User talk:Svetovid/Archive 1

Edits
Re Climbing: If you are explaining your edits in the atricle talk page, please write "see talk" in edit summary of the article itself. `'mikkanarxi 01:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Bratislava
Great job! Those articles really need more references. Tankred 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

HQ
"contribs) (headquarters is a better word..mea culpa)"

Sure, but "ma sidlo v ..." is pretty damned compelling :) MikeGogulski 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on WP:FPC. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless provoked you should have presented it in a less inflammatory way. The way you wrote your comment seemed insulting to most - just tone it down next time, okay? Oh, and it's bad Etiquette to remove comments from your own talk page, especially if they are warnings. Archive them instead. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The way you wrote your comment seemed insulting to most." I said it was pointless and still think the same. Also, you made up "most", but I don't care about that anyway. And I'll say the same in the future, too, if I feel like it.--Svetovid 11:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava
Hi, "worldseer" :-). I must say my "thanks" to you because you did a lot of work so far with Bratislava-related articles and I must admit that it woke me up to work and collaborate. Great job! Anyway, I see you are almost complete with the History section in your sandbox, so I'm interested, when it will replace that awkward bulleted prose which we currently have? And what do you think, what still needs editing excluding History to make Bratislava article at least GA? MarkBA t/c/@ 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I see you haven't responded to my message last time, so I'll try it again. I see you stated that you want other people to review the Bratislava article, but there's still one thing that should be done before submitting to good article review or peer review, and that's History, which is ready in your sandbox, but not yet implemented. When do you think it will be done, in order to continue improving? MarkBA t/c/@ 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm quite busy now at work and school, but it should be finished till the end of the this week. Other suggestions are in the TO DO list in the discussion section.--Svetovid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I didn't know that you are busy, though same applies to me. But thank you for your reply. Anyway, what are you exactly meaning with this to-do: "Make the Territorial division section more aesthetically pleasing"? Also, I think as MikeGogulski, you, I and sometimes Tankred are editing this article, I think you could give your feedback on this: merging Tourism into Economy, and Etymology into History. And third point, I think I can delete this one "Implement Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment recommendations", because it looks like no one from that project is interested in it. What do you think? MarkBA t/c/@ 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No Original Research doesn't apply on meta-discussions
Hi! Because of our conversation on the featured picture candidate nomination for lion and cub feeding, I started a discussion on the FPC talk page. Since you hadn't posted there, I just wanted to make sure you'd seen it. If you've seen it, feel free to ignore this comment. Enuja 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether it "applies" or not, I just pointed it out to you.--Svetovid 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Bratislava
Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi. I am not vandalizing the articles. Why should I do that??? I am just correcting them. Why do you use the KOH map?? The article is not about the former county, it is about a slovak region. User:Tankred agreed to this at the article Zemplín (region), and I asked him to put a real slovak map into the article, and he did that.Baxter9 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, just stop renaming articles into Hungarian names. This is the English Wikipedia.--Svetovid 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Oh that was funny, not.)User:Hobartimus 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nitra/Nyitra(?)
Hi. If the article is about the KOH count, why dont we use the original name? I am waiting for your answer.Thank youBaxter9 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I reverted the edits of user:Hobartimus.
 * Wikipedia is not about "original" names but about English names or names recognized by English speakers. Nevertheless, original name would be in Slovak or Latin anyway.--Svetovid 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really dont know what are you talking about. I am not reverting the names, it is another user. I only changed the names of the articles one time, but that happened days ago, and when Tankred said that that they should be in slovak name, i did not reverted more. I always use the talkpage, and I said that it should be in the hungarian name, because the article is about the historical county... And if you check the history page of the articles, you will find out, that I reverted the edits of user:Hobartimus.
 * And: The article is about the historical county, and the name of the article should be the historical. And why do you think, that engilsh users recognise the Sovak or latin name? The original name of the county was Nyitra county.Baxter9 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at this:, and this [],, or this. Baxter9 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry If i mistook you for someone else. No, the Hungarian names are definitely not original since they are just version of the Slovak/Slavic/Latin names. And the names should be historical, but recognized in English.--Svetovid 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add more, the original names could, of course, be from other languages (tribes), such as Germanic or Celtic tribes.--Svetovid 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your answer. It was not me who changed the names. As I said I only changed 2 or 3 once (which were restored), because I did not Know the agreement which was made about the counties. Yes, most of the names of the North counties of the KOH were the versions of "magyarizated" slovak names. If you would like, rename the articles into the slovak form, but I still belive (as I wrote this on the talkpage), that this article is about the historical administrative county of the historical Kingdom of Hungary (which noone wants to reinstall!). There the county was never called Nitra. Therefore in this historical context, the article should be named in Hungarian: the only correct historical form, and we should write in the present day slovak forms too. Ps: there were so many changes, that there are many versions about Nitra county as I saw it ( I added pictures into one of them...).Baxter9 10:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean 2 or 3 county articles.Baxter9 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be Latin or German, which were the official languages for centuries, then. You really are overestimating the influence of the Hungarian language before 1840/1850 there.--Svetovid 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We can use the slovak name, it is much better than german or latin :). Yes, german and latin was the official language, like in the present day slovakia in that time, but i dont think that people actually spoke in latin. I would like to add to the infoboxes the hungarian names, like this: Nitra/Nyitra. Or Nitra (slovak)/Nyitra(hungarian). What do you think?Baxter9 11:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hobartimus is in action again. I think this article name problem will never end... I am going to write him/her.Baxter9 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I copy pasted the wrong name!Baxter9 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) It is User:HobartimusBaxter9 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Szepes
Hi!

