User talk:Honved2018

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Turkic migration has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Turkic migration was changed by Honved2018 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952262 on 2016-01-29T18:36:37+00:00.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Oghur languages with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Honved2018, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me!  19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm My name is not dave. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dacians without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 06:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Tgeorgescu that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Protochronism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dacians. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Tgeorgescu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jim1138 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Dacians. Denisarona (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dacians
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard about edit warring and personal attacks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Romania seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't accuse someone of bias, when that article contained biased, Protochronist claims. These were corrected, until you intervened and vandalized the article with your nonsense. The only reason you consider it biased, is because you're a Romanian, and don't like it when this chauvinist rubbish is corrected by foreigners. You stalk these articles like the Cheka, why not bury your emotions and stop blocking people's edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honved2018 (talk • contribs)


 * So, according to you, Institute of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Columbia University Press write "Protochronist claims"? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about the source in this case, you dolt; it's the content itself. One "source" fabricates a lie, then it becomes the norm once the others spread it. Nice that you leave out all the Romanian "sources", which make up 6/9 of the "Middle Ages" sources. 2 of those sources are from the exact same place, yet just a different chapter of the story. So yeah, it's just Protochronist garbage, to answer your pointless question. Look at source 52 and then come back and talk. Until then, stop lying, and eliminate the "Dacia is Romania all of Europe is ours we own Europe" nonsense that Ceausescu made all of you believe. It's the only reason you defend these pathetic articles, and until you grow up and accept the truth, they'll be corrected indefinitely.

István, Vásáry. "Cumans and Tatars". cambridge.org. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

Tell me, is this article directed towards Romania, or the Turkic Cumans and Tatars who carried out war crimes in Eastern Europe for centuries?

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511110153&ss=fro

This source, happens to mention that the Basarab dynasty wasn't Vlach, but Cumanian. Do you still like it, or do you feel that it's targeting you? I can tell you that they probably weren't, but hey, let's just go with it for kicks, especially since you hold no regard for facts.

"Giurescu, p. 211–13. Giurescu, Constantin C. (2007) [1935]. Istoria Românilor (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura All."

Not even an actual source; it's a link to a Wikipedia article about him. More garbage which shouldn't even be there. Thus, it's invalid.

Whoever's trying to lie, is clearly trying very hard and still failing. That article is going to spread ignorance even further. You should try looking at these sources and remove your biased feelings caused by your origins. I simply don't care for that and I don't have the time for your emotions and Wikipedia's elitists and their little rules. It's as if Romania WANTS to cause a fuss with the Bulgarians, Hungarians, Russians and everyone else near Romania. Seems like it has nothing better to do, and neither do you.

-Honved2018


 * I want to give you a piece of advice, it is not an attack. If you will listen to it you will have a good time around here.


 * Wikipedia is mainly a venue for parroting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (and perhaps mainstream press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.


 * So supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is required of all editors, failure to do this leads to losing disputes, being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, you have to show that your claims are mainstream science or mainstream scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then refrain from making that particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar, Wikipedia is not the venue for doing that.


 * If mainstream science or mainstream scholarship lead to war, it is not Wikipedia's problem. Hate speech and personal attacks are not tolerated (mind you), but the previously mentioned problem is not ours to fix. Wikipedia has WP:NPOV not Sweetish-pacifying bias. Wikipedia is a platform for disseminating established knowledge, it is not the magical solution to wars and famines. Besides, it is not WP:CENSORED by pacifism or any other ideology. This website is dedicated to academic learning, not to preempting an imagined casus belli. This website does not deal in real WP:PROPAGANDA against imaginary evils. Wikipedia loves neither WP:FRINGE nor WP:ACTIVISM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)