Talk:János Bihari

Continous provocative actions with a bad faith

Ditinili is performing the same like more months, continous provocations and wilfully not understanding properly the things. He not just initiated an edit warring, but outside the 24 hour made a 3RR as a gaming action. It is clear the the former state of the article confused the city of Pressburg/Pozsony with Pozsony County, since "now Bratislava" proves this fact. My edit was a correction of a mistake, the other case where the user is awaiting for mediation does not affect this right now, it is about the interpretation problem about naming conventions about placenames about non-existing administrative units since those placenames are not existing today that the correspondent consensus refers of. A foxy and bad faith aim to provocate again unnecessary conflicts, tiring, apparent and ridicolus, not a proper Wiki behavior, shame I have to say!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir. Please (please), try to avoid statements like "continuous provocations", etc. The article did not confuse anything. The name "County of Pressburg" is valid English name look e.g. here, here or here. We can discuss the naming convention, but it is not a "clear mistake". You know that our views are different. The best thing you can do is to wait for a clarification and mediation. Unfortunately, you began to edit further articles and then complain to "provocations" and missing "good faith". Ditinili (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

:))) The fooling show is continouing again. I am sorry, it is only YOUR FAULT that such statements exist you want to avoid, you should change your activity if the truth hurts! Again you are making diversion since the case is not about necessarily Pressburg and you know that very well, as your reverts also proved your true intention. With this you try to evade of something else! You are continously fooling and manipulating since "clarification and mediation" is about an other case an in case it have a result it can be further cared, but here this is not the case at once! Again, "provocations" and missing "good faith" is just the description of your long-term activity!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, stop. If you are unable to distinguish between a content dispute and personal attacks, offenses, etc, take a break.

I will not argue "whose fault is that", we are not divorcing. Our views are simply different. Please, wait. Ditinili (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

:)))) Laughable, we are not married - maybe your attraction to me confuses you :), your are really afraid of the sanctions so you are deteriorating again. You are unable to distiungish as you prove it continously with a problematic comprehension, but it is an apparent evading tactic, a poor attempt. No personal attacks or offenses are the subject, this is another tactic to deteriorate, you are responsible for your behavior! It's your fault, so no further argumentation needed and your views does not matter here since a present-day CITY is not a former COUNTY and it is not a content dispute as you try foxily to manipulate the things. Stop speaking about waiting that is not the case here, you are just making your situation much more worse!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Here are the proofs that Pressburg is not only the name of the city, but also the name of the county here, here and here and this name is used in English sources. Thus, we cannot speak about a "mistake" and about a "correction". We can only say that this text had existed for 10 years. Then it was changed by you (= you removed non-Hungarian names) and only thereafter I was accused of provocation. Ditinili (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia community a perfect action of diversion and deterioration, since the problem is "(now Bratislava)" as all of us know. I corrected the mistake (present-day CITY != NON-EXISTENT COUNTY), regardless how old is it and Pozsony County is not a Hungarian name. The show must go on yes? Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3

See this closure at WP:AN3. There was a dispute as to how to name the county where Bihari was born, using the Slovak name or the Hungarian name. For example see this edit. The article is now fully protected for one week on a version from July 16 which is prior to the current edit war. Please use the talk page to search for agreement. Note that this article is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE, which is relevant if there is a chance that the edit war is motivated by nationalistic issues. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Also here, EdJohnston, why you did not listen properly, that the dispute is not about what you are stating? "now Bratislava" was never the name of a non-existent historic COUNTY, it was confused with a present-day CITY. Pozsony County is not the Hungarian name, that would be "Pozsony vármegye". As an administrator, you should have been much more professional and careful!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

The previous name in the article was 'county of Pressburg'. Are you saying that was incorrect? Was there no such county? EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, as I said all the time the "now Bratislava" that is incorrect!!!! And further accepted form based on the result of the other mediation that the other user refers of could be "Pozsony County" (also called Pressburg County) or similar, but we have to wait until the end of the mediation! But check please the Pozsony County English mother article, this name is the most proper!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

This doesn't make much sense. If there is a 'mediation' can you link to it? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, "This doesn't make much sense", can you tell me what you refer of? What makes sense is to correct the blatant mistake, even if you are not expert in the area, 2 seconds you click on the page Bratislava and you see it is a present-day city, another two seconds two click on Pozsony County any you check it is the former county of of Kingdom of Hungary, they are not identical, and the names where confused by the one who added it anno since the subject confused the CITY with a COUNTY. The English name is Pozsony County as also the mother article is called like so, but also by English sometimes it is referred as Pressburg County, so what makes really sense - as having a long experience about naming - to simply put "Pozsony County" or in case "Pozsony County (also Pressburg County)" but the earlier one until the referred "mediation request" from the other user will say else.