Could you answer the questions raised in the Talk pages?

Could you stop destroying articles against previous consensus?

Thanks!

--peyerk 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I'm not here 24/7.--Svetovid 15:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You tried to change the former consensus so there is no reason that your new version should remain "until the end of the discussion" (which will obviously never end). That's only a trick to establish a version against the wishes of other editors. Zello 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Fatra
Hi, I'm the author of most pages related to the Greater Fatra range. I've noticed you've been recently replacing all English names with their Slovak counterparts. And you even moved the article on the range to its Slovak name. I'm afraid this is a bit of misunderstanding and it's also against some Wikipedia rules.

This is the English Wikipedia and as the Manual of Style says: If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. You stated in your comment that after going through a lot of sources, the Slovak name seems to be the most acceptable and universal in English with emphasis on the translations. Well, most Google links might lead to English pages with the Slovak name for the range yet I doubt these pages were written by native speakers. It has unfortunatelly become a bad habit on Wikipedia to force the English what names they should use in their own language.

Besides, most links in other Wikipedia articles (on Carpathians as well as other Slovak mountains) use the English names such as White Carpathians, Low Tatras etc. That's why I opted for using the English names in the texts I wrote and I tried to use them consistently. Finally, unless there's a good reason, one shouldn't change the style and language of the original text, especially when the style is prevalent (I mean the English forms of the geographical names).

Do you live somewhere near the Greater Fatra? I was real mesmerized by these fantastic mountains last year, and I'm planning to go hiking there again and again. I took many photographs and I'm planning to create more articles on the summits, valleys and especially nature reserves.

