User talk:Tacsipacsi

Welcome!
Hello, Tacsipacsi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Bináris (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

WikiChessDiagram program
A new version is available - see my talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, you’re welcome! Although that’s another project… —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Szia!
I am happy about the deletion, but I feel sorry for "Not going to be lectured to by someone with less than 600 edits who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about." - Sajnos, some people are very uncooperative and unfriendly. But probably he has some problems in life with such behavior, that we don't have :-) 89.14.152.24 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Szépre száll a füst de bolond aki állja - talán best to step aside. But if he closed against rules, then actions against that, may help to prevent further illegal activity by that user. Regarding the articles and WD, there is some progress at Template talk:Infobox settlement. 89.14.152.24 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

He vandalized Finnish municipalities by inserting the call to the deleted Template:Infobox Finnish former municipality so several articles instead of an infobox show a red link to that template. He also messed up the replacement of template:Infobox Russian governorate, putting the type labelled as "Political status" in the field for higher level subdivision, e.g.. 89.12.110.126 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement
Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4

You have been told to use WD, why do you come up again with "Yes, the pages seem to work just fine—until an inexperienced user wants to edit them, until a power user wants to maintain them in mass"? Wikidata is the place to maintain data. If you need a functionality, bring it up at template_talk:Infobox settlement- nem? 89.12.110.126 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I was speaking about the non-WD mess Zackmann08 created (and got better in the meantime). WD is a lot better than that for inexperienced users (not to speak about power users) if it’s well-documented. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Budapest
Thanks for your recent edit to Budapest about the Mongol invasion, reverting an IP's nonsense addition about invaders arriving for "peaceful cultivation".

I have kind of a minor quibble about what to say in edit summaries upon reversion: Though I agree with your revert, I disagree somewhat with your edit summary. IP's edit summary was purely their own opinion, unbacked by any source. As you said in your summary, IP's change did smack a bit of "political correctness", but pointing that out was irrelevant here, and more to the point, is not a valid reason for reversion. The argument in the summary about "Mongols wanted to occupy this territory, not to settle peacefully" is not necessary, and although true, it could be interpreted by another editor as just your opinion being stacked up against IP's opinion. All you needed to say, was something like, "The given source, EB 1911, does not support your changes [about the Mongol invasion]," and that would've been enough, and is also a policy-based reason based on the verifiability policy, so it's a much stronger argument. Like I say, just a quibble, as I agree with your revert; leaving a stronger, policy-based reason in the edit summary makes your revert much less liable to being undone by somebody else, who just happens to agree with IP's opinion, and not yours. Thanks for your fix to this article, and happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Versioned Maps
Hi @Tacsipacsi - Thank you for taking the Technical Wishes survey on Kartographer! Since you mentioned it in your response, I just wanted to share that our team is actually already in the process of bringing Kartographer to wikis with Flagged Revisions. You can see more info about it on our project page here: Versioned Maps

Best - Elisha Cohen (WMDE) (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

City with county rights
Thanks for helping me with some sourcing for the English languaged City with county rights article. However, I was wondering if you'd seen my last reply on the Talk page for the article? I'm curious if there are any acts dealing specifically with this special type of local government, because I've been unable to find any. What I'm curious about is if these local governments are obligated to provide certain county-wide services or if it is that they are simply permitted to do so if they choose to, and if so, which kind of county services can/shall they provide? This doesn't seem to be clear, and perhaps its up to each city of this state how they organize their local government. But if that is the case, I'd like to make that clear in the article. As it reads right now, the implication is that they are required to provide county-wide services. And, well, in counties with more than one city of this status, that would not make sense. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! I saw your reply; I didn’t write anything because I had nothing to write, I have no idea how to find these “other act(s)”. njt.hu has many nice features, including automatic links to other acts referenced by the currently viewed act, but I don’t see a backlinks collection (à la Special:WhatLinksHere), which would make this task really easy. However, I’m pretty sure the local governments are obliged to provide services for the whole country or a large part of it (larger than a district, as districts have their own seats) – the law states that they provide services, not that they may provide services. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

English
Hello, User:Tacsipacsi, I don’t find that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style supports your idea that “For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there”. Are you able to find support for it in the MOS?

You may not be aware that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style states that “The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others” (here: MOS:ENGVAR)  Which seems to contradict your preferences, which you assert. The MOS also states: “When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context.”