I am anyway surprised you ask to link it, since the other user already linked it in the ANI page - only his first question, not all - , and this means you did not really read everything through in the ANI report although as an Administrator you have a major responsibility to arbitrate cases properly, otherwise your judgements will not have any positive effect, just causing more turmoil! Now the other user is laughing on you and me, since he achieved what he wanted, you became also totally confused, condemned me of edit warring&attacks although he initiated everything an he does it since three months ago also in other pages with other users, and with this decision you reinforced him to continue this rogue activity, since the page is left an an improper way as he wanted. He wrote a question to User:Elonka's talk page, see section "the naming convention for places in Slovakia". read through carefully along with my answers, but THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT HERE RIGHT NOW! This is the catch!

With this he tries to cover that he reverted repeatedly in a gaming way without discussion by pretending the cause totally different as it is, otherwise he would have removed "now Bratislava". As soon that the section is corrected properly to Pozsony County only after this "mediation request" and it's possible outcome may reinforce the "Pozsony County" version or add further names listed in brackets such as "Pressburg County".

Please assure me that you properly understood everything for the sake of Jesus Christ, really!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

If your position is so obviously correct, I wonder why nobody has expressed agreement with you. It is up to editors to decide this type of question, not admins. If the 'mediation' consists in asking a question on Elonka's talk page it may not lead to a result, since User:Elonka has not been very active this year. You might consider reading WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) and if necessary set up a WP:Request for comment to get more opinions. I am not planning to discuss this further. If you want to appeal my AN3 decision, you can use WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, "If your position is so obviously correct, I wonder why nobody has expressed agreement with you" -> ????? You see, again a proof you did not read properly the ANI page, meanwhile you are making decisions with your Administrator rights, check please again Norden1990's contribution i.e.

Again, the current issue is NOT AFFECTED by the mediation request by the other user regarding Elonka, as I EXPLAINED TO YOU MORE TIMES, this is just the cover story of the other user, pls. check Bratislava and Pozsony County in 4 seconds (present-day city vs. former county confusion)

I know about WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) as I told I know and perform in an expert way naming conventions long time ago, and also regarding current issues many other opinions I met, excuse me you should read it back again if you still do not understand why a city cannot be equal with a county!! Jesus! I am sorry you are not intending to discuss further, this is not a good solution, it is not a shame or derogation to change your mind with your Administrator rights, we are all humans so we may make mistakes, anyway I try to have good relation also with you but you have to understand what kind of mistakes you did right now, you decided without even reading or interpreting properly the issue. So please change your mind and at least continue discussion, only if it has no other way I would appeal, it is not my primary goal.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, it seems that there are different views on this problem. What is "an obvious mistake" for you, is not an obvious mistake for the original author of the text, for me and for another editor. It seems that you have a general problem to accept any non-Hungarian name, because you had a problem to accept even "Pressburg" and had a serious difficulty to understand that this names is related also to the county, not only to the city (quote: Jesus Christ, why it is not understood???? This is about Pozsony county, not the city! diff)

If we speak about the name "County of XYZ" then the county is named by its seat (the town). There is nothing inherently wrong to mention the current name of the town. On the contrary, I believe that it really helps English readers to associate the name of the county with a concrete region.

I don't see any reason why this cannot be discussed as a part of the discussion about the naming convention for the counties and why it is better to change it as "unilateral action" instead of a trial to reach a consensus. If Elonka is not active (wait for two or three weeks), I suggest to follow EdJohnston's suggestion and set up a Request for comment. Ditinili (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The current version is misleading and there is no link to the former administrative unit. My proposal: "the virtuoso violinist from Pozsony County (today Bratislava in Slovakia)." But I don not understand this aspiration. Which will be the next? "The Holy League occupied the whole territory of Budapest Province (then Budin, Hungarian Buda)". It's completely nonsense. We either do not mention the name Istanbul if we speak about the history of pre-Ottoman city. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"there is no link to the former administrative unit" This can be easily fixed by a wikilink, it is not necessary to remove other names. Ditinili (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

And what is your opinion about my other remarks? --Norden1990 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili,

− −

- "it seems that there are different views on this problem. What is "an obvious mistake" for you, is not an obvious mistake for the original author of the text, for me and for another editor." -> I hope I do not have sank deep to Kindergarten level and to manifest in a such a way that not more than 70 IQ is needed to distuingish a CITY from a COUNTY, a FROG from a CAT, etc.