I'm from Prague but I prefer discussing in English here so that other readers can read the messages as well. But we can communicate in Czech and Slovak via other channels if you're interested. – Caroig (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been waiting for some response regarding the name changes. I've been looking into a lot of sources and other articles to decide whether the Slovak or English name should be used for the Fatra Mts., as well as other mountains and geographic names. Carpathians and Tatra{s} are widely used and accepted English names so there is no discussion there. I decided to use the Slovak names as the main names because: #1 There are more English translations. #2 The Slovak names are commonly used in English sources. See, for example, Czech and Slovak Republics by Lonely Planet or compare Google Scholar search for Velka Fatra (43 results), Veľká Fatra (92 results), Great Fatra (14 results) and Greater Fatra (only 2 results). Also when you search Google minus wikipedia results, you get only 219 results for Greater Fatra and 999 results for Great Fatra, of which many are pages that copied Wikipedia, alternative translations in parentheses, and overwhelming amount of Slovak pages using this English name. However, searching for "Velka Fatra" in English pages gives 19 400 results and searching for "Veľká Fatra" in English pages gives 9 180 results (this search is not precise but still). And if you search for the English names in English pages only, the number of results is even lower indeed. The UN and other environmental agencies also use the Slovak name, for example, eeconet.org. As for native speakers, here are some examples: worldinfozone.com, naturetrek.co.uk and photographersdirect.com. Last but not least, the governing bodies of the Veľká and Malá Fatra National Parks use the Slovak Name, as do many other official Slovak agencies and organizations. So you can clearly see that the Slovak name should be used for the article's name, so I'll wait for your response and ask you to revert your changes/redirects if you have no reservations. The situation is quite easier with places that have hory or vrchy in their name because that is an obvious translation.--Svetovid 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop using boldface where it's not appropriate. The Manual of Style says: "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis."--Svetovid 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you do not change the names as they are unless this is solved. Greater Fatra or Great Fatra are valid names for Wikipedia so no harm is done in the meantime. – Caroig (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point yet … There have been quite a few of discussions on Wikipedia whether Google tests are relvant for solving naming disputes or not. Most articles that Google finds are written by non-native speakers so they're hardly relevant, besides non-native speakers tend not to bother with translating geographic terms. And even when a native speaker writes an article on the Greater Fatra they use the form of the name they're familiar with, which they saw elsewhere hardly being aware what the Veľká part of the name stands for.


 * You state Low and High Tatra(s) are widely used, but the Slovak forms are used as well in English pages. You admit generic words such as vrchy should be translated. So why not also generic Veĺká and Malá? This is rather about consistency. If you read the discussion at Talk:Divisions_of_the_Carpathians I'd say translating the generic parts of names is recommended and, in my belief, logical. Furthermore, both Greater and Lesser Fatra were used on English Wikipedia and the articles were under those names for a long time and this seems to have been generally accepted.


 * As for the use of Greater/Great/Big. English definitely prefers the comparative forms in geographic names, especially when there's a "pair" (Greater/Lesser Antiles). Although you can find some pages with Big Fatra, this is simply a faulty translation as the adjective big is not very common with geographic places, I can only think of Big Apple and that's a nickname. Besides, most Google links with Big Fatra are from the .sk domain. So I'm removing that version from the synonymy.


 * To put it in a nutshell. Both Greater and Lesser Fatra have been under these headwords for a long time, undisputed. It is consistent with other Slovak geographic names as they are used on Wikipedia, it is with translated generic words. I believe if you still feel they should be renamed and moved it should be discussed first. – Caroig (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I still strongly feel that the names should be in Slovak. Native English speakers are - as confirmed by enormous evidence I presented - used to these Slovak names and have no problems using them. In many cases, direct translations used as main names could be considered original research. And in case of Slovak places these were mainly done by and produced some rather awkward names. The English names were undisputed simply because there was nobody interested/knowledgeable enough around (no offence). Even if relatively easy, literate translation are not preferred if not backed by strong evidence. We still have Morskie Oko, Picos de Europa or Colle di Cadibona instead of Sea Eye, Peaks of Europe and Cadibona Hill.--Svetovid 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And we also have Hostýnsko-vsetínská hornatina ... created by yourself :).--Svetovid 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the names Greater Fatra and Lesser Fatra are someone's inventions, even less so original research, they have been used in English for some time, both online and in printed media. Both Fatras are at least of the same importance for Slovak tourism as Low Tatra(s) which too have an English name, which you don't seem to object to.


 * If you feel the names should be changed, and that feeling is as valid as mine that they shouldn't, I guess you should first start a dicussion and get some native speaker's opinios rather than changing the names which are correct and have been used here for quite some time. You say you gave enormous evidence, well, the only evidence is Google tests which are just one piece in resolving any naming disputes (and one which is usually sneered upon at discussions) while all other bits seem to concure Greater/Lesser Fatra are OK, even better. It's not a good wiki practice to change any information or names just because you don't like it … take our discussion at Borišov. – Caroig (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it original research in case of Fatra, but with other names, sure. And once you start doing it, it's a slippery slope. But this discussion is not about whether "Greater Fatra" is a relevant name or not; we are trying to conclude which name is the most commonly used and recognized in English. Google results were used only partially. I'll list the other sources again: The UN and other environmental agencies also use the Slovak name, for example, eeconet.org and WWF. As for native speakers, here are some examples: worldinfozone.com, naturetrek.co.uk and photographersdirect.com, and mtsobek.com. The examples are significant, because they come from pages for hikers, people who are usually more knowledgeable about mountains and such. Google News search (English sources only) gives 0 results for Greater Fatra and only 1 result for Lesser Fatra but 13 results for Velka Fatra and 78 results for Mala Fatra. Also see an opinion from a native speaker below. You also didn't respond to the practice of using native names (as articles' names), although easy direct translations are available, practice even you use.--Svetovid 22:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've always tried to keep away from any namimg disputes as they seem pointless and generally harming the idea of Wikipedia. What we all should put most effort into is writing good articles, uploading photograps and maps etc. Given the nature of Wikipedia when various names can be redirected to the main page I don't think it's that important under what name the artcile is in the database. That's why I usually don't bother.


