User talk:Ditinili/Archive 1

Archive 2016-11-14

Ditinili, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ditinili! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Ivan Kamenec

Hi, I'm Ghostboy1997. Ditinili, thanks for creating Ivan Kamenec!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Well, some of this page needs translation. Look on the bottom.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I've spoken to the above editor about his carelessness in reading the article. Nonetheless, some improvements would help. It would be good to be able to show the importance of some of the books, by citing reviews of them, or especially translations of them if they have ever been translated. Please specify for the English language on the train of tragedy just which book it was translated from, or it is was written as a separate work, please indicate. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Vienna Award may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The Czechoslovak delegation was led by [[Jozef Tiso]] (later president of the [[Slovak Republic (1939–1945)), and included [[Ferdinand Ďurčanský]], Minister of Justice in the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Vienna Award may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

territory (12,124 km², about 85% of the total) comprised 549,376 Magyars and 431,545{{sfn|Deák)1998|p=22}} Slovaks and Czechs (census in 1930 did not distinguish between Czechs and Slovaks), and
}}</ref>}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Vienna Award, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orava and Jesenské (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited János Esterházy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarians in Slovakia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Hungary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hungarians in Slovakia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

eyes of a historian in the early 21st century |last=Deák |first=Ladislav |accessdate=13 July 2014}}}</ref> During the whole interwar period, Hungarian society preserved archaic views on Slovak

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Vienna Award may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

far west as possible."{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}} After a short [[Slovak-Hungarian War]] (with several Hungarian air raids, e.g. March 24 on Spišská Nová Ves, Hungary was forced by Germany
eyes of a historian in the early 21st century |last=Deák |first=Ladislav |accessdate=13 July 2014}}}</ref> 67 villages lost Slovak majority, size of Slovak population was decreased by 74,100 and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Vienna Award may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

reliability of previous statistics, particularly of 1910 census from the peak of [[magyarization]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been reported. [1] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You seem to be engaged in the content dispute. After the block expires, please use dispute resolution avenues rather than edit-war. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy

Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet regarding the inclusion of the name . Thanks in advance for your help. 109.230.28.210 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Ruttkay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Slovakia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orava. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Slovakia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frankish, Avar and Zemplín. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Slovakia

It might have been a mistake, but you added a version of the article while leaving the original text in place. I thought it was vandalism and reverted it. Sjö (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was only a technical problem. My browser got frozen and when I clicked several times "save", "save", "save" something wrong happened.--Ditinili (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Slovakia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in 11th-century Hungary based on place-names, according to István Kniezsa and Lajos Glaser (1938)

User:Borsoka initiated a disccussion for promoting Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) to gooad article status. The article includes the map "Ethnic groups in 11th-century Hungary based on place-names, according to István Kniezsa and Lajos Glaser (1938)", which was contested by you in the past. I thought that you could be interested to participate at this discussion, so I notified you about it. 80.242.33.209 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The map is of course outdated and this version from 1938 was (according to [2], p.20) partially corrected already by Kniezsa in 1939. Ditinili (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yugoslavian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Europe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

] referred to it as "the first link in the European chain".<ref>Durant, ''The Life of Greece'' (''The Story of Civilization'' Part II, (New York: Simon & Schuster) 1939:11.</ref>
the [[East–West Schism|Great Schism]] (1054) and the [[Norman conquest of England]] (1066).</ref> [[File:Europe 814.svg|thumb|300px|Map of Europe in 814, as the [[Frankish Empire]] reached its peak,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Great Moravia page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ditinili. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nestor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Slovakia may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Zdeněk Měřínský

added links pointing to Austrian, Czech and Libri

Dušan Kováč

added a link pointing to Slovak

Richard Marsina

added a link pointing to Slovak

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orava. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ján Steinhübel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ján Steinhübel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KDS4444^Talk 20:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Nitra