− −

- The author was commiting an obvious mistake, a layman in the subject, you think if in an article an edit war and an ANI incident would be needed to correct a mistake a distuinguish i.e. Pretoria from Los Angeles, or Washington State from Washington D.C.???

− −

- I did not have any "serious difficulty" to understand anything unlike you, I have always known about Pressburg but there is a difference between a historic name referred and the official name of an administrative unit since a the county and the city is not the same, but of course, why I am explaining, you know that you just as always deter and causing turmoil and provocate to maintain the cover story for your activity. I just let you know, I am not interested on your continous diversion attemtps and false accusations! (and the qoute goes to "now Bratislava" as everyone nows with more than 70 IQ possibly)

− −

- Laughable not all county is named of it's seat, it is inherently wrong to confuse a county with a city and with this you finally proved explicit your malicious provocative aims and if you'd like to help English readers then you would have pushed only Pressburg

− −

This is your goal I know, to sabotage and continoue provocation, so your daily basis of attention is provided, asking a request for comment for such a thing that a county cannot be confused with a city as the correction of such mistakes based are daily in Wikipedia without any incident, would be the greatest joke and shame ever commited in Wikipedia, all learned people would laugh on the stupids who woul follow such a thing.

− −

"This can be easily fixed by a wikilink, it is not necessary to remove other names" -> Second proof, invalid names reffering to something that is not what it is has no place. Finally, I have to inform, it is useless to troll or provocate further, remember one thing that you CANNOT FOOL ME along with other editors, it is useless to try again and again, we know you, we learned your personality, activity, intention, approach in the past months, it is totally useless to struggle, your luck until now was that some Anglo-Saxons can hardly understand such kind on foxiness that for you have to grow up in Central or Eastern Europe! Keep this in mind, but soon others with an adequate historical knowledge or with the ability to separate a JAGUAR from a SUZUKI will come and than this bad faith activity will end!

− − Norden1990, this is a serious issue, as you see, th other party is sistematically and wilfully provocating and persecuting users, edits regarding Hungary matters, with an extraordinary foxiness so he can have the daily basis of enjoyment, we know and understand all the background of this as it has been demonstrated and discussed many times, as WP:NOTHERE and WP:I just don't like it is the case also regarding this. Regardless how you would argue the 100th time, he would behave the same like always willful distraction, deterioration, non-understanding, hidden and explicit provocations to fulfill a current goal, such unbidden acticity does not belong to Wikipedia. In case the current Administrator will not revise his mistakes (reading and interpreting properly before judging, an evidential necessity) and the ability to distuingish two different entities (an inacceptable and impossible shame and blame), we have to make serious steps soon!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, try to avoid using statements about kindergartens, IQ, sabotages, provocations, etc. Admin warned you yesterday that you should avoid personal attacks. Thank you. Ditinili (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As I told I don't care about your diversion and provocative attempts (Admin anyway did not even read and intrepreted properly the things as he demonstrated), no personal attacks has been made (words like Kindergarten and IQ are NOT banned words in Wikipedia, as you confuse again wilfully the usage of words with something totally else, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship where words or description of a situation would be prohibited) as you know this also, it is you average evading attempt to deteriorate the attention about your activity, and (sabotage,provocation) the description of a tendentious disruptive provocative behavior and conflict-generating attitude since months that has no connection to building an encyclopedia were not, is not, and never will be a personal attack, everyone is responsible for his own behavior as you describe an ACTIVITY commited by someone, it has no direct connection to any personal hurt (i.e. if a murderer is killing an old lady or someone is harming 3RR it is not a personal attack, it is fact, negative activities can be also expressed and described). This kind of career of yours will end shortly, Thank God Wikipedia is a place where not any contributions can be made to disappear! With this you again just justified everything regarding your behavior! The principle is "comment on content, not persons", I commented content and a situation, since on content you cannot comment just only repeating nonsense, you choose again to abuse and provocate me, at least you reinforce your problematic behavior in front of the Wikipedia Community!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

@User:Norden1990 "And what is your opinion about my other remarks?"

