User talk:Doncsecz~enwiki/Archive 1

License tagging for Image:Károly Doncsecz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Károly Doncsecz.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664)

Hi. I've nominated Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on August 24, where you can improve it if you see fit. --PFHLai 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Coat arms of Habsburg Monarchy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat arms of Habsburg Monarchy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Flag of Rákóczi's War of the Independence.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of Rákóczi's War of the Independence.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish-Venetian War (1714-1718)

Hello! I saw that you added Portugal to the combatants of this war. Could you perhaps explain it and provide some source for Portugal's participation? Otherwise I am going to remove these references. Regards, Cplakidas 10:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your reply. Do you have any sources that say that Portuguese troops participated in the Turkish-Venetian War? If not, then let's remove the references in the infobox. If yes, please provide them. Regards, Cplakidas 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK then. I was not aware of their involvement, and stand corrected. Regards, Cplakidas 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, ha gondolod részt vehetek a szerkesztésben :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Üdv! Tudnánk beszélni MSN-en? Ott megbeszélheténk a többit, én a kenyérmezei csatát szerkesztettem, a pofátlan oláhok már ott is ott voltak, te egyébként szlovén vagy? :)A lengyel meg a szlovén 2 legnormálisabb szláv nép :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wends dialect

Odlično! Hvala za sporočilo. Bom pogledal. Pozdrav, Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Károly Doncsecz

An editor has nominated Károly Doncsecz, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Károly Doncsecz and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. 91.198.174.194 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Az összeférhetetlenség miatt nem szavazok, de bármikor segítek a véleményt megfelelő mederbe terelni, ha gond akadna. Viszont a szavazás jelenlegi állása szerint megmarad. Üdv, NCurse _work 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Miško Kranjec

Ja: vem, da je njegov sin Matjaž Kranjec, slovenski novinar. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Za ženo pa ne vem. Tudi ne vem, če je imel še kakšnega otroka poleg Matjaža. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Szervusz! Unfortunately, my Hungarian is not so good. -- Bojan 12:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, my grandmother is a Hungarian. I spoke Hungarian as mother tongue when I was child, but I forgot now. -- Bojan 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Üdv! Bocs az offért, te most szlovén vagy magyar vagy? Minek vallod magadat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Támogatod a magyarságot Trianon ellen? És mi az, hogy a magyarok oldalán harcoltak románok a középkorban? Akkor szinte még alig éltek itt, és akkor sem mentek harcba, ha meg 100 kb, az semmi, még azt hiszi a világ, hogy mennyit segítettek, holott beszartak a töröktől és megtámadtak minket. A magyar hadsereg 95%-a magyar volt! Törlöm is, ilyeneket ne írj, lényegtelen számú volt a románok száma, esetleg kiegyezhetünk kisebb román önkéntesekben...

Üdv! Örömmel venném, hogy mint szlovén megismerkednék a kultúrátokkal és hátha msn-en is beszélhetnénk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm a készséges választ, örülök neki! A szlovén ember gondolkodás módja, népzenéje érdekel, de a muravidéki és a lenvidéki is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Nicolai

Hi Doncsecz, could you give me your source for the birthday date of Bruno Nicolai? It could be useful also for it.wiki, where I mainly work. Thanks --Al Pereira (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's 20 May ;) I correct here --Al Pereira (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I had a doubt that something like this happened. --Al Pereira (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Délvidéki harcok - megkésett válasz

Üdv!
Bocs, hogy majd 2 héttel később válaszolok az üzenetedre, nem sűrűn járok fel mostanában a wikire, ezért csak későn vettem észre, hogy írtál.
A kérdésedre egyelőre nem tudok pontos választ adni, utánanézek a dolognak. Szerintem a horvát történészek biztos többet foglalkoztak a témával, mint a szerbek. Én 99%-ban biztos vagyok, hogy horvát forrást találunk a témáról, mert nemzeti történelmük szerves része, míg a szerbek szerintem legjobb esetben felületesen érintik a témát, esetleg Jovan Nenad (Fekete Iván) tevékenysége miatt. Inkább I. Lipót idejétől kezdenek el foglalkozni a Délvidékkel, illetve előzőleg az ún. Szerémségi "Királysággal". De tudok egy forrást, ami szerb nyelvű, vajdasági magyarok írták, de szerintem magyarországi könyveket használtak forrásként, így nem sok hasznát vennéd. Mindenesetre megadom a címét, hátha jobban kitér a Délvidékre.:
Peter Rokai, Zoltan Đere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasaš, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002.
Ha találtam még forrást, írok. Azt hiszem ugyanezeketől a szerzőktől van direkt a Délvidékről szóló könyv is.
Addig is jó munkát!
HunTheGoaT (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Üdv ismét! Szívesen belenéznék, de két problémám akad. 1.: Nincs meg a könyv, az iskolai könyvtárban láttam, meg a neten forrásként megjelölve. Sajnos már nincs jogom a könyvet kivenni, mivel már nem vagyok a gimnázium tanulója. 2. Nemigen tudok szerbül, amit lehet, furcsának találsz. Na igaz, pont az olvasott szöveg megértése megy leginkább, és egy szótár segítségével simán lefordítom, ismervén a legalapvetőbb nyelvtani szabályokat. De inkább utánanézek a neten egy másik szerb-horvát nyelven íródott forrásnak, ami letölthető mondjuk pdf formátumban. De meg us kérdezhetek egy itteni magyar történészt, aki jártas lehet a témában. Neki ismernie kell a megfelelő szerb forrásokat, és ékes anyanyelvünkön is tudna válaszolni, nehogy félreértsek valamit. U.I.: Bocs, hogy ismét megkéstem a válasszal. HunTheGoaT (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jajca ostromáról:
http://xxlworld.xx.ohost.de/povijest/prilozi/od1500.htm#_Toc519102095
HunTheGoaT (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rendben van, mindenképpen írni fogok neki, ha mégegyszer ilyet tesz. Szólunk max adminnak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Péter Kollár

I have nominated Péter Kollár, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Péter Kollár. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Beano (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Beano (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Péter_Kollár article

Hey, Doncsecz. If you believe the article should be kept, you will want to discuss it here. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Have a good night. Beano (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao donc

I'm surfing over several recent additions of yours. While the arguments are really interetsing and well-treated, I'm afraid to make you notice that the "English" in which they are written is very poor. As I've also the same problem (I'm of Italian mothertongue), a good idea would be to ask for help at English-language Wikipedians once you've written your articles. For example, in military stuff I sometimes ask help to user:Kirill Lokshin or other members of the WikiProject:Military history. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Prekmursko

Odlična ideja, hvala! Sem dal noter (malo sem spremenil pravopis: mislim, da je boljše dat moderni slovenski kot stari prekmursko-madžarski pravopis, ker se tako da lažje primerjati - samo zaradi tega). Sem tudi popravil nekaj tvojih sprememb. Pozdrav v Porabje! Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message reverted

The following message on MagyarTürk's talk page

== Battle of Sibiu ==

Csináltam még egy csatát a török-magyar összecsapások keretében. Ha gondolog nézd meg, lehet, hogy kicsit sok lesz benne a hiba. Doncsecz (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was reverted for not being in English. Please translate your message and post again. Thanks. Eklir (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Üdvözletem. Fenébe, nem vettem észre, nem néztem meg a historyban. Na nézzük. :) Greetings, damn I didn't look that, lets see ;)

But why did you write that Sibiu? That time Transylvania was Hungarian, can you overwrite the name, to Battle of Szeben, please?

Köszönöm mostmár értem. Pár dolgot változtattam, beírtam, hogy History of Hungary és, a cavalrys átjavítottam cavalries re. :) Örömmel venném, ha felvennél msn-re többe tudnánk beszélni, lenne egy kérdésem még amúgy. hunnicboy@hotmail.com

Az jó ötlet lenne. Egyébként van magyar admin? Ez a kérdésem, egy nap beleolvastam a magyar wikipédiába, és láttam, hogy nagyon sok aktív admin van, azok miért nem segítenek építeni a magyarság történelmét és kultúráját angolul? Miért nem segítenek a soviniszták ellen? :(

Itt van kedved még részletes információkat írni? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary

Szerintem ez nagyon fontos cikk!

Ez nagyon szomorú. De látod páran tartjuk a frontot, Te, én, Hobartimus, Nmate, SquasRacket, stb. Ha nem próbálják meg akkor nehéz lesz. Kellene a segítségük, így baromságokat írhatnak össze rólunk, pl Hunyadit most teljesen románnak tartják. :(((

Láttam 2 admint, Istvánkát, és Alenshát jó lenne ha ők segítenének itt...

Együtt valahogy megoldjuk, jó lenne egy beszélgető program. Ha kész az msn-d vegyél majd fel. Egyébként ükapámnak, aki vitézzé lett avatva, több kitüntetést is kapott, Károly csapatkereszt, arany vitézségi érmet, csináltam oldalt. Tudnál segíteni abban, hogy ne töröljék le szerencsétlent? Ennyi kijár neki, igaz, hogy csak Aba és Soponya közösségében "nemzeti hős", de szerintem megérdemel ennyit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istvan_Kovats a fényképei az enyémek szintén.

Köszönöm szépen a segítséget! Kérlek, szólj minden magyar barátodnak a wikipédián hogy szavazzanak ellene, a magyaroknak is! Előre is köszönöm! És gratulálok a nagypapádhoz! :)

Köszönöm mégegyszer a segítséget!

Üdv! 5:4 a törlés, nem törlés aránya, tudnál a magyaroknak küldeni még üzenetet, hogy segítsenek szavazni? Sajnos már egy román rögtön kapott a lehetőségen, és törölni akar. :(

Battle on the Marchfeld

Hello,
I have one question: Who is the publisher of "The Iron and Gold King, 2005. - by Lukáš Němec" and what is the ISBN? I know Czech historiography very well (because I'm historian) but I never hear about this title. Moreover, the informations which You draw from this book are problematic – I would like to check it. Thanks for Your response! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sekel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Hello my english is not well but everyone know that Rudolfs army is bigger. I never seen other serious resources which is take same opinion as your Small lexicon of the Battles maybe from hungaryen patriotic historien. I have never read that Otakars army is bigger. On wikipedia in other languages are same opinion like my only hungarien page is different. I really dont thing that Imperial and hungarien army together were smaller than man in ban with revolt in every ouwns lands. I have opinion that all vinners have habit embellish owns triumph. Give me some other resources which is not hungarien with same number of soldiers which is on this lexicon.[reply]

You are wide-eyed, becouse if you tell about 13th century tell me what is battle of Kressenbrunn or Battle of Mohi?? I think that there was more than 20 000 soldiers on hungarien side..... Do you really want say that hungarian king was without nobility? Was he really king?? If you dont know that there wasnt Matúš Čák uncle famous Matuš Čák Trenčianský ...you know nothing about this battle. You must find true not hungarian dream about separately defent Otakar with help some austrian knights but without hungarian nobility.... so hungarian version...cumans ride into bohemia heavy cavalery whose have majority and trample in hell. I see only one good resolution We must made two version of this batlle becose we canot find a match. I thing that man like you are liars but eweryone can have opinion....i will make version along my resource and appel you dont change my work....and you can make own but i recommend you study something other than Lexikon of battle and Hunagarian military history or what was it...Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how is possible that in 1276 rudolf had 3 times bigger army than Ottakar (which have Bohemia, Moravia, Austria,Styria, Carnithia, Carniola, Windic marc , Marc of Friuali, Egerland) and so Ottakar must surrender...but in 1278 Rudolf had all Ottakars Lands without Bohemia and Moravia but in final battle you say that he had got so tiny army despite his new lands and power...thats a crassitude and unposssible.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morvamezei csata

Üdv! Vissza kell állítani a te verziód. Egyébként ők vannak tele soviniszta történésszel, főleg a morvai birodalom a durva. Segíthetek esetleg valamit?

MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Igen láttam, hogy hazugnak nevezett, mindjárt visszaállítom a te szerkesztéseid, vagy írok neki egy levelet, hogy

1. Ne személyeskedjen 2. Névtelen regisztráció nélkül inkább meg se szólaljon 3. Tanuljon előbb ; )

MagyarTürk (talk)

Van amúgy egy kérdésem. Kaptam egy bottól egy üzenetet, hogy ezt rakjam aláírásba ( MagyarTürk (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC) ) de hát senki sem használja, nem nagyon értem, hogy működik ez. :([reply]

MagyarTürk

Jaaaa, hupsz már kezdem érteni bocsi. Amúgy írtam a gyereknek.

