User talk:Transylvanian11

Welcome!
Please click on WP:HU if you are interested in Hungary-related topics. Squash Racket (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca
Please stop adding nonsense to that article. Don't remove anything that is source, unless you have a better source which proves that is wrong. If you want to add something new to it, please add only sourced information. See: WP:V. bogdan (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please slow down a bit
I urge you to take a look at our noticeboard and a thread on a new naming convention to get some useful information.

Also read WP:Citing sources, because inline citations make sure your changes remain in an article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca
Please don't add your own theories to Wikipedia articles. Unless that etymology was published in a WP:Reliable Source, you shouldn't add it to the article. bogdan (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Cluj-Napoca
Stop adding nonsense to Cluj-Napoca or you could get yourself blocked for repetitively disregarding the policies. The Dacians couldn't have had a Hungarian name and there's no serious scholarly source to claim such a thing. bogdan (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hali
Please take a little time to read at least some of the policies before contributing. Wikipedia is tricky to understand first, you should try small articles with small changes until you know how to do things. You should stop editing the Kolozsvár article immidiately and try with smaller articles. If you get reverted leave the issue alone for now. For example your latest edit about "napos" - sunny, I know you think you are right but just leave it alone, do NOT revert any more. Go to another article or take a break altogether until you know how to do things properly. Hobartimus (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This warning message was sent by an administrator as you had been reported for 3RR earlier. Squash Racket (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)