User talk:Ltbuni

Constitution of Hungary DRN filing

A proposal to close the filing as stale has been floated at WP:DRN and in less than 48 hours will be acted upon unless there is significant objection. Please consider if the dispute is still active and respond if appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in relating to the Ferenc Szaniszló

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Ltbuni, the link to the dispute resolution page is here: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ferenc Szaniszló. Hopefully we can all come to some agreement. -Darouet (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ltbuni (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Petra László tripping incident page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You avoid discussion, but keep on reverting

You reverted my contributions, that were well sourced, twice in a row.

Perhaps you made an error and overlooked my reply on the Petra Laszlo Talk page. Please take part in the discussion before doing so again. Revert wars are counter-productive, and your account can be sanctioned.

Amin (Talk) 19:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

In reference to your invitations to Norden1990 to come to your aid in your editing disputes:

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Konkrétan mi a gondja az értesítéssel? Miért nem semleges? Csak szóltam neki, hogy nézzen be - lévén, hogy hosszú sorokat írkált már ezt megelőzően is, és ráadásul az az érve sem áll meg, hogy mindig ugyanazon az állásponton lennénk, mivel simán töröltem más szócikkekből olyat, amit ő aztán visszaemelt. --Ltbuni (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you want me to understand your reply, please respond in English. Canvassing is against Wikipedia policies, and if you continue to engage in it, I'll have to raise it with administrators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I asked You in Hungarian what was wrong with my messages. Concerning the Petra László article I wrote: "Hi, could You please take a look at the Talk Page of it? What about nomination for deletion?" I wrote him, because - if You take a look at the talk page of that article - in the past few days only three of us, Amin, Norden1990 and me were involved in a debate. Since Amin restarted the debate with me, I signed to Norden, that if he/she wants, he/she can come back, and carry on. I did not know anybody who could poosibly be interested in the debate. The same case was with the Szaniszló Ferenc issue: "Hi, I find this one-sided and POV, could You please take a look at the talk page, we are about the engage in an edit war." Just for Your information, Norden1990 and I were not in agreement regarding the article. Please take a look at the History: Norden reverted my edit! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 --Ltbuni (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni, you're required to be neutral in who you try to bring into your disputes. If you want more people to join a discussion, don't purposely seek out people you think will agree with you, but rather post in fora for people who are generally interested in editing on the topic. The fact is that you asked Norden1990, who most often takes the same side as you in your numerous Hungary-related edit wars, to edit on two pages in which you were engaged in disputes. That's a classic case of canvassing, and it goes against Wikipedia's rules. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411 as I mentionned, on that specific article we were on the opposing site, and no one else was involved in the dispute. I won't go onto the noticeboard, to warn 300000 editors that there is a debate. What is more, that is not the first case Norden1990 and I were not in agreement.So I refuse the accusation, if You got problems, ask some dispute resolution instead of threatening people with administrative rules--Ltbuni (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to go to dispute resolution over your clear canvassing violations. That's not the appropriate venue. If you can't acknowledge that what you did was inappropriate, then the proper channel for me to go to is the administrators' indcidents noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI - canvassing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Darouet (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Please notify the other editors about the filing of your request at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, the other editors were warned, but declined the dispute reolution - meanwhile we solved the question with the help of an editor in an ANI discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ltbuni_repeatedly.2C_blatantly_canvassing. So, if it is possible, I would like to revoke my request. What should I do now?--Ltbuni (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: while I was annoyed by the canvassing, I trust that you weren't meaning to break any rules, and appreciate your positive, helpful effort on the pages we've been discussing. As they say, time dulls memory's first intensity. I hope this means we'll be able to work together on articles in the future. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I hope so, and again I apologize if I wrote insults.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ltbuni. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sebastian Gorka page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam! Before (or at the very same time of) reverting the edits, I asked Wikipedia:Third opinion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timothyjosephwood#It_is_Gorka_again and when I undid the changes, in the Edit summary, I clearly described my will to solve our debate with the other editors on the "Talk page". In its present form, the Sebastian Gorka article is libel. And in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on the "Wikipedia:Biography of living persons any libellous content should be removed ASAP. --Ltbuni (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• And again with a 3RR warning on Gorka... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Where did I broke the three delete rule? And I DID ASK dispute resolution, maybe You did not pay enough attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive258#Sebastian_Gorka What is more I pinged the editors concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Sebastian_Gorka . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans#Sebastian_Gorka What is Your problem?--Ltbuni (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll be perfectly happy to do a report at 3RRN that lists more than three reverts, if you continue... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Continue what? What is more, I elaborated my opinion on the Talk Page, So instead of just reverting, please join in the debate.--Ltbuni (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ltbuni. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kim Lane Scheppele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helsinki Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ltbuni. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits to Kim Lane Scheppele

Hello. I have just discovered the edits that you made to Kim Lane Scheppele in 2018. The material that you authored is now in a section titled "Criticism of Donald Trump", however it does not appear that she was either the sole author of it as you have claimed, nor does it appear as if she was the actual author. In fact, the material you cited was jointly authored by two organizations, Protect Democracy and Stand Up Ideas. In the acknowledgements it is said that Scheppele was consulted on as an expert for the report, but so were a dozen others. I'm confused why you cite her here. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Polygnotus (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

?--Ltbuni (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk, don't revert. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)