Talk:Ștefan Kovács

message: There is no sources that indicates that his real name was Istvan. Csurla , please stop adding the Hungarian name to the infobox. 79.117.211.187 (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. There is source for István and it is also indicated in artcile. Pls read again. - Csurla (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Bő egy hónappal később, június 9-én, a belgrádi Szport című lap megalapításának 10. évfordulója tiszteletére rendezett meccsen (Crvena zvezda–Világválogatott 2-2, tizenegyesekkel 7-6) Mészöly Kálmán és Albert Flórián játszott a jugoszláv fővárosban, a csapat edzője az Ajax erdélyi mestere, Kovács István volt.
'''
the trainer of team was Transilvanian István Kovács who managed Ajax.'''
Bye - Csurla (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written only that the Hungarian form of the name was Kovács István, not that this was his native name 79.117.216.98 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Hungarian, his native name is Hungarian. Easy? - Csurla (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to show us his birth certificate / identity card to prove that his given name was Istvan 79.117.184.208 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Why? I preferred the discussion with real user instead of anon. Pls make an account. - Csurla (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ștefan vs Istvan 

message: I asked for some extra oponions about Csurla's source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WP:SPS_or_not.3FPlease don't modify the article again before consensus Folbal1 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reliable source about that (in my opinion) Folbal1 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And in this reason enough you delete fact? It's not enugh. You create edit warring! Pls stop this activities in wikipedia. You just destroy here. - Csurla (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RSN]] 

message: I have fully protected the page for two days to stop the edit warring. The thing to do now is to calmly discuss the content and to try and find a solution that you can both live with. If you can't find a solution by yourself, then I recommend going to WP:3O or WP:DRN. I don't fully protecting pages for too long, though, so if the edit warring continues after the protection expires then I will probably use blocks instead. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This part contains a proper source but it was deleted. Protection is a good idea, but without this part absolutely wrong choice. - Csurla (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, admins don't get to be picky about which version they protect an article at - see The Wrong Version. Now you need to find a consensus on what to do, and once you've done that then I can unprotect the article for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a part to article with reliable source. Meanwhile I found further sources. That is the consesus for me. I will added this part as soon as possible. Folbal1 just try to find newer administative reason for deletion. - Csurla (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have a consensus "for you" that doesn't include Folbal, then that isn't much of a consensus in my view. If you still disagree after the protection expires then the correct thing is to go to dispute resolution, preferably WP:3O or WP:DRN. I don't like fully protecting pages more than is absolutely necessary, so if you begin edit warring again after the protection expires then I will be handing out blocks this time. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected