happen. Basically, what I do is demanding more reliable information. This whole article is based on news articles (and perhaps violating WP:NOT), so saying, that one news article is reliable while other (preferably slovak) is not, is not a good point in this discussion.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like at least one other user (User:Squash Racket) de facto agrees with the add, as he is further expanding it:. 147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now the truth: first I removed it, while it seemed to be copyright violation, then IP stated small excerpts did not violate copyright laws. To avoid pointless edit war I just tried to make it more NPOV. I think if we add ALL conspiracy theories, IP will agree to remove them all. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your only reason for removal was the so-called copyright violation. You didn't write anything about the content in the justification of the removal. After you figured out, that the copyright is OK, you expanded it. Therefore, I concluded, that you agree with the text.
 * I think, that if you include all relevant theories, clearly saying what the theory says and who are the advocates of the theory, then the article will be substantially improved.147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best to let the article state the facts with sources and leave the conspiracy theories alone, if someone is intrested in conspiracy theories, wikipedia already has an article on that subject. Hobartimus (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with "It would be best to let the article state the facts with sources". There is a source to what I added. Moreover, several high representatives of the Slovak Republic (including the president and prime minister) share the opinion, that it is more a hungarian political game than a "simple" crime. It is therefore a relevant information.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you repeat the same thing. What is a 'political game', you repeat it every time never explaining what it is, or who supposedly committed the crime. If you beleive that it was Bugár Béla undercover, dressed up as a Slovak neo-Nazi, just say it out loud instead of all these 'intresting' remarks of yours. Hobartimus (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, for all those who don't understand the meaning of the words "hungarian political game". This whole cause was heavily misused by several politicians (mainly of hungarian origin) to blackmail Slovakia and slovak government and gain international attention. For this reason, it is possible to assume, that the incident itself was either (1) a simple robbery (a significant amount of money and valuables was reported to have been stolen) repainted to nationalistic crime or (2) the whole cause is artificially constructed. So the answer to your question:
 * What is the crime according to this theory? The construction of a cause intended to harm international credibility of Slovakia
 * Who is the victim? (1)Hedviga Malinova, whose life was affected in a very negative way by the cause and (2) the Slovak republic, whose credibility was harmed by false accusations of nationalistic oppression.
 * Final note: (repeating myself, but you don't seem to read my whole comments) I don't say, that this theory is true. I say, it is not possible to neglect the possibility, that it might be true.147.175.98.213 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackmail Slovakia to do what? Do you even know what blackmail means? You really do not understand that only Slovak autorities can harm the credibility of their state by abusing, misusing their powers and not investigating the case properly? Or was the Slovak government also in on the conspiracy guess they are also part of it because their conduct is the only thing that can harm anyones credibility. Your interpretation of this theory has so many holes and contradictions in it its not even funny but it shows quite a lot about you just the way you wrote it down. Hobartimus (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Blackmail" was not the correct word, excuse my english language.
 * That is not my theory, nor my interpretation. That is the theory published in a source, which was already added to the article before. I only expanded the text to show, what the theory is about. Your comments and edits say much about you too. You seem to ignore all referenced information from the Slovak side, while placing your full faith to articles written by Hungarians.
 * There are holes and contradictions in the theory? List them. We can discuss it out. Nevertheless, it is not my theory. Moreover, wholes/no wholes has no implications for removing/not removing from Wikipedia, because all theories in this case have their holes.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your source only speaks of a "political game" everything else can only be your interpretation. (I will also note that your source is from 2006 quite a few things happened with the case since then)Hobartimus (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the whole article. Did you?
 * Several of the cited sources are from 2006. Do you think, we should remove all information referenced by them?147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read what you linked which was pretty short and nowhere it talks about "international credibility of Slovakia" and other things you wrote. We know a lot more about the case now then we did in 2006, now the case became part of an "USA political game" an "EU political game" and several others as well as politicians from several countries commented on the case. Also you should note that I never touched your edit, I only suggested that everyone views the case much differently now that we have a lot more evidence. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we can add something like "The whole cause is considered merely a political game by several sources.  " Would it be acceptable for you?147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Names of the sections
The article is much more readable now, but the overall structure is still rather bad. For example, the paragraph "Malinová also got into the centre of several conspiracy theories, which relate the case to the Slovak authorities or nationalists.." obviously does not belong to Perjury claims. And Perjury claims seem to belong under the 'Allegations of injustice' anyway.--Svetovid (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I merged Allegations of injustice and Perjury claims because they both were about the same content. A new section, 'Conspiracy theories' was created.--Svetovid (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Text and reference
Recently the following text was added about Tom Lantos "...blamed the Slovak government for creating the climate for anti-Hungarian sentiments." However after checking the reference I found that the reference says something slightly different, in a direct quote "responsibility for the climate rests with the prime minister of Slovakia, who included voluntarily in his coalition individuals with known ultra-nationalist, anti-Hungarian attitudes" The blame "for the climate" is specific to Prime Minister Fico which is reinforced again later in another direct quote "The inclusion of Hungary-hating political leaders and extreme nationalists in (Fico's) coalition Cabinet was his decision ... and if you make your bed, you sleep in it." So the creation of the climate is definitely Fico's doing (according to Lantos), the blame is not placed on the whole government, but Fico alone. However the journalists interpreted the whole interview as "U.S. lawmaker blames Slovak government for ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" so what the whole government is responsible for is the "ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" but that is only the interpretation of the newspaper, so the current text as in the article slightly misquotes the reference, I think in this case we have a good direct qoute which at least partly should be preserved if we talk about the climate. Any thoughts? Hobartimus (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it.--Svetovid (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
This article is listed in Requested moves. Although I have no strong feelings about this case, I support the move from "Hedvig Malina" to "Hedviga Malinová". "Hedviga Malinová" is the name used in English sources, it appears in the legal documents about the case and even ethnic Hungarian politicians from Slovakia and Malinová's lawyer use this form. "Hedvig Malina" appears only in Hungarian sources. Also please note that according to the Slovak law, she could use the Hungarian version of her name "Hedvig Malina" if she wanted. She does not. This is only my view, but I invite both sides involved in the recent edit war over her name to state their arguments and provide evidence for their claims here. Tankred (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify "Hedvig Malina" is NOT a "Hungarian version" of the name, in Hungarian the family name comes first, a "Hungarian version" of the name would be "Malina Hédi" (with trying to translate the given name like "Hunyadi János" -> into John Hunyadi), of course Hungarian sources do not use Hedvig Malina, they use "Malina Hedvig" without any attempted translation of the first name. "Hedvig Malina" is an English form of the name if anything (used by English sources btw) and would only be used by a Hungarian source by mistake. Hobartimus (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, so even the only reason, which is irrelevant in English Wikipedia anyway, for using that name is false. Why are you and squashracket still changing the name then?--Svetovid (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

English language sources use the Hungarian name, so there is no concensus about the move. Squash Racket (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide the sources. And Hungarian media writing in English cannot be considered English sources in this case because the bias is obvious. Moreover, Hobartimus says that it's not a Hungarian version of her name so your claim is either contradictory or false altogether. For reference, Google News search (all dates): Hedvig Malina (16 finds, all Hungarian media except for a single source, which does not list its authors); Hedviga Malinová (90 finds, media from various countries and sources, including the Czech News Agency, lepetitjournal.com from France, Associated Press, , ).--Svetovid (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Le Petit Journal is a French language source, not English. The other sources you mention are Slovak/Czech sources, so the bias is obvious. Hobartimus meant that it was in the Western name order (Hedvig Malina) not the Eastern (Malina Hedvig), so you can find only in English sources the present version of the name. Please try to understand his explanation first. Most English language Slovak sources sometimes mention the name with an accent, sometimes not anyway. The Hungarian name has one version in English language sources. Squash Racket (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for those English sources you keep mentioning to appear. And why did you ignore Associated Press? Anyway, her name is Hedviga Malinová so the Hungarian version is irrelevant here anyway.--Svetovid (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it's obvious that you have no evidence to prove your assertions. BTW, you can hear her mum use her name in this video. But maybe you know better than her mum?--Svetovid (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Új Szó, the official newspaper of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia applies Malina Hedvig, so we can use the same name in the Western name order on the English Wikipedia. If someone speaks on the Slovak TV in Slovakia, it is pretty obvious he/she will use the Slovak version. I'm not even surprised after I read about Slovakization and re-Slovakization. As I said above it is also confusing the Slovak name sometimes has accent, sometimes not. Squash Racket (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the above. WP:BLP says that we should not name articles about hate crimes or alleged hate crimes after their victims. I would suggest 2006 Nitra beating incident after looking at some of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was already a discussion about the possible names when the article was nominated for deletion(see top of the talk page), and it was decided that Hedvig Malina was notable, and part of that discussion already centered on the name of the article with some proposing "Hedvig Malina case" as an alternative. Any version or variant needs to get consensus before getting through as per policy. The deletion discussion should also be reviewed to avoid the same arguments and measure the level of consensus toward the naming issue there. Hobartimus (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts cannot be changed by consensus. You still fail to realize that one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability and that Wikipedia is not a democracy, where facts can be changed by voting. Malinová and here family indeed use this name so you go against naming conventions. You also go against "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known." Since its her legal name, the name Malinová and her family use and the name English sources use (except for Hungarian media writing in English, which was already pointed out). Also, you never explained why the article should be named "Hedvig Malina" in the first place.--Svetovid (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * English sources use Hedvig Malina that is a fact easily verified by sources. Another fact is what google clearly shows that the version that you attempt to push here straight from the Slovak wikipedia is barely used at all on the Internet, so Hedvig Malina is indeed the "name under the subject is most commonly known". You instead decided to ignore these facts, ignore to seek consensus and instead you try to brute force your version through. You already wanted to delete this article, you nominated it for deletion yourself, and many of your edits (repeated and constant deletion of sources, rewriting, removing of well sourced parts, warring over the name without consensus or move process) were detrimental to the quality of the article and disruptive. Hobartimus (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the three English sources I see in the references list (another possibility is a broken link), one is the web page of a Slovakian-language newspaper using "Hedviga Malinová" in English as well, one doesn't name her, and one uses "Hedviga Malinova", the one that is most likely the one actually most common in English usage. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And how did you miss the very first reference? Squash Racket (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also look at who added these references in the English language as well as overall Hedvig Malina is the most prevalent use
 * . Just do a simple google search to see the sheer number of hits and see the difference we have to think about all readers who will likely come here, what is a name that they will understand a recognize? Hobartimus (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My Google results show 5,710 hits for "Hedviga Malinova" (with the quotation marks, exact phrase) vs. only 632 for "Hedvig Malin". So what do you think people will actually be most likely to look for, or recognize on seeing it?  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while that is a ratio of 9.0 to 1, if you partially remove the taint of Wikipedia by adding -Wikipedia to both searches, the results are 5670:93, or roughly 61:1. Look how much that ratio increased, from 9 to 1 including Wikipedia to 61 to 1 by excluding Wikipedia and some, but certainly not all of its clones and copiers. I don't see how there can even be any rational argument for the current article name.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got 309 000 results for searching Hedvig Malina vs 12 000 Hedviga Malinová. +Hedvig +Malina still got me 303 000. So your 600 seems a bit on the low side to me compared to hundreds of thousands of hits. Hobartimus (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, searching not for exact phrase. Note further that while the exact phrase "Malina Hedvig" gets in the same 300,000 neighborhood of hits, if you add -Wikipedia and search English pages, there are only 64 hits—and since Google's language limiters aren't particularly effective, fewer than half of them are actually English usage. And most English speakers who run across that name used in an article will be looking for her in category listings and the like under "H", especially since Malina is a common given name.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These 300 000 hits refer to this person mostly but even if you account for false positives its a vastly larger number than that of Hedviga Malinová. And then we didn't even talk about the false positives in the case of Hedviga Malinová, in my search basicly all the results are in Slovak.Hobartimus (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Search showing Hungarian sources with "Hedvig Malina" does not change the truth that her name and the name she uses and the name that is used in non-Hungarian sources (language or origin) is Hedviga Malinová. Unless you are able to prove any of these false, stop assuming ownership of this article and vandalizing work of editors who have genuine interest in making Wikipedia better.--Svetovid (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You bring nothning new to the table unless we count your expressed desire to discriminate against Hungarian sources(language and origin). Thank you for pointing out that you inspect the origin of sources as well maybe even the family tree of the authors. By repeating the same arguments over and over for weeks you give little to respond to. Hobartimus (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So no evidence to back your opinions? OK, then stop vandalizing the name.--Svetovid (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion below (between the lines) from WP:RM, where it had taken place under a move request listing. That page is not the place for that discussion, so I've moved it here. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The agreement I'm aware of is that we use the formatting most commonly used in English language sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask administrators to not make this move. She is ethnic Hungarian and if you read the article, you will see that using her Slovakized name would be more than controversial. Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.
 * There is absolutely no concensus about this move. She has a Hungarian name, she uses her Slovak name for Slovak documents. English language sources that we have tend to use the name "Hedvig Malina". Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * English sources don't use it. Only Hungarian sources writing in English use it, which is a huge difference. Also, don't forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We can't just make consensus about things opposing facts. "She has a Hungarian name." So do many other things, places and people. This is an English encyclopaedia however. There is no such a thing as a "Slovakized," which isn't even a word, name. It's her legal name, the name given by her parents and the name she uses. Also, saying you don't want it to be changed because you don't like it does not sound like a proper reason.--Svetovid (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point to this debate so that any administrator can see that the current name is just obstruction and inaccurate.--Svetovid (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators will see that there is absolutely no concensus about the name. Squash Racket (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts cannot be changed by consensus. You still fail to realize that one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability and that Wikipedia is not a democracy, where facts can be changed by voting. Malinová and here family indeed use this name so you go against naming conventions. You also go against "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known." Since its her legal name, the name Malinová and her family use and the name English sources use (except for Hungarian media writing in English, which was already pointed out).--Svetovid (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Google hits: 309000 for Hedvig Malina, 12000 for Hedviga Malinová; most common name?
 * Hungarian sources writing in English use the Hungarian form (only one version), Slovak sources writing in English use the Slovak form (sometimes with an accent, sometimes not). As the article is about a hate crime I would go for the Hungarian name usage. Új Szó, the official newspaper of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia applies the Hungarian name, so the community living there refers to her by the Hungarian name. The article is about a living person, this is a sensitive topic anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must jump in. I do not know where this strange google count came from. In reality, there are 411 English pages using the name "Hedvig Malina" and 488 English pages using the name "Hedviga Malinova" Tankred (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The move is requested to Hedviga Malinová, not Hedviga Malinova. Squash Racket (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's agreed that diacritic is used with foreign names so stop misguiding people.--Svetovid (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Google results I'm getting are:
 * 205 for "Hedvig Malina" -wikipedia
 * 410 for "Hedviga Malinova" -wikipedia
 * 248 for "Hedviga Malinová" -wikipedia
 * Without any meta-analysis, those results suggest that "Hedviga Malinova", with or without the accent, is more common. We can also check Google Books and Google Scholar. In this case, there are no Google Books hits, but we have:
 * Google Scholar:
 * 0
 * 2
 * 0
 * Again, it seems that "Malinova" is more common in English. Finally, consider the sources used in the article. Of the English language sources that mention her name at all, one uses "Malina" and four use "Malinova" (with or without accent)   . Could someone summarize the case for keeping the article at its current title? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First please completely remove any results that you get for Malinova, the requested move was for Malinová. Secondly most of your Malinová results are in the Slovak language. You can't compare a random mix of Slovak and English results to a random mix of other results to come to any type of conclusion. If you want to compare usage of Malina vss Malinová it was already shown that the version with "Malina" gives over 300 000 results. It's really odd to compare a few hundred (mixed Slovak and English uses) to several hundred thousand. Also the discussion taking place in two separate locations confused the hell out of everyone so I attempted to merge the two. Hobartimus (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, don't tell me what to remove from my Google results. It doesn't matter what the requested move was for, I'm interested in finding the most common name. Secondly, I'm not comparing any Slovak results to anything - if you examine my Google searches, I only searched for English language pages. If I was getting pages in Slovak, please point them out. Third, if it was "already shown" that the version with "Malina" gets over 300K results, where is that link? Were those results in English? Why is my Google so much poorer than yours? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hedviga Malinová search gives mixed English-Slovak results. Few examples of the Slovak results, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8th results on the second page of the Malinová search.
 * Here is a simple google search for +Hedvig +Malina vs an alternative  +Hedviga +Malinova to see general usage. Now all these contain a mixed language results but even using the English parameter the results will be mixed and some English results might be thrown out. The only way to make sure is to check the actual search results to see if they are all English or not. On the other hand it's good to consider that what's out there what the readers might be already familiar with. Now that the discussion is merged to one place at least it might be more clear. Before the stuff copied from the RFM process page was separated from the rest of the discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we want to search on the websites defined as "english" in google like you did using lang_en parameter, it's intresting to look at the results without the use of "". Redoing your own search without the "" gets the following results:
 * 9070 for the present title Hedvig Malina -wikipedia
 * 272 for the version proposed by the move. Hedviga Malinová -wikipedia
 * We get about 40 times as many results for 'Malina' as for 'Malinová', searching with the english language parameter.  Hobartimus (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, are those results actually about Hedvig Malina, or are they about other people named "Hedvig" and other people named "Malina"? What's your argument for excluding the quotation marks? I should peobably clarify that I don't prefer the "Malinova" spelling one bit. I actually don't care at all; I'm just trying to help close the request, and I thank you for showing that the evidence is more mixed than I was at first seeing. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no decision about having the title with the personal name or just the hate crime, because this is not a biography. It has been suggested above to move the article to the 2006 Nitra beating incident or something similar. I think that's the case with the article Rodney King too. Squash Racket (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the level of support for that suggestion? It sounds to me like a workable compromise. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a good illustration that Hungarian sources like to use Hungarian names even when writing in English: "Malina alleges she was attacked in August 2005 for speaking Hungarian on her mobile phone whilst walking in the town of Nyitra (western Slovakia)." The correct spelling used in English is, of course, Nitra.--Svetovid (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * About half million ethnic Hungarians live in what is now Slovakia, why is it so surprising to you that a Hungarian paper uses the Hungarian form of that name? Slovak sources like to use Slovak names when writing in English, that's all.
 * If a member of the US House of Representatives uses the form Ms. Hedvig Malina in an official letter from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, maybe it will be OK for this encyclopedia article too. Squash Racket (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At last you admitted that the Hungarian version of the name is used because of the sources' origin and not because of objective facts. Can you stop reverting the article now then?--Svetovid (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At last you admitted that the Slovak version of the name is used because of the sources' origin and not because of objective facts. Can you stop reverting the article then?
 * If a member of the US House of Representatives uses the form Ms. Hedvig Malina in an official letter from the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Congress of the United States) to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, maybe it will be OK for this encyclopedia article too. If Hedvig Malina herself is comfortable with that name usage when not pressed then maybe we should stick to the Hungarian version, not the Slovak one. Squash Racket (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You repeated the same thing. Yes a an American of Hungarian origin used the name. Yes, she may not mind the Hungarian version being used when talking to Hungarians. But that's not the point. So let me remind you again: Malina is the Hungarian version. Malina is the Hungarian version used by Hungarians, even when writing in English. Nobody is disputing that. However, Malinová is her legal name, the name she uses, the name her family uses and the name all sources of non-Hungarian origin used. Do you understand now?--Svetovid (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Lantos was Jewish who had been saved by Raoul Wallenberg so I wouldn't accuse him of too much bias towards Hungarians. He wrote the open letter as a member of the Congress of the United States to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, not to Hungarians. This is the most credible English language source that we have. Hedvig Malina herself didn't use the Slovakized form of her name in an interview you can view in this video library, so I would say she and her family uses Hedvig Malina when there is no pressure from Slovak authorities. Do you understand now? Squash Racket (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should learn to distinguish between assumptions and facts. And please stop inserting so many fallacies into your posts if you want to have a clear debate. I didn't accuse anybody of anything. I just said he is of Hungarian origin, which is a fact. Legal name -> fact the name she normally uses -> fact the name her family uses -> fact and the name all sources of non-Hungarian origin used -> fact "This is the most credible English language source that we have." -> assumption "so I would say" -> assumption. "when there is no pressure from Slovak authorities." -> assumption. If she or her name wanted her legal name to be Malina, she could easily use it.--Svetovid (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "If she or her name wanted her legal name to be Malina, she could easily use it" -> assumption. Hobartimus (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fact because the Slovak law allows it.--Svetovid (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Slovak law" also allows to speak Hungarian in the streets and not get beaten for it right? Hobartimus (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You just showed you have no arguments, nor can you valuably participate in a debate related to the article.--Svetovid (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just showed that "slovak law allows it" was not a valid argument. Hobartimus (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delisted
Since there is still no consensus to a page move, I'm unlisting it from WP:RM. If a reasonable discussion occurs where a decision to move is made, please feel free to re-list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid's edit
Problems with this major edit: "Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself." "Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her." "The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that 'Malina might have been beaten'. He now said: 'we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that 'Malinová might have been beaten.' He now said: 'We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case." "In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal" "In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording . The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording . Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison." "In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison."
 * Why do we need the slogans found on her clothes in Slovak? English is not enough?
 * Why do you delete this reference without replacing it? http://index.hu/politika/kulfold/nyitra5601 (section "Claim of violence") and  http://www.slovakradio.sk/inetportal/rsi/core.php?page=showSprava&id=3716&lang=2 (section "Conspiracy theories")
 * Why do you change the meaning of this referenced information?
 * DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself. (It was later pointed out that at the time of posting the pack she was in hospital.) Why do you delete this important, relevant information (in italics)?
 * As Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia put it, he felt sorry that Slovakia had to spare energies on a girl under test anxiety. Why remove that information? Robert Fico's own words are not relevant to you?
 * I think "due to outside pressure" sounds better than "because of outside pressure", but that is not a big issue
 * Why do you think that Slovak sources are in any way better than Hungarian ones? You seem to delete Hungarian sources (sometimes with relevant information) while Slovak ones seem to be OK
 * These are also not the same:
 * I couldn't find this info in your "version", probably I just missed it.
 * the English source and the Hungarian sources don't claim the same things. You simply removed the information and the Hungarian source supporting it:
 * Next change, deletion of relevant information and reference
 * You remove sources and place a "references needed" tag on the article

