User talk:Bardwell

Five Graves to Cairo If Mouche wasn't in love with Bramble, how do you explain her drastic change in behavior? In the beginning, she was just doing what she had to do to survive. At the end (or rather, her end), she was defiantly yelling at the Germans that the British would be back.

As for Bramble, he must have had feelings for her (c'mon, this is Hollywood). He bought a parasol for her and carried it around with him, through combat no less, then tenderly used it to shade her grave. Clarityfiend 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity,
Watch the ending! When Mouche is being led to be interrogated by Rommel we don't know (nor does Bramble) if she would or wouldn't denounce him. It is only after she realizes Schwegler's deceit that we know that Bramble is safe.
Bardwell 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of it; I'm going by memory. I just have a hard time believing that Schwegler's lies were enough to ignite a suicidal patriotism. She just wasn't the patriotic type. Actually, the whole part about her saying the British would be back never did make much sense to me, whatever the motivation. Just 1940's movie morality I guess - the "bad" girl has to be punished. Clarityfiend 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity,

Mouche’s “suicidal patriotism” was triggered by the realisation that she had given her body to Schwegler for nothing. Of course, the real reason for her ‘patriotism’ was that the film was made and released in 1943, it is a film about the war and it had to be patriotic. BTW, Anne Baxter was also very ‘patriotic’ in another WW II movie of the same period (1943), North Star, but with a different kind of ‘patriotism’ the Bolshevik variety – (Russian partisans fighting the German invaders).

The “British will be back” speech would have made perfect sense to 1943 audiences; in December 1940 the Brits, advancing from Egypt, have defeated the Italians in the Western Desert, captured Sidi Birani, and in the course of following two months advanced deep into Libya as far west as El Aghelia in the Gulf of Sirte. Hitler’s response was the injection of German troops (Afrika Korps) under the command of Rommel. In June 1942 Rommel rolled up the Brits, recaptured Tobruk and advanced deep into Egypt as far east as El Alamein and threatened to capture Alexandria. In October 1942, Montgomery repulsed Rommel at El Alamein (enter ou hero, corporal Bramble with the unbrella) and the rest is history.

Interestingly, there is a grain of truth in the otherwise fictional idea of the ‘five graves’ – in the 1930s the Germans did a lot of ‘archaeological exploration' in North Africa. This topic is touched upon in the 1996 movie The English Patient, a very fine film, refreshingly free of propaganda and well worth seeing.

Bardwell 12:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I don't remember her sleeping with Schwegler, but then it's been quite a while. However, when I said her behavior doesn't make sense, I mean what was the point of it? It wasn't going to get the British there any sooner; all it was going to do was get her killed. As for her outrage, an unprotected attractive woman in Libya(?) at that time would almost certainly have been taken advantage of long before. Nope, it just rings false all the way around. Can't have a clean cut Englishman messing around with a native.

Saw North Star. Nowhere near as good as this one. Clarityfiend 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Géza Lakatos, Miskolc, etc Hi,

The source of the info is from the Hungarian Wikipedia's article about Lakatos. I asked them for info on its talk page.

About Miskolc and its history I'm planning to write a more detailed article, including everything about the revolution in 1956, but don't really have much time right now as it would involve spending days in the library; hopefully it'll be ready by the end of the year, but 20th century history (and military history in general) is not something I know a great deal of, so I can't even name good sources right now...

– Alensha ^talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I look forward to your eventual contribution to Miskolc's 1956 history. Bardwell 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006 riots Hi Bardwell,

Yes, there has been a significant divide over this issue between BP and the rest of Hungary for many years now, mainly because citizens in Budapest thought that MSZP's only real opponent, the Fidesz didn't do enough for them during their 4 years of leading the country (thwarting their efforts to get government money for a new theatre and a new metro line come to my mind right now). On the other hand, other Hungarians think Fidesz was the first party that at last did something for the rest of the country too (from a villager's point of view it was pathetic that those in Budapest are complaining over not having one more theatre when his village is being flooded in the 4th year in a row because there's not enough money for repairing river dams, etc.) Fidesz was mainly popular outside Budapest because the rest of the country developed under them. Other parties overly try to please Budapest which is understandable too, because the larger a city is, the easier it is to fanatize its people and if 2 million people turn against someone or something, that's not too pleasant. (Just look at this week's events: all the major vandalism, breaking into buildings and setting cars on fire is going on in Bp., other cities demonstrate almost peacefully.)