 * I usually start articles or add substantial text to topics I'm interested in, very often about places I personally know, from which I can provide some photographs I've taken. And I always try to write a well-balanced text and then keep an eye on it. I'm saddened to see there are too many editors on Wikipedia who, instead of focusing on the articles themselves, focus on marginalities, such as what headword the article should be under. The artcile on both the Greter Fatra and the National Park of the same name can be helped a lot and I'm planning to do so when I find the time. It always takes me time 'coz I base my texts on a multi-resource research.


 * As of your points, if you look at some of those links you provided you'll see they also quote Vysoké Tatry, i.e. in Slovak. So those don't seem to help. I'm afraid you still give the same and only evidence. Links which you found via Google. As I wrote before, number of Google hits isn't considered that relevant: Naming_conventions_(use_English). Most of the texts were written based on Slovak resources which always use the Slovak form even in English texts. Also, the first point at Naming conventions (geographic names) says: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. If you look at Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), it says Always look at search results, don't just count them. (Besides, those tests proved the name Great Fatra more frequent though linguistically wrong.) Another recommendation says Naming_conventions_(places), so as there are Low Tatras, High Tatras, White Carpathians, Lesser Carpathians etc. it's common sense we should have Greater Fatra. All these are names with an easily translatable part. It seems odd to translate such low profile places as Cerová vrchovina (it was discussed someplace) or Hostýnsko-vsetínská hornatina, but here the English name would qualify under original research. I also once started Moravian-Silesian Beskydy which got renamed to Moravian-Silesian Beskids (not by myself) although you don't find the English name in many English resources.


 * I'm sure you would find places in those and other rules which support your point. To sum it up, there exist good reasons for the Veľká Fatra as well as Greater Fatra names. Unless there's a wider support I don't think you should rename the article and any occurence of Greater Fatra based on just your feeling as it has been used so (as Greater Fatra) for quite some time, reviewed by many editors and no-one seems to have problem with the English version so far. I don't think this discussion has helped the article at all, I really wish to spend my Wikipedia time in a more meaningful way. I'd like to enlarge both artciles on the range and the national park as well as adding mopre localities. – Caroig (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Until now, you haven't mentioned a single source that would confirm that Greater Fatra is "a widely accepted English name in a modern context", but I've offered loads of evidence that Velka Fatra is this kind of name. And I avoided simple Google results completely in the last post. I believe you know what Google News is, and it clearly proves that whenever one of the Fatras is mentioned in the English speaking media, it's always by its native name and not one of the translations. "Reviewed by many editors" - again no evidence that knowledgeable editors looked into it. And I agree, a dispute about the name should not stand in the way to improve the article's content. But in this case, the name is confusing, goes against consistency and is against Wikipedia's policies, which you coincidentally cited to prove my point.--Svetovid 14:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What language versions to be used for naming former KoH counties?
Could you join this starting debate: Talk:Kingdom of Hungary