( MagyarTürk (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Fene egy meg ezt a nagy sovinizmust, miért nem lehet békében élni mint ezer évig. Majd rá fogok nézni a cikkre többször és visszaállítom a régi szerkesztésekre. Úgy sem tudnak forrást adni, csak szlávot, én viszont mellékeltem a múltkor független forrást is. :)

MagyarTürk (talk)

Speedy deletion of József Szakovics

A tag has been placed on József Szakovics 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 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongo matic 11:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of István Szelmár

A tag has been placed on István Szelmár 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 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongo matic 11:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of József Szakovics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article József Szakovics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

József Szakovics

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongo matic 11:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beteg leszek ezektől, mit képzelnek ükapámat is teljesen alaptalanul törölték, ráadásul többség a megtartani szavazatot adta. Diktátor...mindenképpen küldd el a törlési linket, és szavazok, hogy tartsák meg! Egyébként én nem tudom rengeteg olyan cikk van amit törölni lehetne, nem pont ezeket kéne. MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

MagyarTurk: give a link, we do not know who you're talk about.

Doncsecz: moral of the story: always write a section about the notability of the person, as the articles contain it now. Use a few references at least. It would prevent deletionists to gain points. :-) --grin ✎ 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grocka

Do you have any sources saying that those nations were involved in the battle? If not, please stop reverting. Oh, and when you do revert another editor's edits, please explain your reason for doing so in the edit summary. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia play this allegation, according the Hungarian Independence in 1526 ceased. This is a nonsense. You be a stranger the Hungarian History. In 1526 the hungarian nobility was elect Ferdinand Habsburg as King of Hungary. Stay up the hungarian parliament, legislation, etc. In 1849 the Habsburg Monarchy transitionally liquidate the Hungarian Independence, but this aback in 1867. Accordingly Hungary alike belligrent in the Battle of Grocka. Doncsecz (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you don't have a reliable source, please stop reverting. faithless (^speak) 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deadly dull. Wherefore not realistic the source? It is author, addres, publisher, ISBN, year. I think so this necessary. Doncsecz (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion here. faithless (^speak) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Battle of Grocka. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Blueboy 96 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been full-protected for 24 hours--you can make your arguments on the talk page once your block expires. Blueboy 96 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of English on WPE

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your future edits which are not in English will be reverted. Thanks for complying with WPE policies. Eklir (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I have left a note on Eklir's talk page about this unacceptable approach. --grin ✎ 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion of this subject elsewhere concerning this user has been tranferred here. Eklir (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Eklir (d). With all due respect I'd like to request you to avoid harrassing fellow wikipedians. Using English is preferred but it is not forbidden to use foreign language in comments and talk pages, per the page Tomas_e were kind to link to. Please read it again, and be so kind as to notice the difference between "good practice" and "unacceptable behaviour", and please keep in mind that nobody have the right to force anyone to use "better practices" here around. Reverting comments without a proper reason happens to fall into that category.

(If your intention was to kindly request a translation then your phrasing was very badly crafted.)

As a sidenote I wasn't asked to tell you that by anyone, just noticed your comment on his talk page. Opinions are of my own.

Thank you for your understanding and kind ongoing respect towards your fellow editors. They are not your enemies. We aren't. --grin ✎ 16:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@grin (d). Thank you for attracting my attention to the good practice guidelines of WPE though you should have read a little bit further said guidelines where it says:

"If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy".

As it is, your protégé Doncsecz (d) has been warned repeatedly, on his talk page here and elsewhere, of the consequences of not adhering to guidelines. He is actually blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule which is indicative of the respect he has for "fellow wikipedians". As for you, you should be more careful in your investigations before throwing around harrassment accusations.