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ditinili reported by User:Borsoka (Result: ). It seems to me you've been edit warring on this article. There may still be time for you to respond on the noticeboard and promise to wait for talk page consensus before changing the article again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about central Europe are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Nitra falls under this arbitration case. I see that people are accusing one another of POV-pushing on the talk page. Usually this means there is a problem that admins will have to fix. If all else fails, topic or page bans may be considered. People can avoid this if they make a sincere effort to fix the problem on their own. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigehelmus, there is not any "original research" and I did not "combined" any sources. I cited online version of "Hospodárske noviny" - reliable Slovak mainstream newspaper and this reliable newspaper also published snapshot of the web page where Magát admired Adolf Hitler. If I really want to do my "own research", I can open his facebook profile. I did it right now as an experiment, and he currently explains "this capaign against us" by the Jews controlling Slovakia.[3]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrej Danko (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jozef Tiso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted ANI Comment

Hello. I just reverted a comment you made at an ANI discussion because the discussion had already been archived by an admin. It was basically a content dispute without any attempt to talk it out before bringing it to ANI. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. --Ditinili (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerus Clausus

Dear, you seem again not to understand and you ignore good faith as well. If there is a state law, it has an obvious application by law. This is what I told and this is the truth. That means if any minority's candidant would apply to a place where already the limits are full that would be rejected. I did not speak about the affection or practical appliance, I spoke about the law, that conatins limitations for all the minorities (as you acknowledged it also). Unfortunately you again mixed the saison with faison, hence you put a long-long explanation about the situation of the Jews. This was no debated, thus I am not whitewashing anything, So you keep yourself away from unjust charges and try to remain professional!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There is no doubt that the law formally applied to any minority's candidate. Neverless, the law was aimed against the Jews and intentionally defined such criteria that in the real world it was applied against them and not against other minorities. More, the law itself (not only its application) also introduced special rules for the Jews which were not applied to other minorities. This was already documented. Thus, repeating the wording of the law (carefully chosen by the contemporary politicians with respect to the League of Nation) without mentioning context and the application is very misguiding. This is very unprofessional. --Ditinili (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again you repeat it, although the aim that was not debated. How could the law itself "introduce special laws for the Jews" if the law does not contain anything special for he Jews, but only for minorities? (KIENGIR (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that's the problem - "the aim was not debated". The aim was not "debated" (it was not mentioned at all), the impact was not "debated" (mentioned at all). So, the original and clear mention about an anti-Jewish law was replaced by the fuzzy statement about minorities, reproducing contemporary apology of the law.

But the authors of the law were never really serious about the system of nationality quotas. Its sole purpose, in anticipation of condemnation of the numerus clausus law from abroad, primarily from the League of Nations, was to be able to hide the anti-Jewish action in a law that seemingly applied an equal measure to all national minorities. In reality, however – apart from the anti-Jewish actions – the nationality quota system was never really introduced. Notwithstanding the fact that the legend persists in popular knowledge this day, it is fact an erroneous belief that the expression „Jewish” does not appear anywhere in the text of the numerus clausus law. The implementation of the law was determined by the enacting clause. (...) In other words, the explicit Jewish quota was not brought into being by the main text of the law itself, but in its enacting clause.

Victor Karády and Péter Tibor Nagy (ed), The numerus clausus in Hungary. Studies on the first anti-Jewish law and academic anti-Semitism in modern Central Europe, Pasts Inc. Centre for Historical Research, History Department of the Central European University, Budapest, 2012. p. 29 http://mek.oszk.hu/11100/11109/11109.pdf Ditinili (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did not move forward with this, you still speak about something that was not debated. I know the case, it's useless to repeat. But it does not change the fact, the law itself restricted all minorities (inlcuding Jews of course). (KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I am missing the point here. It's clear that this was an anti-Jewish law, it was prepared as an anti-Jewish law and it was applied as an anti-Jewish law. So, I will restore this info, if it has not been done in the meantime.Ditinili (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missing the point of a long time. But be careful, it is JUST considered widely as an anti-Jewish law, nominally it was agains all RACES (népfajok), so try to remain professional!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Székely land

I said during the last ANI that I would be staying away from that user as much as possible, and I see no reason to change at this time, for the simple reason that engagement with him is impossible. I mean, someone who out of hand dismisses texts published by Cambridge University Press, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Amsterdam University Press, Lexington Books, Yale University Press and McFarland & Company as "some Anglo-Saxon POV" really has no idea how scholarship and peer review function and no business editing this encyclopedia, so I'm not going to waste time "engaging" him.

But you might want to remind him, in case he hasn't read it, that this is not a forum. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul:,

))))))))))) yes surely I am impossible, thank's God Wikipedia is an incrementally verifiable platform, this contradicts you. Such arguments we often hear from our friends who love us the most, that why not to accept anything immediately i.e. from the U.S. Library Of Congress, a source from the biggest power of the world, where possible nuclear decisions are made. You think this is really an argument? Not the location, but the content is important - anyway I did not rejected them, you rejected other sources (ecetera-ecetera, but yes, yes always I have to be guilty :) ). But don't teach me about scolarship/peer review, I am a scientist with a Master Degree and I am not only rhetorically following these principles in my field where is nothing Hungarian or Romanian or Slovak, there are facts you can prove or you cannot prove, and subsequently going on. Well, it remains you personal opinion that I would have "no business editing this enyclopedia", I know it would be easier without me to ignore those principles that you were told. Wikipedia has to have a healthy balance facts vs. opinions vs. legal matters. Yes, it is not a forum, I am sorry there are some editors who do not want/pretend no to understand some things, and I have to be long.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Biruitorul sorry for bothering you and for involving you in the discussion. --Ditinili (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - I normally enjoy discussing these issues, but when dealing with someone who questions academic sources published in the US because America has nuclear weapons, I tend to take that as a sign to bow out until more rational voices can prevail. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul:,

You are professional in English yes? Read back, I never "questioned academic sources published in the US because America has nuclear weapons", especially a Romanian argued in the past about acceptance becuase of this regarding a source from the U.S. Library of Congress. But I get used to what I have referred to the last sentence in my former answer. I refuse again the negative-aimed defamation, and after this, don't you ever dare to make critics on my English!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Árva County

Hi,

due to the lenght - the infobox would not be enough - I react and answer your question here:

Since the correspondent section is about the period of Kingdom of Hungary, there regarding the Wiki naming conventions and contemporary names, Hungarian names may be indicated in the first place. WP:English does not support you in this case since anyway the English names of the Counties of Hungary are not Slovak of course ((Trenčín), (Turiec) (Liptov)). Regarding the rest, the English names (= identical with the current Slovak names) were also indicated, so there is no problem here. The removal of the "Árva vára" is incomprehensible, since in the first place the English name was present (that is again rearding the location is equal with the current Slovak name) and only after in brackets the Hungarian name was present, since it is a historical castle and location in Hungary. Finally - as it is well-known and discussed a long time after also some Romanian "Hungarian-lovers" introduced a new tactics to get rid of any Hungarian names they coined that the official administration was Latin....the funny thing is, that this they never wanted to apply to any other nation or country, becuase then in all Europe you may not even write down in Wiki any German, English, etc. other name in any country whereever Latin was the administration, not even a Romanian name could be written down, since by them Slavic was the official administration - of course they did not think of this :))) So, the custom is in Wikipedia, that regarding medieval times, where the official administration only affected the administration but not the langauge, and not the contemporary usage by the people, etc. the country's own langauge and the local historical designation of the location may be used, as i.e. German, Hungarian, Romanian names may be used also when the administration was Latin or Slavic officially, but the people never used in reality these designations. However, if it is about the modern era when i.e. in Hungary the German language was official, then German names may be used in the first place (even if it is the phonetic transcription of the Hungarian or othe rnames and does not have any meaning in German, etc.)

