Welcome...

Hello, Reginmund, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Paxse 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxse 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reginmund,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I was a little surprised by your alteration of all my text at Encyclopædia Britannica from American spelling to British spelling. It's generally customary to defer to the choice of the primary author (ummm, that would be me), and also to discuss such changes before making them. I'd advise you to do that in the future to avoid any hard feelings and edit-wars with other Wikipedians. However, I've no objections here and I see the sense of using British spelling on something whose name implies British orthography; thank you for taking the time to make those changes! :)

There are a few places, however, where your changes will have to be reverted, namely, in the quotations where we should follow the original spelling; I hope that you also see the sense of that.

I'm looking forward to your future edits; good luck with your first Featured Article! :) Willow 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stool pigeon is generally understood to be a crook. I have never seen it used to describe an undercover lawman. Clarityfiend 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other version is incorrect. Vic does not work for the local police; he is a federal agent. There is nothing in the current version that says whether he is a con or a lawman. It's not worth an edit war, but IMO, what's there now is less accurate and informative. Clarityfiend 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not standard practice to remove "dead links". Those red links encourage people to create articles, as I have done for the film Cry of Battle. Now that there is an article on the film, please restore the link.

Why do you keep removing Category:John F. Kennedy assassination? This is hardly a "dead link", so please restore it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's regionalsim? I don't understand your reason for going against junior high school. Can you please clarify your point? (MrsMacMan 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, could you please discuss further before making any more changes to the redirects, thanks. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussing before denying both my argument and then the neutral third option! ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia may be the title but as the page as been merged it is only logical for the singular form to come first then the plural form, then the off-shoot of the plural form. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discuss this matter in Talk:Trivium#What should this page redirect to? to get it sorted out, instead of an edit war. Anthony Appleyard 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See the end of Talk:Trivium. Anthony Appleyard 09:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mielőtt visszaállítasz valami orbitális baromságot, legalább nézzél utána. 70 évesnél újabb dokumentumban nem igazán látni a régi formát. kivéve. ha egy régebbi másolata. sok sikert a fordításhoz, okostóni.

Yeah I see that you already upset some people. Find an administrator please! Squash Racket 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything. I added some stuff.

==FOGD MÁR FEL TE IDIÓTA, HOGY MÁR 100 ÉVE NEM HASZNÁLJÁK AZT A FORMÁT!!!

fogd már fel végre, hogy mi csak jobban tudjuk

They want to tell something you don't seem to understand. Squash Racket 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edit summaried: "If following MoS, the Massachusetts Boston would have to be under the other options too". No, if there is a primary topic (that is, if the base name yields an article instead of a disambiguation), WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic says

Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this:

A school is an institution for learning.

School may also refer to:

Please discuss any further changes to the disambiguation page on its talk page before implementing them. -- JHunterJ 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't move a title using the move button (eg. with public enemy and related titles), please list any move you want to make at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Simply cutting and pasting the contents makes a mess out of the history that someone else has to sort through, and fixing it takes a lot longer than doing it correctly the first time would've taken. - Bobet 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity. As you'll note, it says "This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." Please leave a note on my talk page if you have any comments or questions. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's grammatically strange to say "she wanted a sex change", that's still the way it's done with transgender people. How about we compromise and change it to say

At the age of 11, Lepore professed a desire to have a sex change operation after...

Would that work for you? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Squash Racket 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone who personally attacked me has authority to say that it is wrong. Especially when he did it in a different language. Reginmund 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said you upset some people and they want to tell you something you don't seem to understand. Both are true. Squash Racket 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He called me an idiot in Hungarian. I can understand that. Reginmund 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you start to speak the language. That's an improvement. Squash Racket 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, it seems that "IDIÓTA" has a similar cognate... I am still waiting for a reason to remove a cited fact. Reginmund 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported what you are doing on that page. Enough.Squash Racket 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your sources and a rule that says that an encyclopaedia more than a century old is useless to source. I guess that would make the Domesday Book pretty obsolete, wouldn't it? Reginmund 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you cite sources to me? I live here, I know what's going on. It is you who tries to solve everything with the outdated book. Squash Racket 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. If necessary, we may discuss ENGLISH toponyms. What grounds do you have to say that I am trying to solve "everything"? How can you determine that this book is obsolete? Sources like Historia Regum Britanniae and the Domesday Book are some of the most important sources of history in the English language. They are around a millennium old and are they considered obsolete? NO!!! Reginmund 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing here anything or the administrators will have to work even with that. I had enough of you. AND DON'T RUIN THE ARTICLE ABOUT MY COUNTRY'S CAPITAL! Squash Racket 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ruining it; I am improving it. Stop saying I am because you are wrong. I have already cited three sources and responded to your anecdote on the administrator's page. Reginmund 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an idea at Talk:Budapest where your previous discussions are. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Budapest. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an idea at Talk:Budapest where your previous discussions are. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]