In the meantime, your protégé's comments on WPE will continue to be reverted if they don't respect the guidelines you were kind enough to point out to me. This discussion is also transferred to the relevant talk pages, here and to your own talk page. Best, Eklir (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to Ekler (that his actions are most probably against the etiquette and without merit). If he would happen to revert anything without proper handling (eg. requesting translation first), or he would revert anything on someone else's talk page then please notify me, and please do include the proper link to the revert in question. --grin ✎ 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following contributions have again been transferred here for the sake of continuity. Eklir (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Eklir (d). The discussion you moved. Hello. The discussion you removed from your talk page without any traces have a new message for you on my talk page. Would be kind of you at least to read it. (It is a funny consequence that your talk page now did not contain the problems I've mentioned about your behaviour, since you not just answered on my page but completely removed it from here. People usually check talk page about the good/bad habits of the editor before they pick a way to complain, now I see I should have been checking the history of your talk page of completely removed sections. I confess I was wrong. Again I've learned something. Thank you!) --grin ✎ 09:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Eklir (d). Without entering a poo-throwing game please notice, again, that the section you quoted contains "try", and "requested". It is a very distinct phrasing from "obliged to" and "by all yourself", which you implied. It would be extremely bad if anyone would actually start to revert or block based on that policy, I hope you agree. If you (or, in fact, anyone) have repeatedly requested translation and was denied then the reversion of that text in question would be justified, but not any text at your will. (Would be very kind of you to provide some links to the translation requests this all about.)

You are right that I did not browse the whole Wikipedia for past requests, but if you would be so kind as to point me some I'd gladly provide you with translations, if this would ease your tense mood. If there were no such requests (which I hope there were) then the warnings were (would have been?) unjustified. Still, it do not give anyone the right to revert any text without first requesting translation.

In the other, completely unrelated topic of 3RR block I agree with the block, if there were 3 reverts. (Funny, now that I checked, I see no blocks and I see 4 reverts of both him and his fellow editfighter, and Doncsecz seemed to provide at least 3 sources by the request of the other guy, if you mean Battle_of_Grocka. Did you?)

But let me say again: unrelated. I understand that it is a good feeling that someone gets blocked for something else when they annoy you with something, but should not let yourself feel happy for the blocking of a fellow editor, mind you. He is not a vandal, I hope that we agree in that, and he's not the lone short tempered person with national pride around either. I guess you see his point, and if you just spend a minute thinking you can understand the reason of his fustration: he keeps creating articles which are relevant, and people put 'em on speedy delete all the time, just because these people are not known for English speaking common people, and he has the bad habit to neglect including notability criteria at first. I told him to put it in all the time, I hope he will, and it would be extremely good to consider his history of kept articles and just warn him politely of including the notability information instead of putting the articles on delete, which is a very rude way to deliver the same message.

In the meantime it would be extremely good if his comments were not reverted without requesting translation. I do not have neither time nor mood to go after you people and revert you, and start a debate with local admins, but if you let the man a bit rest and try to actually ignore his comments if they're disturb you the pages would be a better place. WP:CIV: "...and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible.". (Let me guess, as a last thought, that you are not really interested in what his comments mean. If you are, tell me, and I'll provide you a translation; if you are not, then this whole stick-to-translation-or-get-reverted game is just creating stress for everyone. Ignore.) --grin ✎ 09:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@grin (d). This discussion has been moved here, the talk page of the offending user, whether you like it or not. As I told you before, this user you are defending has been duly sollicited to provide translations of his non-English comments wihtout ever heeding any of our requests. If I may bore you with some statistics on this user, for his last 50 contributions:

23 of his contributions concern the editing of graphics, tags and the adding of non-English reference sources. Except for the eight edits on his own page, most of them were reverted as being either unsourced or inappropriate;
13 of his contributions were affectively in English. Of these, three were insults (dull, nonsense, history faker allegation, etc.), eight were reverted (two by myself, six by others), and two barely survived WP criteria for retention;
14 of his contributions were in languages other than English.

A cursory glance at his contributions as a whole convinces me that he is here to defend the cultural and ethnic biases of his community, an attitude incompatible with WP principles, and that his editing, because of inherent inflexibility, is getting ever more disruptive as resistance to his self-promotional tactics increase. However, since you so gallantly offered to translate his comments, I'm willing to wait five days before starting to clean up the mess. Best, Eklir (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eklir, let me be short.

First, saying "whether you like it or not" clearly shows some unwillingness to account everyone's needs in the matter.

Second, I kindly but firmly asked you to provide links to translation requests, which you again neglected; I remind you the third time to please be so kind as to provide the links.