However, there are very complex situations also, since in the medieval times the langauge of administration, Diet or laws may be differed or co-existed, or some people coined that those times the house of the ruler should decide the question, but it is also not proper. Last but bot least, the context of the article is also very important. A few examples:

- Principality of Transylvania: administration: latin, Diet: Hungarian Legistlation: Hungarian, Ruler: Habsburg house Country status: Hungarian state Land of the Hungarian Crown

-> Hungarian can be used in the first place, but i.e. if there is an article about a Romanian historical person that affiliated bit this period, on that article names may be put in the first place in Romanian, and only after the Hungarian in brackets, despite the Romanian was not official, but because of the context of the article - like i.e. some ethnic German persons from Transylvania, in their article German can be tolerated in the first place because of the article's context

- Kingdom of Hungary administration: Hungarian

-> If there is an article about a Slovak historical person, regardless the official language was Hungarian, because of the context the Slovak names can be tolerated in the first place, and only brackets the Hungarian names should be indicated, it will be tolerated.

- Former counties of Kingdom of Hungary that had been retransformed and continoued in Czechoslovakia

-> On that section, where the context is about the times of Kingdom of Hungary, Hungarain can be used in the fisrt place, on that section when it is about the times of Czechoslovakia, Slovak can be used in the first place.

Your second edit was totally contructive, ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hungarian name is NOT a contemporary name. Hungarian could be an official name or an administrative for a specific period (like Latin, German or Slovak for other periods). If we speak about medieval times when Hungarian was not a state nor administrative language then Hungarian name is not more "English" than Slovak (or German, especially if we speak about a territory where the Hungarian population was marginal) and modern name should be used unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. E.g. Dolný Kubín is historical Kublen or Kolbyn and definitely not Alsókubin (an official name only after 1844), Trenčín was officially Trenchin, Trenchyn, Trinchin, Trynchyn, Thrinchin, Trencz, but not Trencsén - an official name only after 1844 (for a relatively shor period) and it is not a widely accepted historical English name.Ditinili (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You again pretend the same symptome, you don't want ot understand and all your goal is to get rid of the Hungarian names. Shame, you really enjoy this type of editing? After a while, you again chasing me and provocate a conflict? You enjoy?

I won't repeat that I have already told and read it back if it is still unclear, thus i will react only anyting new you have arisen here. Hungarian is a contemporary name, more contemporary than anything else would be, since it was Hungary's own territory country where it has a privilige, like today in Slovakia Slovak has a privilege. You have failed to grasp, to make a DIFFERENCE between the medieval administration that was not used orally or in reality by the population and the modern OFFICIAL language status. That's why in all European country's medieval history not the Latin or Slavic is used as by medieval administration, but the native country's native language name, except if it is about a relevant context, i.e. about a Saxon person in Transylvania, where German names may be accepted on the first place. Hungarian in medieval times is DEFINETELY more English, since that time not necessarily the final Slovak lanugage were decided what to be exactly by Bernolák or other's, unless you present a contemporary English source that used that instead of Hungarian. In such a case, as an accepted and applied custom since many-many years the contemporary names may be used and really in 5 or 6 years you are almost the only one who want to again with a pretext to remove Hungarian names. After you again repeat the latin administration name - that were used only papers but never in reality to again deteriorate the attention of what I have demonstrated.

Since the article's context where the Hungarian names were put is about a historical Hungarian comitatus, also comitatus of Kingdom of Hungary when Hungarian was the official lanaguage, Hungarian have an absolute legal primarity on those sections. You made a clear mistake by reverting without consensus and waiting for the outcome of our negotiation, and again removing the name of the "Árva vára", where clearly the English=current Slovak name wa son the first place, clearly proving the anti-Hungarian aim of the edit, also the fact that you even did not try to be fair and at least put the Hungarian names in brackets, on the second place, however they may be legally put to the first place. At least you should have had a little bit moderation and at least let pre-1920 articles not to struggle to delete anything that is Hungarian, as we also do not delete from Czeshoslovak/Slovak articles after 1920 Slovak names even there where local people never use them because we respect that it is now part of an other country where the langauge is other. You foxily ride on the medieval administration twist, that is totally different like modern official language, like so from more thousand articles more ten-thousand names should be deleted and rewritten in Latin and Slavic, if anyone would follow your intention, it is highly dangerous! You cannot raise any objection to the former state of the article, since all English and Slovak names were also present where it has to be indicated! We don't have any inferiority complex to hide present-day names!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Nyitra County

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I don't think that I violated 3RR. However, I can very easily document repeated removal of the sourced content. I am also curious if you sent the same warning to the second involved editor. Did you? If not, why?