--peyerk 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rusovce mansion
see http://www.bratislava.sk/en/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=2005914 for as "official" a use of the kaštieľ/mansion translation I could find in this context. — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, Kaštieľ translates as mansion or manor (house), but Rusovce mansion sounds a little off :).--Svetovid 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's a hell of a lot more on-target than the "forcemeat in a potato damper" I keep seeing on restaurant menus around here :) — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, translations on bratislava.sk are not top-notch all the time either. It's like they directly translate some word that is not used in that sense in English.--Svetovid 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say "official" (scare quotes and all) rather than "good"... :) Honestly, the place looks more like a castle to me. Let's see what SSJ says:
 * kaštieľ, -a, 6. p. -li, mn. č. -le m. veľký, obyč. umelecký cenný dom, za feudalizmu vidiecke sídlo šľachticov a boháčov: renesančný k., zemiansky, panský k.;
 * so... could be mansion, manor, chateau, or even palace or castle. Pretty loose definition. *shrug* — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mansion: "In Europe mansions are often given various titles, hinting at their origins - castle, palace, manor, towers, and grange to name but a few." So it's a broad category indeed. But to avoid confusion, it'd best to translate palác as palace, hrad, hrádok and zámok as castle, kaštieľ as mansion or manor (or palace? ;). Anyway, those are the translations I used to give some consistency to the List of castles in Slovakia.--Svetovid 12:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me mate. — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you noticed the discussion above about whether to use Veľká Fatra or some of the English translations, what do you, as a native speaker, reckon?--Svetovid 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I would prefer listing such a thing under it's local name (in Slovak), and establishing redirects for the known English versions of it. Among the English versions I've seen, "Greater Fatra" appears far better than "Great Fatra", but there is also an argument that it should be "Greater Fatras" to keep a parallel with "High Tatras", "Low Tatras", etc., which seem to be in more common use in the plural rather than the singular. Native-English names for mountain ranges are usually given in the plural (cf: Rockies, Appalachians, Alps, Himalayas), but then we do use foreign-language names quite a bit, which are sometimes in the singular (cf: Sierra Nevada, Sierra Madre). — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another comment, not about the kastiel, but naming in general... to me it makes no sense for the canonical name Old Town, Bratislava to exist, when we have Nové Mesto, Bratislava instead of New Town, Bratislava. I would definitely support making Old Town, Bratislava be a redirect to a properly-named page for the district (e.g. Staré mesto, Bratislava). — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll bite. I would weakly support moving this article to its Slovak name, but there are many articles using the English name, e.g. Old Town, Prague or Inner City (Budapest), so no Staré Město or Belváros. Best would be determined by G-test or by browsing official places, if applicable. To that kaštieľ issue (sigh!), I have created it under name Rusovský kaštieľ, but don't know if I picked the best name MarkBA t/c/@ 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing that bugged me was seeing "Old Town" next to "Nové mesto" in the territorial divisions of BA section. It's asymmetrical... ugly... such asymmetry is another reason I don't really like WP:NCGN as it stands. The purist in me would be a lot happier calling things by their local, official names (with as many redirects as necessary to cover English-language usage), rather than this reference to "widely-accepted English-speaking" nomenclature that we've got. Maybe I'm pissing in the wind here, since my chances of getting a move approved for Red Square to Красная площадь are approximately zero. *shrug* — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hey, first of all would it be possible to copy your opinion to the other pages in the deletion series? (If not, could I do it?) Second of all, I have no problem with nominating the others for deletion, but the Balkan ones are the ones I'm familiar with, and I'm only one man. If you nom any, let me know and I'll give the same opinion there. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to get those articles to Articles for deletion/Log/Today though.--Svetovid 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From Ernst Stavro Blofeld
Because I was peer reviewing the article. Thanks for wasting my efforts also at tidying the pictures also ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at existing FA articles on many cities the places in the city comes before sport. -it is all part of the geography of the city. -an important section that should be nearer the top rather than at the bottom. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 10:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have request though. Can someone try to write an article summarizing the Culture of Slovakia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 10:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you messed up territorial division with climate and so on. Could you write down your suggestions first if you want to change the article significantly?--Svetovid 10:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick link
Just in case you're interested: Talk:United_States. The largest cities table, in particular, has been a heated source of debate in the US talk page, so I figured your comment warranted discussion on talk, lest it responses slowly flood the FAC page. MrZaius talk  09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'
 * Sometimes the mouse slips and you tick an incorrect box. Sorry about that.--Svetovid 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Do read something about how Wikipedia works and stop damaging it. Wikipedia doesn't work by someone deciding on their own accord what's correct and what's not and forcing everyone to use their style, forcing people do bring evidence or do anything as they wish.

You have decided that the only "proof" is count of Google hits. I provided quite a lot of links proving that this is not the definite dicision factor on Wikipedia, just one of many (and never the most important one), all speaking in favor of Greater Fatra. You haven't contributed significantly to any article on Great Fatra besides changing the name. I don't want to check how many other regions you've damaged this way but a lot of users have been banned for just what you've been doing. Have you ever made a useful edit? Adding some text, uploading a picture?

If you feel the name should be cahnged, do start a discussion and get as many opinios as possible. Until then the names should remain where they are as it has been a long-time consent. Your edits just make the articles a chaotic mix of Slovak and English names. – Caroig (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention Google hits in my last post full of evidence at all. Asking people to present evidence is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. WP:V
 * You haven't give a single source to prove that Greater Fatra is "a widely accepted English name." There was no consent about the name; the discussion page is empty. Also please read this: WP:OWN, WP:BB and WP:CIV (in regards to "warning" and "Have you ever..."--Svetovid 08:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, see Talk:Greater Fatra and finally present some evidence please.--Svetovid 09:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going ask for arbitration in this case. You keep repeating the same thing yet you completely disregard other reasons which support Greater Fatra. Number of hits in whatever search engine are not the main decission factor and I provided enough links to Wikipedia guidelines. There are many articles with similar disputes, where the native name is more frequent in media yet they remain under their English name. Your disruptive edits to the Borišov where you erased substantial information without any reason (you quote Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. WP:V, all information in that article is based on data from more other sources, which are given, which don't contradict on any of those statements, yet you removed the lines anyway and as a reason gave "trees just don't grow there") showed a lot about your way of editing as well as your statement you have considerably contributed to that article when your only edits concern renaming. I don't feel any need to respond to threats, this isn't Wikipedia behavior at all. – Caroig (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask for whatever you want. The only so called threat I'm seeing here is a post named "Warning" with text like "a lot of users have been banned for just what you've been doing," written by yourself. But I don't think it's a threat I just think you are a little confused. As for Borišov, what does that have to with anything? We are discussing a name change here, not content of some completely different article. That's what Talk:Borišov is for and if you look there, you'd see "Thanks, the article is fine by me for now.--Svetovid 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)" so why mention it now at all?--Svetovid 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What I asked for some time ago was a discussion. By which I mean a wide discussion with constributions from many users. I guess everyone contributing to Wikipedia does some work for a living as well, so not everyone is able to answer ASAP, neither am I. I never questioned the fact that "Velka Fatra" (i.e. unaccented) is more common in Google hits than any English name. On the other hand I think this data needs some analysis as well, exactly as one of Wikipedia rules says ("do not just count Google hits …"). Besides, there are more factors to take into account when deciding on a name, I provided some links. What made me upset was that you're setting the rules, when I didn't answer within a week (I have to work sometimes) you changed the names again, that I must provide some evidence ….


 * And as for Borišov, I think it matters here because while you're calling for giving evidence you erased sourced data instead of at least asking first or checking the resources (or better looking for more) so I'm afraid it showed that working with resources isn't your "prime directive" and the reasoning behind your edits was, sorry, ridiculous. And that article finally made switch your edits back to Greater Fatra after I checked the core of your contributions was just renaming English names to Slovak.