Would you explain? Squash Racket (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself." "Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her." "The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that 'Malina might have been beaten'. He now said: 'we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that 'Malinová might have been beaten.' He now said: 'We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case." "In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal" "In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording . The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording . Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison." "In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison."
 * Why do we need the slogans found on her clothes in Slovak? English is not enough?
 * No, it's not since it's only a free translation.
 * Why do you delete this reference without replacing it? http://index.hu/politika/kulfold/nyitra5601 (section "Claim of violence") and  http://www.slovakradio.sk/inetportal/rsi/core.php?page=showSprava&id=3716&lang=2 (section "Conspiracy theories")
 * The first one was replaced with an English one and the other one is still there.
 * Why do you change the meaning of this referenced information?
 * The article was poorly written, and that's why I rewrote so many passages. Many sentences, such as this one, used awkward English. Moreover, this information was partially inaccurate/ambiguous. They didn't definitely conclude that it was written by her.
 * DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself. (It was later pointed out that at the time of posting the pack she was in hospital.) Why do you delete this important, relevant information (in italics)?
 * Inaccurate information. The claim was that her DNA was found on the envelope, not that she had to send it.
 * As Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia put it, he felt sorry that Slovakia had to spare energies on a girl under test anxiety. Why remove that information? Robert Fico's own words are not relevant to you?
 * No source. Find a reliable source and add it.
 * Why do you think that Slovak sources are in any way better than Hungarian ones? You seem to delete Hungarian sources (sometimes with relevant information) while Slovak ones seem to be OK
 * fallacious and irrelevant accusation
 * These are also not the same:
 * better wording
 * I couldn't find this info in your "version", probably I just missed it.
 * I added it.
 * the English source and the Hungarian sources don't claim the same things. You simply removed the information and the Hungarian source supporting it:
 * English sources are preferred. Also, how are Benes decrees relevant to Malinová?
 * Next change, deletion of relevant information and reference
 * better wording again. Also, you need reliable sources for such claims. Anyway, you are only concerned about these things, but your reverts destroyed a lot of other corrected and well written content. For example, you keep inserting the incorrect name 'Jaroslav Kubla' when the correct name is 'Juraj Kubla', which also shows that some of the Hungarian sources are unreliable. Also, you keep inserting incorrect spelling of Kaliňák.--Svetovid (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Svetovid address the above concerns, and explain why, the previous version contains 27 references, your version has only 22, the deletion of 5. Why did you change the name to a name taken from the Slovak wikipedia without consensus? I must warn you that this is the English wikipedia and such changes done within the article body without the move process can be considered highly disruptive and their repetitive continuation, disruptive editing. Hobartimus (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consolidation of references. It's better to use fewer references and in English than plenty, some of which may be unreliable and biased.--Svetovid (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see
"Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself." "Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her." "The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that 'Malina might have been beaten'. He now said: 'we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that 'Malinová might have been beaten.' He now said: 'We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states.'" "Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case." "In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal" "In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording . The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording . Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison." "In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison."
 * Why do we need the slogans found on her clothes in Slovak? English is not enough?
 * No, it's not since it's only a free translation.
 * These are simple sentences, so it is strange that while you are constantly deleting relevant referenced material, you always restore this superfluous information, but I don't mind.
 * Why do you delete this reference without replacing it? http://index.hu/politika/kulfold/nyitra5601 (section "Claim of violence") and  http://www.slovakradio.sk/inetportal/rsi/core.php?page=showSprava&id=3716&lang=2 (section "Conspiracy theories")
 * The first one was replaced with an English one and the other one is still there.
 * Not true. You simply deleted this reference and inserted the template "vague". And why? How many references do you need with Slota's anti-Hungarian statements?
 * Why do you change the meaning of this referenced information?
 * The article was poorly written, and that's why I rewrote so many passages. Many sentences, such as this one, used awkward English. Moreover, this information was partially inaccurate/ambiguous. They didn't definitely conclude that it was written by her.
 * Deleted reference says: "Graphology specialists assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were most probably done by herself. They did not ask Malina for sample, they used an application for a passport from eight years before that is not sure was written by her."
 * DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself. (It was later pointed out that at the time of posting the pack she was in hospital.) Why do you delete this important, relevant information (in italics)?
 * Inaccurate information. The claim was that her DNA was found on the envelope, not that she had to send it.
 * Deleted reference says: "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself. She gave the parcel to the police only two days after receiving it because of a national holiday. She applied the envelope too, because the police asked for it." Another reference says the girl was in hospital at the time the parcel was posted.
 * As Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia put it, he felt sorry that Slovakia had to spare energies on a girl under test anxiety. Why remove that information? Robert Fico's own words are not relevant to you?
 * No source. Find a reliable source and add it.
 * Fact tag added. If we don't find reference for it, later it may be removed.
 * Why do you think that Slovak sources are in any way better than Hungarian ones? You seem to delete Hungarian sources (sometimes with relevant information) while Slovak ones seem to be OK
 * fallacious and irrelevant accusation
 * Again I ask: why do you think that Slovak sources are in any way better than Hungarian ones? You did not answer.
 * These are also not the same:
 * better wording
 * Not true. Reference says "contrary to his claims he made one year before", it remains in the article.
 * I couldn't find this info in your "version", probably I just missed it.
 * I added it.
 * I think "due to outside pressure" sounds better than "because of outside pressure", but that is not a big issue
 * No reaction on this one.
 * the English source and the Hungarian sources don't claim the same things. You simply removed the information and the Hungarian source supporting it:
 * English sources are preferred. Also, how are Benes decrees relevant to Malinová?
 * English language source says something else, so you can't "replace" it like that. Referenced quote from a member of the US House of Representatives will be readded. If he happened to talk to the Prime Minister Fico about the Benes decrees, Hedvig Malina and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia for a reason you don't seem to understand, who are you to judge him?
 * Next change, deletion of relevant information and reference
 * better wording again. Also, you need reliable sources for such claims. Anyway, you are only concerned about these things, but your reverts destroyed a lot of other corrected and well written content. For example, you keep inserting the incorrect name 'Jaroslav Kubla' when the correct name is 'Juraj Kubla', which also shows that some of the Hungarian sources are unreliable. Also, you keep inserting incorrect spelling of Kaliňák.--Svetovid (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion of well-referenced relevant material is not "better wording". Information restored as it was. We can add Slovak names for Slovaks, no problem with that. You can see in the page history it was me who tried to keep Slovak names for Slovaks, so stop that next false accusation.
 * You remove sources and place a "references needed" tag on the article
 * No answer from you on that one.