Because it was you, who reverted my edit (and other editors' edit). Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I reverted your edit ONCE. Other user reverted my edits (even if they were properly sourced) not otherwise.

If you think that something is SYNTH (it is not and I would be happy to see your explanation) you should discuss it on the Talk page, before you remove the sourced text. Ditinili (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you say that the two cited sources specifically mention that Pressburg County and Bratislava County (???) were the neighbors of Nyitra County? Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open this problem on the right talk page. This is not a synthesis.

Please feel free to initiate a dicussion on the talk page if you think that the names should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, count your reverts. You may not know, but we do not need to repeat all verifiable information about a topic in each article mentioning that topic. For instance, we do not list all nicknames of New York in each article which refers to New York. There were at least 3 editors who deleted the alternative names of Pozsony County in that article about Nyitra County. Instead of reverting their edits, you should have initiate a discussion on the Talk page after the second deletion. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they removed it because of completely false assumptions (allegedly, it is not in source). More, if I read the existing rules and previous discussions, it is absolutely OK to mention other geographics names (also in other articles). Instead of removal of the sourced text because of false (and demonstrably wrong assumptions) they should open discussion. What shell I discuss? "It is not in source", "yes, it is"? I copied the text "letter for letter" and referenced to freely available source to prevent any doubts. Ditinili (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If it is necessary to help to identify a settlement, a river, whose name changed several times during the last centuries. However, we do not give all alternative names in each articles, especially if it does not help to identify. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this debate on this Talk page. If you think that the other editors involved in this debate are wrong, please try to discuss it on the relevant Talk page instead of reverting other editors' edits. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, I can replace Pressburg (Hungarian: Pozsony in all articles only by Pressburg? It is not in my interest, but it seems so from your explanation.Ditinili (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pozsony was one of the official names of the town for centuries. Can you refer to a source claiming that Pressburg County was whenever officially used? Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "official name for centuries"? I will continue on the relevant talk page.Ditinili (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privilegium pro slavis

Be sure "This systematic reordering has no support in the existing consenzus" is a false statement, since the version you have overridden was also fully complied with the consensus, anyway it does not have any directive to unsupport such alignment. The corresponding timeline and context is Hungary, so it was totally ok. Considering that in this case the Slovak context has also an importance because of the article's main subject is about this, this time I will leave your edit as it is, both versions could have almost equal validity.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ditinili reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at János Bihari

You've been warned for edit warring per this closure at WP:AN3. This seems to be a dispute on whether to use the Slovak name or the Hungarian name for the county where Bihari was born. If so, it certainly falls under the WP:ARBEE arbitration case, which seeks to prevent edits which are motivated by nationalism. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place names in Eastern Europe fall under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ditinili. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sámuel Mikoviny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natio Hungarica. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kovac

He wasn't born in independent Slovakia, so it's best to not make appear as though he were. Either go with Czechoslovakia or Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he was born in formally independent Slovakia. It was not a "state occupied by Germany" (before 1944), but one of German satellites. The "Slovak State" (the offical name was Slovak Republic) is OK, much better than Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. --Ditinili (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Hermán

Hello, I recently created an article about Matthias from the Hermán clan, who served as provost of Spis/Szepes. There is only one monography (p. 70.) about his life and career, in Slovak language. Unfortunately my Slovak language knowledge is limited (I can read only simpler texts), so may I ask you to expand the article with some info, based on Labanc's work? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will read the work and try to expand the article. Ditinili (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss, Lajos (1978). Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára [Etymological Dictionary of Geographic Names]. Budapest: Akadémiai. pp. 131–132.