Third, the statistics you quoted are in no relation to the original problem, namely that you intend to revert non-English comments without any basis. (In fact, you were not clear which pages you intend to revert, but if you mean other people's talk pages I strongly suggest you to carefully review policies about user pages and user talk pages to avoid unnecessary blocking of yourself.)

Fourth, to briefly reflect to your statistics: I am not sure the reverts were correct, judging by a brief look you failed to engage in any civilised debate about the facts you reverted but started an edit war. About the insults I already advised you to start a discussion and use some empathy instead of starting revert wars, and some of the "insults" were simlply aren't so. About non-english contribs: I still wait for you to provide links to articles with non-English contribution. No need to provide to all 14, 2-3 is quite enough.

Sixth, a cursory glance at your reverts shows to me that, quote, you are here to defend the cultural and ethnic biases of your community, an attitude incompatible with WP principles, and that your editing, because of inherent inflexibility, getting more and more impolite as time passes by.

By all means clean up mess, if there's any, but in the meantime would be extremely helpful to provide the links I kindly requested, since there may be strong disagreement in the definition of "mess". Another comment: I hope you are not wikistalking him, are you?

Thank you for your kind cooperation, and accepting my mediation attempt. --grin ✎ 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@grin (d).

Whether you like it or not: Community policies are here to be enacted and acted on, whether you like it or not.
Translation request: Don't pretend to be cockeyed, they've been transferred here when the debate opened. Please be so kind as to read what is here: Translation request served: 1:16, 13 September 2008, last notice: 22:42, 15 November 2008.
Statistics: 50% of his edits which are not language-neutral (14 out of 27) are consistently in a language other than English, no translation intended or even any criterion of "unavoidability" suggested. That's disruptive enough by any standards of WP policies. As for the other edits, they are indicative of the cooperation he is willing to offer on WP: None to people who are not of his mind.
My reverts: My decision to revert on Battle of Petrovaradin you qualify as "starting an edit war" were based on the same motives as the decision to revert on Battle of Grocka: Putting a definite stop to unsourced attempts, based on bias and edit warring, to modify the list of belligerents in battles which all can be subsumed under the historically accepted heading of Ottoman-Habsburg wars. If you are not satisfied with my handling the case, you are not only disaggreeing with my own decisions but with all those who have been involved in handling the case, faithless (^speak) and Blueboy 96; in which this is not the appropriate forum for you to intervene against us.
Non-English contribs: Consistent non-English editing can be reverted whether it occurs on talk pages or not and this not only because of English language guidelines. Comments on talk pages have to conform to the WP core principle of civility and in this respect have to meet the threshold of verifiability. If comments are consistently not in English, there is no way to reasonably encact and act on WP concerns. In the present case, the comments are offensive and it is upon the offending editor to act and demonstrate, within the 5 day grace period (added to the 66 days he already had to act), that his non English edits are not offensive.
What you call your mediation attempts: On one hand, what I see is, to judge from your own editorial biases, you are supporting firmly one party's right to act without concern for WP-friendlyness; On the other, doing my job on WP is bringing me into direct conflict with a particularly difficult user where I could use some support myself; I don't see how you could mediate anything here: Nemo iudex in parte sua.

As I said, if you are not satisfied with my handling the case, you know what to do. Otherwise, the case is closed as far as you are concerned and I will eventually have to do what I'm here for. Best, Eklir (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we cannot seem to get any closer (on the contrary), the case was opened at the page Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Eklir. --grin ✎ 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Eklir (talk). Hello. I have opened a section on your actions on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Eklir page. I hope the community can give some insights on the strong disagreement between us. Thank you for your suggestion. --grin ✎ 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@grin ✎. You are most welcome. Eklir (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just linking back to the archived community opinion which basically stated that Eklir was wrong and it would be best if s/he would acknowledge it. S/he did not. Anyway, if there would be any more deletions from other peopole's (or your) user/talk pages or ignoring non-English sources please notify me. Please always be polite. Thank you. --grin ✎ 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Petrovaradin

You have been violating the three-revert rule at Battle of Petrovaradin in the same manner as you did for the Battle of Grocka. Please consider that you are not here to defend the cultural and historical biases of your ethnic community. Eklir (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to artessly amend the deficient and false items. Hungary was not austrian prepetual-province, but praticular independent state. The Habsburg Emperor also was Hungarian King. You don't understand?