In this particular instance I note that by undoing my edit, you yourself changed a Wikipedia article (Szeged) from one version of English to another — How in good faith can you tell me I shouldn’t do exactly what you’re free to do? (I quote you to me: “Don’t change articles from one version of English to another”). That seems improper, is certainly not stated anywhere in the MOS, and doesn’t inspire anyone to heed your suggestions. It also seems to violate Wikipedia’s principle that encourages editors to assume good faith in others. (Assume good faith.) I'm sure you don't meant to do that. - Xenoonaphone (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Xenoonaphone, I'd appreciate it if you didn't phrase your response like a kind of a personal attack. Talking about "good faith" in the way you do is not appropriate here. You made an edit, the editor undid it, that's it. And the editor did not change something to another version: they merely restored a status quo. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s true, Drmies. I don’t make negative personal comments, or speak harshly, or disrespectfully.   I’m responding to a fellow editor that’s making an effort to restrict which edits another editor (me) can do as an editor.  And he cites rules or guidelines that I can’t find.  And so in my response I ask if he knows. I assume he may be right about some things.  You suggest that I’m attacking him personally, and that talking about good faith is inappropriate — I don’t think so. - Xenoonaphone (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "I don’t find that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style supports your idea that “For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there”."
 * It’s MOS:TIES, although it’s not relevant for Hungary. (I sent you a standardized message, which is applicable to more cases than the current one, which is why it mentions English-speaking countries.) British English is more common in Hungary (e.g. when learning English as a foreign language in school), but it’s far from being a strong national tie; that alone doesn’t justify using British English.
 * "Which seems to contradict your preferences, which you assert."
 * Actually, I use US English more often, so this isn’t true (but I don’t assume bad faith, of course you had no way to know this). I just followed the Manual of Style.
 * "“When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context.”"
 * We’re speaking about differences among national varieties, not within any particular national variety, so this isn’t relevant.
 * "In this particular instance I note that by undoing my edit, you yourself changed a Wikipedia article (Szeged) from one version of English to another — How in good faith can you tell me I shouldn’t do exactly what you’re free to do? (I quote you to me: “Don’t change articles from one version of English to another”)."
 * As noted by Drmies, I just restored the status quo. If you started a new article on a place in Hungary, and consequently used US English, I wouldn’t even think about changing it to British English.
 * "That seems improper, is certainly not stated anywhere in the MOS"
 * It is stated in the MOS, and I linked to it in my edit summary (if you look at the diff, it’s just below my name): it’s MOS:RETAIN. Apart from the word you changed, “centre” appears twelve times in the article, “center” only once. In the next paragraph, Szegedi Szabadtéri Játékok is called Szeged Open Air (Theatre) Festival, not Szeged Open Air (Theater) Festival. The Day of the City is on 21 May, not on May 21. And so on. While not 100% consistent, I think the article clearly leans towards British English, and so that should be retained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. (If you start a discussion on changing the variety, I’ll be neither for nor against it; if others support switching to US English, it’s okay for me, as long as there’s consensus, and the switch is done consequently in the entire article.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:RETAIN indicates a number of exceptions to “retaining the existing variety”. For example:  When an English variety's consistent usage has NOT been established, and when there is consensus contrary to retaining an existing variety. MOS:RETAIN also indicates exceptions to “retaining the existing variety”, for example “when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity”.   When you say “Don’t change articles from one version of English to another”, you are ignoring the exceptions that MOS:RETAIN indicates. MOS:RETAIN does not support such a blanket statement as: “Don’t change articles from one version of English to another”.  I was respectfully disagreeing with you on that point (when I said it “is not stated anywhere in the MOS.)
 * Also when I note a change from one English variety to another, and you say it is not a change from one English variety to another, instead it is a restoration of the “status quo”, perhaps if we can agree that we are using different words to refer to the same thing — we can end what appears to be a discussion without a point.
 * And there is no need to defend or describe to me what is said on MOS:RETAIN. I totally agree with MOS:RETAIN, and I have no objection to the article on Szeged using British English. Thanks, and best wishes - Xenoonaphone (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And there is no need to defend or describe to me what is said on MOS:RETAIN. I totally agree with MOS:RETAIN, and I have no objection to the article on Szeged using British English. Thanks, and best wishes - Xenoonaphone (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)