Hi,

can you provde me a link to the source, or can you cite the entire section about Budapest? (it seems a limited access via google books...)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Az alapjaul szolgalo szn. valoszinuleg szlav eredetu; vo.: cseh Buda [<: Budivoj, Budimir] stb.] szn. (Profous 1: 202);... --Ditinili (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but could you insert the entire section fully, from the beginning to the end?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

https://ibb.co/bJVsuF --Ditinili (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the page you inserted "Budislav", while in the source "Budivoj" is written..what's the catch?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

There is no catch. Budivoj, Budislav and Budimir are composed of two stems: bud- (budit, buditi - to wake, to excite) + one of common Slavic stems used to create personal names (voj - an army, slava/slavit - a glory, to glorify, mir - the world). The short form is in all cases derived only from the first stem. Thus, the short form of Budivoj, Budislav and Budimir is in all cases Buda, Budek, like e.g. Ludimir is Luda, Ludek or Ladislav is Lada, Ladek. Let's say, it is a minor typo. Ditinili (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terchová

Stop OR and Slovak propaganda now! Your source do not confirm your claim. Even Slovak nation did not exist in the 12th century and the formation of their language from other Western Slav dialects is a centuries-long process, lasted until the 19th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, try to be polite and try to avoid sentences like "Slovak propaganda". The Slovak language could not emerge from other Slavic dialects, because it contains features inherited from Proto-Slavic that never existed in e.g. in Polish and Czech. Especially, it cannot be derived from "other Western Slav", because it contains numerous non-West Slavic features (History of the Slovak language) and by its origin, it is not exclusively "West Slavic" language (this is modern classification not related to its genetic origin). By the way, the vowel "ä" mentioned by Uhlar even does not exist in other Slavic languages.Ditinili (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above text show only one theory (highly represented since the Czechoslovak era, when the identity of Slovaks has been strengthened by the state, so the phrase "Slovak propaganda" is correct). Nevertheless, the current article version is much more better, even there is a debate about the date of the formation of a separate Slovak language (and not a dialect). ""ä" is a mark of the German influence (also appeared in Hungarian during that time). --Norden1990 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norden... this is the prevailing modern theory. "Highly represented since the Czechoslovak era" is an absolute non-sense. In the inter-war period, the preferred theory (politically preferred and pushed by the state) was a theory about the common Czechoslovak origin of Slovak and Czech (later abandoned also by the authors since it was scientifically refuted and untenable). You should also distinguish between a grapheme (maybe of German origin) and a vowel. I don't know what do you exactly mean by "the date of the formation". The extinction of Proto-Slavic is dated cca to the 10th century and new languages emerged continually.Ditinili (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there was no unified, single Slovak language and identity until the 19th century. The Slavic population in Upper Hungary was a mix of proto-Slav, Czech, Polish and Ruthenian elements. You deliberately claim any Slavic-sounding words in medieval Upper Hungary as "Slovak". It's misleading, anachronistic, a typcial Slota-kind history fabrication. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. I am open for any serious discussion, but if you wish to violate WP:CIVILITY (Slota-kind history, propaganda, etc), you should find a different partner. Ditinili (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your OR and nationalistic POV edits are more harmful than my tonality. Of course, I can use kind words, but the point is the same: anachronism and manipulation of the sources. Unfortunately for you, I read and understand Slovak language to a certain level. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, calm down and read WP:CIVILITY. If you want to discuss, explain or clarify something, e.g. changes in Proto-Slavic basis of Slovak, Czech, Polish or Ruthenian, how these languages emerged, the chronology of changes, extinction and vocalization of yers, contraction, denasalisation, etc, I am here for you. Ditinili (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spišská Nová Ves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ditinili. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Koš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour at Talk:Battle of Szina

Please be advise that I have raised the matter of the interaction of yourself and User:KIENGIR at WP:ANI. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orava (river), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keszthely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zagyva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sázava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spiš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ditinili. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ditinili. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Slovak Language

