190.150.36.88

January 2016

Hello, I'm Eteethan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to László Csatáry— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Eteethan(talk)🎄 16:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at László Csatáry, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits to User talk:Eteethan could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have edited your contribution at László Csatáry ‎ to conform to Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and neutral point of view. We cannot say in the voice of the encyclopedia that László Csatáry ‎is innocent. We can say only that an author wrote a book in which he claims to offer documentation to show that he is, and we must supply a reference to show that such a book exists and that it makes that claim. I have modified your contribution to conform to both of these requirements. You must stop threatening other editors here, legally or otherwise, especially when it is you who are contributing edits to the encyclopedia that violate Wikipedia's policies described above. If you continue to threaten other editors, you will be blocked from editing, and I will be the first to request that you be blocked. Understood? General Ization ^Talk 02:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please offer a translation of the title Kassa Arnyekaban: A Csatary-ugy a dokumentumok tukreben so that it can be included for our mostly English-speaking audience. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  -- GB fan 02:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 190.150,

For your information, I also had a block tab open for you, but User:GB fan above beat me to it. You may not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a private entity, and there is no right of "free speech" here. The community of editors develops the policies, and No legal threats is one of them; with a little reflection you will understand why this is -- legal threats have a chilling effect on our open environment. We take great care to make the information right, and if it is inaccurate, there are numerous mechanisms for you to have errors corrected, but threatening us with legal action is not one of them. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, László Csatáry, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop

Megtennéd, hogy Csatáry szócikkébe nem helyezed vissza az újra és újra kitörölt tartalmat? Egyrészt, mert a szöveg már tartalmazza Verbovszki könyvcímét és elméletét, másrészt mert saját kiadású könyvről van szó, amely nem biztos, hogy a legjobb forrás, másrészt mert az ő véleménye csak egy a sok közül. Köszönöm, --Norden1990 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You Stop!

Documents are not opinion. Findings by the Budapest Investigative Prosecution Office that he was not there are opinion? Those supporting the lies about Laszlo Csatary say everything is opinion but theirs'. How stupid can you get? How racist can you get? I will not stop. Lies about people should be erased from the internet. This so called encyclopedic entry is garbage. Calling Mr. Verbovszki's book opinion is slander. It's based on documentation.

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at László Csatáry. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Suppression of the Truth = Censorship and Oppression

You are the one that is disruptive. You are engaging in suppressing the truth. You are ignoring documentation and the result of investigations in two countries. Take your hand off the administrative delete button and allow the truth to be printed and lies to be erased. If you allow slander to creep into your encyclopedia it is worthless as a credible source of information. Blocking me is censorship of the worst kind and sides the slander of innocent people. It is oppression. You know nothing about what you are talking about in this case. Sandor Verbovszki does and so do I. Blocking the eradication of slander is using censorship to promote racism and other horrific evils in the world. My campaign against this slanderous garbage will not stop. It will continue with or without the blessing of Wikipedia. Those that edit my entries are declaring that everyone with facts in this case are only expressing their opinion. They are saying that reputable information gathering agencies are all stupid. Well, actually, denying documented evidence is the height of arrogant stupidity. Print the truth! Otherwise print the lies as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk) 20:54 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to use the word "slander", your comments will be regarded as a legal threat and you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please see my comments concerning the same issue in the section above, which remain true now. General Ization ^Talk 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:General Ization has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:General Ization. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I Have A Lot to Say

I have a lot to say but my edits are erased. I will have a lot more to say, perhaps in another venue where there is freedom of speech. If you don't allow people to say what has to be said, how can they say it. Who are you people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk) 17:00 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to your messages on my Talk page, there is no "basic human right" to edit Wikipedia, and preventing you from doing so if you continue to violate our policies is not an infringement of the First Amendment right of American citizens to free speech. Please see WP:FREESPEECH. However, you are presumably not an American citizen (as your IP geolocates to El Salvador), so any discussion of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is moot. For a discussion of who and what Wikipedia is and is not, see WP:NOT. As for whether or not "slander" is a legal term, I assure you that it is (and you can confirm this by clicking the highlighted word to read our article on the subject). General Ization ^Talk 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech is a universal right, not one just of yours. This is an international issue. It's none of your business. Your position is extremely arrogant. This article has no business on the internet. It is false. Call it what you want. Whoever prints something is responsible for it. Truth is universal, not just a property of a few...or yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk) 17:36 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think you or the subject of the article László Csatáry have been mistreated, Wikipedia has a number of dispute resolution mechanisms. See WP:DISPUTE. I again advise you, however, to avoid threatening other editors and/or Wikipedia, legally or otherwise. If you do so, you will very likely be blocked from editing and your dispute disregarded. General Ization ^Talk 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think an article should not be here, you could also request an AfD nomination, but you will need an account for that. CLCStudent (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:László Csatáry for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The article already contains the following paragraph:

"In 2014, a book was published by Sándor Verbovszki titled Kassa Árnyékában: A Csatáry-ügy a dokumentumok tükrében (English: "In the Shadow of Košice: The Csatáry Case In the Light of Documents"). The book states, based on records in the National Archives of Hungary, that Csatáry was stationed elsewhere when the crimes occurred, and thus should be exonerated of war crimes.

References

As I have explained to you before, we can (and do) state that the book makes that claim; we cannot state that the book's claim is true (or false) because we (Wikipedia) have no way to verify the claim. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and we must state neutrally what reliable, published sources say without criticizing or endorsing those published sources and their content. We cannot go beyond what our sources say, we cannot editorialize, and we cannot exonerate Csatáry just because you would like us to or believe that we should. We have done all we can do. Other suggestions have been made to you above. Please stop persistently editing the article's Talk page to add claims of innocence for Csatáry, or you will be blocked (again). General Ization ^Talk 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:László Csatáry.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:László Csatáry. General Ization ^Talk 02:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---