Your two reactions on my question about your preferring Slovak sources to Hungarian ones:
 * "fallacious and irrelevant accusation"
 * "which also shows that some of the Hungarian sources are unreliable" Squash Racket (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not true. You simply deleted this reference and inserted the template "vague". And why? How many references do you need with Slota's anti-Hungarian statements?" It was labeled vague because it's not stated how and why Slota and Slovak National Party reacted to the case differently from others politicians. I moved the label to make it more obvious.
 * ""Graphology specialists assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were most probably done by herself." So you confirmed my rewrite. They didn't definitely conclude it.
 * "Deleted reference says: "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself." The reference is inaccurate then. They didn't say she posted it only that her DNA was found on the envelope and stamp.
 * "Fact tag added. If we don't find reference for it, later it may be removed." It was there for months and no source was added. Why don't you go find the reference instead of wasting time arguing?
 * "Again I ask: why do you think that Slovak sources are in any way better than Hungarian ones? You did not answer." This is just another straw man. I don't think so but certain information taken from Hungarian sources was already proved inaccurate (e.g. incorrect name 'Jaroslav Kubla' when the correct name is 'Juraj Kubla')
 * "English language source says something else, so you can't "replace" it like that. Referenced quote from a member of the US House of Representatives will be readded. If he happened to talk to the Prime Minister Fico about the Benes decrees, Hedvig Malina and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia for a reason you don't seem to understand, who are you to judge him?" They could have spoken about the weather too, but what does the topic have to do with Malinová's case? This is not an article about his visit.--Svetovid (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference says: "All political parties distanced themselves from the beating, except for the Slovak National Party lead by Jan Slota". I deleted "notable" and the vague template. might have been written is not most probably. They did not ask Malina for sample, they used an application for a passport from eight years before that is not sure was written by her. I also added this based on the reference. You removed it. The police examination concluded that. If another reference says something else, you may add it, not delete reliable references. There is no reference given for every single sentence. We wait a bit, the fact tag highlights the issue. I checked the source after the first sentence containing that name and it didn't mention it. You know how the wrong name got into the article? These issues are not vague as the weather, but are closely related, you still don't understand that. Squash Racket (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like before (for example: ), factual debate is not possible. Squash Racket is just repeating his opinion stating them as facts and won't allow for any edits. There is no point in wasting time on this kind of "debate". Even though there are only a few particular edits he objects to (after being repeatedly proved wrong about others), he just reverts all the changes, including the totally neutral ones correcting wording and grammar.--Svetovid (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks please. I don't see much wrong at the diff you provided. You were also trying to remove referenced information from that featured article, just like here. Above I raised twelve issues and provided reliable references for them. I'm objecting the deletion of relevant referenced material and six reliable references coming from a user who had earlier nominated this article for deletion. I think I answered your controversial edits and simple deletions extensively above. And yes, if you proved to be right, I kept your edit.
 * I will look into the wording and grammar of the article, only waiting for a calm period, when important parts of the text and references supporting them won't get deleted while "copyediting". And it is you who just reverted, I tried to keep as many constructive edits as possible (check history). Squash Racket (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. This is the type of self-righteous approach I point to.--Svetovid (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can add new information supported by new references to improve NPOV (just like others did before). Problem is repeated deletion of relevant information and reliable references from the text. Squash Racket (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article
Please don't make changes to the structure of the article without using the talk page. The article loses its transparency and it becomes difficult to clearly see which edits were constructive and which ones were not. Squash Racket (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After your last revert; it's obvious that you either want to vandalize or are incompetent because you reverted changes such as:


 * "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis found Malinová's DNA on the envelope and the stamp." which is better wording and more accurate (no parcel, envelope!) than "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself." Also, they didn't claim she posted it only that her DNA was found on it. You keep ignoring this, why?.
 * added back "She applied the envelope too, because the police asked for it." which does not even make sense.
 * added back "from her epistaxis - the girl" -> incorrect grammar;
 * removed "In a July 2007 interview with the Slovak Weekly .týžden, Malinová said that Robert Fico and Robert Kaliňák initially believed that she made the attack up and had kept repeating their statements due to outside pressure. She also said that she felt calm and finished her fourth year at University with an excellent result. " which reads much better than "In a July, 2007 interview with Slovak Weekly .tyzden Malina thinks the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior first believed what the Police said, but later only repeated their statements due to outside pressure . She feels calm now, finished her fourth year at the University with an excellent result. " and uses the original source(!).
 * removed 'citation needed' tags without adding citations(!)
 * added back wording like "certain Robert Benci" which is awkward English to say the least.
 * changed correct spelling "Čaplovič" to incorrect "Caplovic".
 * added back two separate paragraphs about Dobroslav Trnka's decision, which were merged into one because they probably inform about the same event (and if not, a source is needed).
 * added back irrelevant information to this case about Lanto's visit.
 * removed my 'vague' tags without explaining the content(!).
 * added Hungarian source into intro even though there is no need for it (English source is already there), and it confuses an English reader.
 * and removed the fact that Malinová is a Slovak and added Hungarian name of her village, which is irrelevant. And you keep vandalizing her name without any evidence and contrary to her legal name and name Malinová and her family use.--Svetovid (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer

 * "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis found Malinová's DNA on the envelope and the stamp." which is better wording and more accurate (no parcel, envelope!) than "Police examination with the help of DNA analysis proved that the parcel was posted by Malina herself." Also, they didn't claim she posted it only that her DNA was found on it. You keep ignoring this, why?.


 * Because I was citing a source. You don't change the citation, but add another source (if you have one) claiming something else.


 * added back "She applied the envelope too, because the police asked for it." which does not even make sense.


 * I cited a source. Same as above.


 * added back "from her epistaxis - the girl" -> incorrect grammar;
 * You grab a piece of a whole sentence here. You can use a dash or a semicolon here. That is an issue to you while you keep removing referenced material and reliable references?


 * removed "In a July 2007 interview with the Slovak Weekly .týžden, Malinová said that Robert Fico and Robert Kaliňák initially believed that she made the attack up and had kept repeating their statements due to outside pressure. She also said that she felt calm and finished her fourth year at University with an excellent result. " which reads much better than "In a July, 2007 interview with Slovak Weekly .tyzden Malina thinks the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior first believed what the Police said, but later only repeated their statements due to outside pressure . She feels calm now, finished her fourth year at the University with an excellent result. " and uses the original source(!).


 * If you stop deleting references and the article remains transparent, it will be easy to change the style. That's a minor issue. I'm not sure your version is grammatically correct ( for example "made the attack up").


 * removed 'citation needed' tags without adding citations(!)


 * The article became too messy, I didn't see that you added citation tags. There are enough citations in the article anyway (31 sources for such a short article!!), almost for every single sentence.


 * added back wording like "certain Robert Benci" which is awkward English to say the least.
 * Style is a minor issue, putting back reliable references was my main goal.


 * changed correct spelling "Čaplovič" to incorrect "Caplovic".
 * If you get calm and stop your deletions, it gets changed just like all the other Slovak names before.


 * added back two separate paragraphs about Dobroslav Trnka's decision, which were merged into one because they probably inform about the same event (and if not, a source is needed).
 * You deleted a whole paragraph here, I put it back.


 * added back irrelevant information to this case about Lanto's visit.
 * The sentence was about what Tom Lantos asked the Prime Minister to do, not about a visit. Important, relevant, well-referenced information.


 * removed my 'vague' tags without explaining the content(!).
 * Already talked about that. These are well-referenced and easy-to-understand parts. How many citations do you need about Slota's anti-Hungarian statements? There are whole articles about conspiracy theories, what is vague about that?


 * added Hungarian source into intro even though there is no need for it (English source is already there), and it confuses an English reader.
 * English language, reliable reference and it pointed to two places in the article. You removed it. You added a reference "instead" for which the reader needs to "activate a free trial" to be able to read it.


 * and removed the fact that Malinová is a Slovak and added Hungarian name of her village, which is irrelevant.
 * In this hate crime case I wouldn't call the Hungarian name of the village irrelevant; she is ethnic Hungarian (as both references state it, even the one added by you). Why confuse the English reader?  Squash Racket (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything?
If there any facts backed up by reliable evidence that you claim I've removed, list it here with reliable sources. As usual, stop assuming ownership and act like you decide what is going into the article and who can edit it. Also, explain to us how, by any stretch of imagination, can this article belong under the category Political prisoners and victims without POV pushing.--Svetovid (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to delete facts and sources (even though you can find explanation in sections above this one), you should list them here again. And read WP:VAN before you repeatedly call others vandals for no reason. Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I rest my case again. You have zero arguments.--Svetovid (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You rest your case or keep arguing? Please clarify. Squash Racket (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are the following sourced facts being removed by Hobartimus and Squash Racket?
"Malinová married in February 2008 and changed her surname to Žáková after her Slovak husband Peter Žák. As of February 2008, she is in her fourth month of pregnancy. "--Svetovid (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An administrator already answered that question while declining your unblock request: "Decline reason: 'You are quite right that those who have reverted you seemed to be objecting to only one part of your change. But on the other hand, you kept reverting THAT change too, even when multiple other users have reverted you. This is considered edit warring and is harmful to the editing process, which is why you've been blocked. Like it or not, the way out of this is discussion. If you feel that things are deadlocked now, there are further steps you can pursue in dispute resolution, but simply making your own preferred change over and over solves nothing and simply makes things worse. Mangojuicetalk 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"
 * Remember? Squash Racket (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So you do not have any real arguments except for off-topic personal attacks, noted. And the comment is obviously inaccurate because it states "multiple others" while only you and Hobartimus are reverting facts and corrections made to the article.--Svetovid (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call "off-topic" an administrator's explanation why your behavior has been disruptive regarding this article. Squash Racket (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, do you have anything to say related to the article and the fact that you keep removing sourced substantial facts or do you want to keep throwing in the red herring?--Svetovid (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about a hate crime. You can mention this in the article without deleting relevant information and a number of references you don't like, but news about pregnancy obviously don't belong in the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop assuming ownership. You need to be reminded this frequently because you keep telling people what can be a and cannot be done. It's funny that now you say that the article is about the alleged hate crime but in the past you said it should be named after Malinová. The facts that she married and changed her name are highly notable, especially when she changed her name to a Slovak name (complete with "-ová" of course), which demolishes your agenda of using the Hungarian version of her name.--Svetovid (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead is for describing this hate crime, not for writing about her private life nowadays. At the time of the incident she was not married. Despite your claims in the past I was also open to renaming about the case for example when you nominated the article for deletion. Read my comment there, I even suggested moving the article to Hedvig Malina case, only expressed my concerns because of the article Rodney King. Above an uninvolved editor suggested 2006 Nitra beating incident, I said it would be acceptable and an administrator asked if it was OK with everyone. Squash Racket (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alleged hate crime. Your bias shows.--Svetovid (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did User:Svetovid label adding an English language source vandalism?
? I mean after repeatedly putting a "refimprove" tag on the article and complaining about not enough English language sources, he simply deleted this reference... Squash Racket (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The revert was a mistake; I wanted to revert Hobratimus' vandalism, but you stepped in meanwhile. Furthermore though, the source is inaccurate and states something that Malinová denied months before that article was written! She didn't speak on her phone. You really need to check your sources because you keep inserting inaccurate sources and keep reverting corrections.--Svetovid (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see now, after that edit you removed other facts and sources too. The reference says nothing about talking on a cell phone, just speaking Hungarian. You really need to read what the source actually says before you delete information and references.
 * Talking about unreliable references. This one inserted by you seems to be a blog, right? Squash Racket (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The reference says nothing about talking on a cell phone, just speaking Hungarian." From the source: "Malina alleges she was attacked in August 2005 for speaking Hungarian on her mobile phone..." Come again?--Svetovid (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I wanted to say I had only used the reference for speaking Hungarian which is true. I checked another article in the same newspaper and it really says only that, maybe I will add that reference too. She claims she was beaten, because her attackers heard her speak Hungarian.
 * Would you specify the reference from the Czech News Agency? Can we remove the Slovak blog as an unreliable reference now?
 * Slovak Press Watch and Gabriel Šípoš are notable.--Svetovid (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you specify the reference from the Czech News Agency? Blogs are not reliable sources'' and should be removed. Squash Racket (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Blogs are not reliable sources and should be removed." Many other editors including me don't accept such a black-and-white view. Blogs aren't automatically non-notable or non-reliable. Maybe they are for you, but you are just an individual with opinion, not a judge and not an owner here.--Svetovid (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

where is this article heading ?
I know parts of this were discussed many times here, but I couldn't find a topic discussing article future as whole. In current state article is definitely POVish. For example you just cannot state she was attacked because she said so. There are many uncertainties surrounding the case so we must use direct accusations with caution (in current state, article denies officially released statements (by police/justice) based on Hungarian press - which is definitely not not neutral). I'm not telling Slovakia's officials are right or wrong I'm just telling there's no certainty here. (I don't want to list all the stuff I don't like but I would like to reach some consensus about article revision which is acceptable for all to continue the work).

I don't know the history of this article I see the version by 78.98.139.193 is definitely more neutral than current one. In my option we should start working on that revision. I don't want to "just revert" it because there's no point in "fueling the war" but I hope we are all trying to be constructive so we can reach conclusion. Wikipedia is not a place to solve personal/nationalistic/... issues. Miko3k (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a little time to learn about the case, today basicly noone disputes that she was attacked for which there is plenty of evidence(photos, documentation of injuries, witnesses who saw the bruises etc), Slovak authorities don't even dispute the fact of the attack today. The only contention is the reason for the attack. "She was attacked but not because she is Hungarian" is basicly the current government position. Please read the following sentence from the article, "Hedvig Malina claims she was severely beaten for speaking Hungarian" Please read the word claims. After reading that word carefully I don't think you can state "cannot state she was attacked because she said so". Also the article only reports what was said in reliable sources if you have anything to add backed up by reliable sources that's always welcome but WP:BLP articles are governed by very strict rules and other policies also do not permit editing based on like or dislike. What you could do is to propose here a change to one of the sentences or something you want to add so we can discuss it. Hobartimus (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. I realize it's hard to work on article like this because you can find dozens of sources but only very few are neutral enough and it's hard to tell which is which, so I guess communication is important here (actually sources are *not* very reliable because they are mostly Hungarian so they are not neutral). Well ... noone can dispute the fact she was injured. And very probably attacked (initial investigation denied the attack, but following official statements seems to be confirming it). Sentence you cited is written properly. Actually entire section 'Claims of violence' is pretty neutral in my opinion. However, lead section is very different. We state (as a fact) it was a hate crime. As you have said, there are different views on this (Slovakia officials, Slovak/Hungarian/international press, Hedvig herself). In this sentence we have just selected one particular view and state it as a fact. (Actually I think lead section should be completely rewritten and expanded in order to comply with WP:MOS). Miko3k (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "sources are *not* very reliable because they are mostly Hungarian so they are not neutral" That is highly offensive. Reliability of sources is not determined by the nationailty of their authors. A Slovak blog (we have one as a source) won't become "more reliable" than any other source just because the author is not Hungarian. Any one source can be bad and unreliable but please do not make any sweeping generalizations. Apart from that, thank you for your opinion on the article. The lead could be refactored to address your concerns as follows, "...who was physically assaulted //this part is not in dispute// allegedly in a hate crime incident //this part is disputed//". Would a change like this make the lead acceptable to you? Hobartimus (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Hungarian media should be considered as reliable sources with care, because it's the incident which happened to ethnic Hungarian, so they are principally trying to defend her position. In case of ethnic controversies, reliability of sources is partially affected by nationality of authors in my opinion. They reflect a *notable* opinion but not necessary the facts. (off topic: for example today I read about case of Slovak minority in Pilisszentkereszt and Slovak media were definitely *not* neutral on this). I don't consider blog of any kind to be a reliable source for such controversial article about living person like this. And yes, such change would make the lead section acceptable for me. Miko3k (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see, the article was hijacked by Hobartimus, with help from Squashracket, who just doesn't allow any edits that don't follow his POV based on nationalism. In the above post, he doesn't even hesitate to say he is biased, not to mention his history of continuous vandalism in other articles related to Slovakia (just see his contributions).--Svetovid (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Refrain from personal attacks and false statements please. Comment on content not on contributors. Anything constructive should be brought up for discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering Svetovid's accusations:
 * "POV based nationalism": a nomination for deletion described by uninvolved editors as politically motivated
 * hijacking the article: just one example with the deletion of eight reliable sources and an interesting edit summary from a user with a history of disruptive edits regarding this article
 * "he doesn't even hesitate to say he is biased": hm...who said that and where?
 * "continuous vandalism in other articles related to Slovakia": next false accusation? See contributions? Misusing the word vandal once again despite all the warnings?
 * "doesn't allow any edits": even the Slovak blog has been kept after you were arguing so heavily to keep it, problem is that you keep deleting relevant information and reliable sources (see page history).
 * Squash Racket (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your fallacies have been exposed already on this talk page. "a nomination for deletion described by..." -- Ignoratio elenchi "with the deletion of eight reliable sources..." -- some sources you used were repeatedly exposed as inaccurate or repetitive "hm...who said that and where?" -- "today basicly noone disputes that she was attacked for which there is plenty of evidence..." Hobartimus (notice there are no sources for these claims) "next false accusation?" -- Like I said, his contributions speak for themselves. He has been repeatedly reverted and called a vandal by other experienced editors "that you keep deleting relevant information" -- You keep repeating this, yet you were unable to list a single one (!) under "Anything?". Either list them, or stop misguiding people.--Svetovid (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, just the truth.--Svetovid (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Answering Svetovid's new comments: Squash Racket (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "POV based nationalism": a nomination for deletion described by uninvolved editors as politically motivated; after that you accuse others with POV nationalism?
 * hijacking the article: just one example with the deletion of eight reliable sources and an interesting edit summary from a user with a history of disruptive edits regarding this article; which one of the sources was exposed as inaccurate and is still in the article? Also this point is a bit strange after your defending a blog as accurate and reliable.
 * "he doesn't even hesitate to say he is biased": hm...who said that and where? Yes, he never said he was biased as you claim. He said his opinion (this is a talk page), but didn't change the article based on that. He advised to insert the word "allegedly" into the lead which was acceptable to Miko.
 * "continuous vandalism in other articles related to Slovakia": next false accusation? See contributions? Misusing the word vandal once again despite all the warnings? Would you provide diffs for experienced editors reverting him and calling him a vandal in a justified way? I have been also called a vandal by you about a dozen times, none of these were justified. Read WP:VAN please as I have asked you several times.
 * "doesn't allow any edits": even the Slovak blog has been kept after you were arguing so heavily to keep it, problem is that you keep deleting relevant information and reliable sources (see page history). If you want to delete reliable sources, of course you should list them as I asked you there. You never answered. It would be a bit tiring if every time you didn't like sources, I would list them.