Hi,

regarding this [4], what's your opinion, did you read the source? It's ok, reliable? Nothing fringe regarding the term "Old Slovak"? As you may remember, this was an issue in Slovakia when the new Svatopluk sculpture was presented as "King of the Old-Slovaks", while Slovak historians protested that this term is not appropriate and miselading, dubious, such term did not exist...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The source is reliable. Ferdinand Uličný is a recognized mainstream historian, he leads the Department of Archives and Auxiliary Historical Sciences of the Prešov University. The journal Slovenská reč (Slovak Language) is a scientific journal published by Ľudovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics of Slovak Academy of Sciences. I referenced to the same article here: "The first written mention of adjective slovenský (Slovak) is in 1294 ("ad parvam arborem nystra slowenski breza ubi est meta")." see Slovaks#Name. The term "Old Slovak" (stará slovenčina) is a proper term for old (early) Slovak language from the end of the Common Slavic period (cca from the 10th century). The terminology for the previous period used by Slovak linguists and historians is not consistent. --Ditinili (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slovak language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otázka - Privilegium pro Slavis

Zdravím. Chcem sa ti predovšetkým poďakovať. Tvoje príspevky do Wikipédie ma naučili veľa dejinách a vývoji Slovákov. Mám ale jednu otázku: Konsenzus slovenskej historiografie tvrdí, že listina Privilegium pro Slavis bola napísaná na žiadosť autochtónneho slovanského obyvateľstva a latinský výraz "Sclavi" je dôsledne preložený na "Slováci". Ty so slovenskými historikmi plne súhlasíš. Nie je ale táto interpretácia problematická vzhľadom na to ako kráľ týchto Slovanov/Slovákov oslovil ("civium et hospitum nostrorum" = "naši mešťania a hostia")? Latinským výrazom "hospes" sa (podľa mojej mienky) v tej dobe označovali len prisťahovalci z cudzích krajín. V tej istej listine sú Nemci oslovení rovnako. Ako je možné synchronizovať túto už spomínanú interpretáciu s týmto faktom? Vyjadril sa k tomu už nejaký historik? Kracatmacat (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj. V tomto prípade nejde o vyjadrenie cudzieho pôvodu, ale o zdôraznenie toho, že ide o privilegovanú vrstvu obyvateľstva, ktorá podlieha špeciálnemu hosťovskému právu (typicky zahŕňalo napr. právo voliť si richtára a pod). Pozri napr. [5], s.136: "Najmä od 13. storočia termín hospes pomenúval už homogénnejšiu skupinu obyvateľstva. Neoznačoval totiž už len cudzinca/prisťahovalca všeobecne, ale začal určovať jasne vymedzenú sociálno-právnu kategóriu obyvateľstva, keď slúžil na pomenovanie slobodného človeka, ktorý bol nositeľom tzv. práva hostí, či zväčša býval v takej obci, ktorá nadobudla právo/výsadu hostí." Rovnako aj [6], s. 47-48, kde sa v tejto súvislosti priamo spomína Žilina. --Ditinili (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sobrance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sebranice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthias Bel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caught by an open proxy block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ditinili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 46.229.235.63. Ditinili (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Rangeblock has been converted to anon-only, you should be able to edit now. ST47 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is SK-VNET your normal ISP, or a VPN provider? Most of the IP check tools say that this is not an open proxy. Pinging User:DoRD who implemented the rangeblock for input. ST47 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VNET is our ISP (https://www.vnet.sk/en/for_business/internet/internet-connection/). Thank you for your help.--Ditinili (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm not sure if it's better for me to lift the rangeblock or poke a hole in it for the specific IP you are using, so I'll wait to see if DoRD or someone else is able to assist. My preference would be to lift the rangeblock, but it's likely that the original blocking admin knew something that I do not about that range. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LTA vandals who surf open proxies have been found on this IP range, but if it's used by residential customers, maybe the range block should be converted to be anon-only. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, I must have detected some significant abuse on the range or I wouldn't have blocked it, but I don't have any recollection of what it was. Feel free to change the block per NRP's suggestion, though. —DoRD (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Nitra individual reassessment

Principality of Nitra, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to talkback

Hello, Ditinili. You have new messages at Talk:First Vienna Award.
Message added 02:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh did you not remember you made a split proposal almost 5 years ago? You said you were going to be bold and split. Oh well, almost 5 years later, article increased by about 15%. Well, if you want to split the article. go ahead. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]