 * So what I suggest again is to start a discussion, let other users have their say, analyze all pros and cons (not just how frequent the names are on the Internet). I'm trying to check some sources outside the internet, i.e. books, which are always based on more substantial research than online data which is mostly copied from one site into another. I takes some time. And as Wikipedia's usage have been Greater Fatra for a few years, most articles refer to it under that name (and not just articles I started) I suggest keeping it that way until a discussion has taken place. – Caroig (talk)
 * Why do you keep repeating Google hits? Talk:Greater Fatra is full of evidence that does not use the number of Google hits at all. Only in the end did I mention the number because 20,000 vs 66 is as clear as it gets. I edited Borišov because it was awkwardly written with grammatical errors and ambiguous phrases. I was mistaken about one thing (deforestation of the summit), which was explained and the article was immediately edited to follow its sources. And your conclusion is that "working with resources isn't your "prime directive"? Please... Also, you can stop with personal attacks - see WP:CIV. I don't mind them so they are pointless in this case. Discussion has been going on for about 10 days now. I've presented evidence big enough for a thesis and got support from and, which is 100% of all 3rd parties involved so far. You haven't presented a single piece of evidence and got no support so far. You only linked to Borderline Cases, but this is not a borderline case. I'll cite:"There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name." Greater Fatra or Lesser Fatra is not a long-accepted English name. You also linked to Naming conventions (places) and Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Both Velka and Mala Fatra follow the conventions and both are widely accepted names. Last but not least, please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you advice others to do so. You want to ask for arbitration even though, according to WP:AC, "it is a last resort when all else has failed."--Svetovid 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please reread all my posts, try to answer at least some of my comments (i.e. not just those concerning the name's frequency on the Internet) and stop threatening and setting up deadlines. And also respect that I have other work to do (the only time I have for Wikipedia is when I have all my work done, late at night). Over the weekend I'll try to add an extensive comment to the discussiion which hasn't been started yet. – Caroig (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop saying that nonsense about threatening because the only one using words like "warning" and "ban" is you. Is there anything I haven't talked about yet? Please add those issues point by point. The discussion has been going on for 14 days, which is quite enough. If you cannot find a few minutes to respond, that's not my problem, don't you think?--Svetovid 20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add extensive comments to all aspects of the issue, with analysis of the data and more resources in favor of the English names. I'm used to present well-researched and analyzed data on Wikipedia, this takes time. Over the years I've been a member of the Wikipedia community, I haven't participated in a discussion in which anyone would settle any deadlines. I don't think statements "If you don't … I will" are appreciated either. I apologize for any rash expressions I might have used. These days, I usually work from 7.00am thru 22.00pm CET so I really do not have the time nor the energy. We might also want to first set a WP:RM to draw more attention to the point in discussion. – Caroig (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are the only person opposing the names and since you don't bother to respond for days, deadlines are indeed necessary for such a trivial issue.--Svetovid 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No one user has any right to set any deadlines, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not your personal project but a collective one. If any change is to be done, it should be proposed and discussed first. This approach is real unprecedented. 06:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: To satisfy your impatiency a bit, a part of my research for now, more to be added when I finish my work:
 * Britannica 2007 doesn't mention the Fatras
 * Britannica 1911 contains Great Fatra in the article on Carpathians
 * MS Encarta 2007 mentions Greater and Lesser Fatra in the Slovakia article
 * Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer of the World has Greater Fatra – Caroig (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Britannica 1911 cannot be used in this case because it's too old a source to establish anything, and only mentions a single mountain under the name "Great Fatra", not the whole range anyway. You are right about the MS Encarta 2007, which proves that the English translation exists and that it is used, but not that it is used and accepted widely. I could even go as far as to use the same logical fallacy you used and say that they use strange translations (Low Tatry?), but it's not needed. Anyway, move this discussion to Talk:Greater Fatra for all to see.--Svetovid 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah I would graciously like to congradulate you for deleting the page I spent a half hour working on about a local band which has rising popularity in my home town. I see just because something isn't famous it can't be on your precious website. I think it really sucks that you have noted it for speedy deletion which I think your page should be because it's full of useless crap no one cares about.
 * It's not my site at all. Read WP:Notability next time.--Svetovid 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dannebrog opposition
You said that the image was not the best that Wikipedia offers. What is the best one? ANNAfoxlover 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty. For example, many I've voted for in the past. Of course, we are not talking about the same subject here :)--Svetovid 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! Of course. ANNAfoxlover 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Greater, Great, Velka or Veľká Fatra
Well, I've added som more extensive comments to the talk page. I moved your text lower as I think the new text provides a better starting point for a discussion, feel free to rearrange the page if you disagree. I believe if a move is proposed, it should be first proposed at WP:RM with a link to the disucssion to draw attention of a wider public to the topic. The Greater Fatra doesn't seem to be in watchlists of many users.

I've noticed the inconsistency with Tatry (and other places elsewhere). I'm certainly not going to propose any rename, it just illustrates that the matter is not just about strictly following guidilines and statistics but about applying common sense too.