I don't feel qualified to talk about Budin Eyalet. Istanbul is the widely accepted English name and is widely known. Pozsony is not and some hint could be helpful. Formally, the Hungarian language was not the official language during his life (1764 – 1827) and I can understand a potential motivation of the original author for "the County of Pressburg (now Bratislava, Hungarian Pozsony)". However, "the County of Pozsony (other names)" or "the Pozsony County (other names)" are also correct solutions for a Hungarian person. Also "Nagyabony (present-day Veľké Blahovo)" seems to be better then "Nagyabony". Ditinili (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I support the second version because of standardization. Anyway, between 1849-60, the Austrian court established military districts in the place of counties. As a result of German administrative language, we use German names here (e.g. Military District of Ödenburg and not Sopron). So there is no nationalistic approach among the names of former administrative units. But of course, we can use other names in parentheses. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try to summarize.

Proposal: the Pozsony County (Pressburg, now Bratislava)

Explanation:

* The Hungarian name (used also in English) is used in the first place because the article is about Hungarian person (see Elonka's "naming conventions for place names in Slovakia").

* The widely accepted English name in the name of county is preserved. "Pressburg County" is shortened to Pressburg, because we know that we speak about a county and we will not repeat the word "county" again.

* A reference to the Slovak name is preserved for a place name in Slovakia (today's Slovakia). In this historic context, it could be "Prešporská stolica" or more archaic "Prešpurská stolica". However, a reference to Bratislava is more useful for English readers and for this reason I will not push the historic Slovak name (to keep the text shorter). --Ditinili (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I support your proposal. I also agree with Nagyabony (today Veľké Blahovo, Slovakia) form. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

- The original author did not have such motivation he simply confused the former county with the city, this is evident because of the reference.

- The proposal rearding "Pozsony County (Pressburg, now Bratislava)" I don't agree

Explanation:

- Elonka's "naming conventions for place names in Slovakia" is for place names in Slovakia, Pozsony County is not a place or placename in Slovakia, it is a former administrative unit that existed only Hungary

- The shortening does not have any relevance here, this article is not filled with a large number of names, it can cause more confusion

- It is inherently wrong to suggest a reference to a city regarding county and if the motivation would be the help of English readers then "Pressburg" is the best for it, forcing Bratislava is a ground of another motivation that is historically inaccurate a totally inacceptable. In case the mediation request regarding "naming conventions for place names in Slovakia" has a certain outcome, then Prešpurská župa could be added

Because all of these I support: "Pozsony County (Pressburg County)" and just and only here because of the claim of "English readers" as a generosity, the validity of any alternate names this case is depends on the mediation request in progress...

The process of the modification of the page was a mistake, as well the current one since consensus requierements did not met, not all participants of this discussion agreed on a final version. I may have the full right to undue the latest edit, simply I did not chose right now to do so since the other parts of proposal discussion I have no objection and the current version is better as the improper one the admin restored the page - unfortunately -.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

The phrase "Pozsony County (Pressburg, now Bratislava)" is misleading, because currently Veľké Blahovo belongs to Trnava Region, not to Bratislava Region. My proposal is not to mention the county at all, to avoid any disagreements. In my opinion it is enough to mention that he came from Nagyabony/Veľké Blahovo. 123Steller (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

+1. This is also a good solution. Ditinili (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Steller, good point I have been also thinking about this. In such a case I would support "The first great was that of János Bihari, the violinist from Nagyabony (present-day Veľké Blahovo)."(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

His hometown is already mentioned in the Biography section, I don't think we need to include that in the lead. 123Steller (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hint: Here is some info about him [1] in HU + SK. (Yes, there are also better sources).

Steller, then I would suport this change of the lead: "By the middle of the nineteenth century, "Gypsy music" was elevated to high fashion, the first great was that of János Bihari, the violinist Franz Liszt described: "The tones sung by his magic violin flow on our enchanted ears like the tears..."(KIENGIR (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Seems OK to me. 123Steller (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Norden1990:, you agree?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

OK. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on János Bihari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041015091215/http://www.romove.cz/en/article/18280 to http://www.romove.cz./en/article/18280

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)