Though for me it's a bit illogical that Budapest favours MSZP this much, because they generally hate their mayor who does nothing for the city, and he belongs to a party allied with MSZP. People are even harder to understand than politics :D

I know the protest's article is not linked to the major Hungary pages, but I don't really know where it fits in – we don't have many articles to begin with, we don't have enough English-speaking editors to do Wikinews, and this event is still too common to put in Hungary's article or to that of Hungarian history. It's linked to from the main page and from Gyurcsány's article now. Usually where are articles like this linked from? (For example where were links of the Paris riots put?) As far as I know this is the first major political event we do a day-to-day coverage on.

– Alensha ^talk 00:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about Wikinews but only registered there today – I have lots of things to do both in this WP, in real life and in HuWiki (we're to polish up the revolution's article by the anniversary and I want to write the events in Miskolc in 1956), so I'm not sure I'm going to be active in Wikinews anytime soon... :) – Alensha ^talk 13:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Hi Bardwell,

You might want to read Help:Editing. There are some nice convenient ways to italicize text, start a new paragraph, put a separator, and stuff like that, which you don't seem to know.

K issL 10:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1956 revolution

Many thanks for your excellent observations on the 56 revolution article! I greatly look forward to more of your contributions, they will be a big help! Köszönöm szépen! K. Lastochka 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Regards, Bardwell 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new articles

Hi! I'm on New Page Patrol today and I noticed that you're making a number of new articles with content copied from existing ones. These articles all have titles like Albert Apponyi/1. I'm really confused by this, and have been marking the articles for deletion (since their content exists elsewhere on the project and creating a redirect would not be helpful given the title of the article). If you take a break from creating these articles until you establish what it is you're trying to do, I and the other editors on NPP would appreciate it. Thanks! -- Merope ^Talk 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bardwell, please, explain your "/1" pages before creating any more. You're creating them as fast as we can tag and delete them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-03 18:12Z

Ah, I see. I'm not sure what you mean by "uncorrupted"--submitting an article to WP means that it will be edited by anyone who comes along (see WP:OWN). You can, however, create links to the version of the article you submitted (before other edits) on your userpage. I guess. You can do this by clicking the "history" tab, then clicking on the date and time next to the edit you want to view. Then copy the URL and paste that into your userpage with single brackets. So, if you wanted to create a link to the article on Ferenc A. Váli as you started it, you would put [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_A._V%C3%A1li&oldid=78686905 First edit of Ferenc A. Váli] on your userpage. That will create something that looks like this: First edit of Ferenc A. Váli. In this way, you'll have easy access to the original incarnation of an article. Many Wikipedians keep a list of articles they've started, but they link to the "live" article on WP, not the article they submitted. I believe Quarl has deleted all the "/1" articles you've created, so there's no lasting harm. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- Merope ^Talk 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating box I'm unsure how to generate it a float right or left box. I had though putting float:right; into the style tag would work, but it did not. Try reasking your second question at the village pump technical. Kevin_b_er 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitéz

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to. I've been looking through your contributions, and I couldn't find a disambiguation page. I did see, however, that you have been creating redirects to the article on Vitéz. When you enter that in the search box, you indeed have to put an accent, because wikipedia is case sensitive. So if you want to add a link to Vitéz to a disambiguation page, you have to add [[Vitéz]]. If you want to create a redirect, you add #REDIRECT [[Vitéz]] (in capitals, with the space and with the accent). Have I answered your question, or have I only made it more confusing? If so, please tell me. A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I often do if I wanna create a new page. Go to your user page or user talk page. Press edit in the menu right above the talk page, or edit a section. Enter a link to the article you wanna create, like so [[Vitéz]] (example of an already existing page). Then click preview. You will see a red link to the article you wanna create. If it's blue, the article already exists. That's an easy way to see what needs to be done on wikipedia, and what has already been done: existing articles give a blue link, articles that still need to be created give a red link. If you click the link, you will go to the edit box. Write the article you wanna create. Click preview to check the article for any possible errors, and click save to add the article to wikipedia. Here are a few links that might help you find your way here:

Yours, A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 08:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned an article you have just created, Vitéz (Disambiguation) into a redirect to Vitez (disambiguation). A disambiguation is a page that gives the reader links to several articles with roughly the same name. See for instance Sycamore (disambiguation). Vitéz (Disambiguation) only had a link to one article, which means that it's not a disambiguation page. A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 13:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem might be in your browser. Because if I enter Vitez, it leads me straight to Vitez, and if I enter Vitéz, it leads me to Vitéz. A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it again, and it might also be due to wikipedia's servers. If you enter Vitéz in the search box on your left and you press "Go", it will lead you straight to the article Vitéz. But if you enter Vitéz and you press search, it will give a list of articles with the word Vitéz. That list is not always up-to-date, however, because we get so many new pages all the time. A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Review (2009)

Please note, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]