I'm still working on a major rewrite of the article, with more text, more images and maps. But it will take time, I prefer presenting consistent work and I don't think there'a any need to hurry. I'd welcome a helping hand especially if you have any knowledge of the area, any further resources (I don't have that many, I'd appreciated mainly printed ones). – Caroig (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

etpayn
Hello, Svetovid.

I am sorry if the article came off as blatant advertising, but it wasn't. I'm new here, and in fact, I'm not even a member of the wanderlust team, but a fan. I'm not very good at word choice, so it might have come off wrong. Could you please help out with it? Thank you,

--etpayn.
 * Since it was deleted by an administrator, I was correct to nominate it. Please read WP:NOT and WP:NOTE before creating an article.--Svetovid 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

TPHD FC
Dear Sir/Madam,

You seem to have nominated the article i was in the process of writing for "speedy deletion". It had not been finished as I had stopped to gather some information. I believe this article is noteable as this team has affected many people over the years and still plays a role in young peoples lives today. I'm sure you may have had good intentions but I would hope that in this knowledge you would not ask for my entry to be deleted again.

Thanks
 * Since it was deleted by an administrator, I was correct to nominate it. Please read WP:NOT and WP:NOTE before creating an article.--Svetovid 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review Kari Schull et al
You participated in the AfD for Kari Schull where the nominator is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull]. This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the applicatrion of BIO, or for the reform of special case notability criteria --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all...
(re Template:Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates) Yes, these should probably be listed on AFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your opinion on deletion of Clayton Middle/High School
Hi,

Since your vote in favor of deletion at Articles for deletion/Clayton Middle/High School, I added information from three news articles about the school which establishes notability under Wikipedia standards (WP:N). Please take a look at the revised Clayton Middle/High School article and reconsider your vote. Thanks! Noroton 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for noticing me. It'd be best to show notability already while writing a new article to avoid an AfD nomination.--Svetovid 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Spent many hours
Trying to find solid references for the personal computer article. The research and sifting of accurate information is time consuming... Alatari 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * www.comphist.org is a good and reliable online source.--Svetovid 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hankyinmypocket
im sooooo sorry, i wont do it ever again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hankyinmypocket (talk • contribs).

RM of Slovak Ore Mountains and Lesser Fatra
You recently participated in a requested move discussion at Talk:Greater Fatra and might be interested a similar situation at Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains and Talk:Lesser Fatra. These articles were previously moved to their Slovak names but I have reverted the moves and posted them at WP:RM to allow for discussion. —  AjaxSmack     05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Greater Fatra vote
Thanks for the invite. Perhaps not the response from me that you were hoping for, but it is my considered opinion. There are many cases in which inappropriate Anglicization of Slovak names has taken place, but I don't see this as one of them. As a counterexample, if I saw a wikipage on the Dolné Považie region subject to renaming to "Lower Vah Basin", I'd very likely oppose it. — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'd like to see you supporting my opinion. But it's about discussion and facts in the first place and you, unlike some other editors, at least know what you are talking about.--Svetovid 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He did it again!
I read your warning to the vandal 68.219.219.154 dated 21.48, 10 July 2007. I have just deleted vandalism by this person in the article, "Lal Masjid siege". I thought that you might want to know this; it was large-type advertising at the top of the page. Writtenright 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
 * I reported that user after that.--Svetovid 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

murder speedy
Lawrence Colwell Jr I think it might be controversial, so I didn't speedy. (and a few other admins have passed it by also) Generally, murder articles are defended at AfD. However, if there is nothing more about them than this, they are now always deleted. Let's try something--I listed it on WP:PROD. It will disappear in 5 days if nobody objects (though I do have to notify the guy who wrote the article to give him a chance to improve it.) Please put it on your watchlist, and if the Prod tag is removed and the article still doesn't say enough for notability, list it for WP:AFD. Ask me if there are problems. Who knows, this might be a simple way to handle the articles. DGG (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it went as a copyvio--I should have thought to check for that possibility  DGG (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable concerts
Can you please discuss your concerns about the template on Template talk:Notable Concerts? Thank you. — WiseKwai 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain
Whoops. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. WP:TWINKLE messed up :/.--Svetovid 10:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)