 * Just more fallacies, so I have to repeat myself: "a nomination for deletion described by uninvolved editors as politically motivated; after that you accuse others with POV nationalism?" -- One editor said "Appears to be a politically motivated" and that is a universal judge now? No it's not. It was just an opinion of a single editor. And for the record, that's not a valid reason in a deletion process anyway. Slovak blog -- Blogs aren't automatically non-notable or non-reliable. Maybe they are for you, but you are just an individual with opinion, not a judge and not an owner here. "continuous vandalism in other articles related to Slovakia" -- First of all, the number of his content-related edits being reverted is very telling. Second, examples: Bratislava Castle, History of Bratislava, Trenčín, Košice, Magyarization "you keep deleting relevant information" -- Either stop this mantra of yours or list the relevant information as you were asked several times. As for your accusing me of vandalizing this article, which you keep repeating all the time, that's just a dirty trick. The difference between my reverts and your and Hobratimus' is that you are two and I am only one, so you win because of the 3RR policy. If the numbers were the other way around, you would be the one under the threat of 3RR. Reality and facts wouldn't change, only the numbers in the equation. So using the number of reverts in this article as evidence for something is very misleading indeed.--Svetovid (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Answering Svetovid's accusations (new text in italics):
 * "POV based nationalism": a nomination for deletion described by uninvolved editors as politically motivated; after that you accuse others with POV nationalism? There were eight(!) votes for keep, and only you voted for deletion; one editor questioned if the AfD was made in good faith, another objected your aggressive style in the AfD.
 * "hijacking the article": just one example with the deletion of eight reliable sources and an interesting edit summary from a user with a history of disruptive edits regarding this article; which one of the sources was exposed as inaccurate and is still in the article? Also this point is a bit strange after your defending a blog as accurate and reliable. If you want to keep the blog, why did you keep deleting reliable references?
 * "he doesn't even hesitate to say he is biased": hm...who said that and where? Yes, he never said he was biased as you claim. He said his opinion (this is a talk page), but didn't change the article based on that. He advised to insert the word "allegedly" into the lead which was acceptable to Miko. That seems to be OK.
 * "continuous vandalism in other articles related to Slovakia": next false accusation? See contributions? Misusing the word vandal once again despite all the warnings? Would you provide diffs for experienced editors reverting him and calling him a vandal in a justified way? I have been also called a vandal by you about a dozen times, none of these were justified. Read WP:VAN please as I have asked you several times. Providing simply links to page histories is not a proof for anything here. Who reverted and who called his edits vandalism? You are also silent about how many times you get reverted by other editors (in a funny way, most articles you listed somehow involved you too).
 * "doesn't allow any edits": even the Slovak blog has been kept after you were arguing so heavily to keep it, problem is that you keep deleting relevant information and reliable sources (see page history). If you want to delete reliable sources, of course you should list them as I asked you there. You never answered. It would be a bit tiring if every time you didn't like sources, I would have to list them.
 * who accused you with vandalism? Only you accused others (with no reason); if you have problems with the stable version of the article, you can bring the article to mediation if you really think information and eight(!) reliable references should be deleted while keeping a blog. Squash Racket (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a civil discussion going on when someone jumped in to comment on contributors instead of content. My name was mentioned too, so I decided to look into those statements, that's all. Next time deal only with the article and its issues, references, and I won't have to provide diffs to clear up false statements, personal attacks etc. Squash Racket (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) One more thing: I suggested mediation, not calling an administrator, because handling content disputes is clearly not their job, but as you wish. Squash Racket (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, it's never a good idea to have long sections simultaneously discussing multiple points. All you get is reversions between the two versions.  How about this, Svetovid?  Make small separate sections for your specific arguments.  Drag it to 3rd-opinion numerous times for each specific argument if you want, but keep them discrete and concrete.  Content disputes are not the job of administrators (and definitely not this one who has plenty of better things to do).  And again, do not attack other editors, no matter what.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I'd suggest someone just archive this whole section at this point. The whole has become a mess of "nationalst/POV warrior" insults and responses. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)