Doncsecz 07:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburg Empire is seen here as a whole, not as something "Austrian". The same criterion applies to the Ottoman Empire which is not seen in this concept as "perpetually" Turkish. For the component parts of each one of these, see the particular articles under Habsburg Empire and Ottoman Empire. There is nothing "deficient" or "false" about this. We are not going to revise history according to local prejudice and I must ask you to abstain from tampering with the infobox of this battle. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Prekmurje

Above all: what is this in the article Republic of Prekmurje The neutrality of this article is disputed. You be a stranger the to history of this affair. See for this: [1] This is a hight tory patrial-link. So for this template no belong. Doncsecz 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Republic of Prekmurje. I'm well acquainted with the facts. My concerns are these: (1) The English used is frightfully substandard and utterly incomprehensible fro someone who doesn't know at all the language of those who wrote the article in the first place. You have to get someone to rewrite the article in English. (2) This article violates NPOV. It only promotes one idea and we don't hear at all why the creation of this republic might have been an absolute abberration. (3) The article must be sourced reliably with verifiable references and as such in a language or a translation that is accessible to those who will audit the article under criteria of WP admissibility. This is actually not the case. (4) The templates that I put on the article have to stay until the dispute is resolved: You cannot unilaterally remove them. I have therefore reverted your removals and I must ask not to tamper with them in the meantime. Thank you.

Re: József_Szakovics. I have audited this article which had been previously proposed for deletion. Since I am familiar with the subject, I have rewritten the article in conformity with WP standards. Unfortunately, I cannot do this for all and every article you decide to sponsor. Thank you.

Re: Use of English on WPE. As I said above, you have 5 days (on top of the 66 days you had already) to translate your non-English comments or to delete them. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklir (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I endeavor to do correct a article, but please no make subsequent move, as the Vendvidék is not the Prekmurje! OK? I lived in the Vendvidék. Doncsecz 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the new map you made but you will have to translate the legend. Thanks. Eklir (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Eklir (talk). Hello. Walking through your edits revealed another possible disturbing way of yours, namely that you deny non-English reliable sources and require English sources or you remove information. sect.3 of your comment Let me please quote Wikipedia:SOURCE#Non-English sources (emphasis by me):

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Again, your interpretation fails to notice that this is a suggestion and not a requirement, thus alone cannot justify removal; you fail to acknowledge that either there is no English source of equal quality (due to the local nature of the events involved) or it is not known by the editors. In this case you have to accept these sources, and the course you can follow is to request help from fellow editors for translation, if you require it. Please acknowledge too that the editors in question seem to have less experience in Wikipedia fights and politics than you are, and try to be much more open to discussion before start reverting or asserting your opinions. Thank you. --grin ✎ 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@grin ✎. Your new concerns relative to the same nail are being answered here. In the future, please post your concerns on the appropriate discussion page. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sibiu

I have tried to clean up the English in this article as much as possible. You might want to read it through to make sure I have not altered any of it accidentally. I will watch the article, so you can raise any concerns on the talk page. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurian dialect

Hi - I partially reverted one of your edits to Prekmurian dialect because the text you added didn't make sense in English, and I couldn't work out what you had wanted to say. If you explain at Talk:Prekmurian dialect or my talk page what you want to say and what sources you're using, I'll try and write it into the article for you. Hope that helps! Knepflerle (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean - thanks for replying so quickly. Although Panonska slovenščina is used in Slovene, the translated names don't seem to be used in English at all - Pannon Slovenian, 0 hits, Pannon Slovene, 0 true hits, Pannonslovenian, 0 hits. I will add Panonska slovenščina as a Slovene alternative, but we'd need evidence that the translated terms have been used in English texts before we could include those.

It's Pannonian Slovene/Slovenian, at least that's what I've heard. But I think it was wrong to recreate/move the article as Prekmurian language for Prekmurian is not recognised as a such by Ethnologue, ISO or other entities.

And I want to advise you that you broke the rules by copy&pasting the article to the new lemma. According to the rules (and the GFDL license used on Wikipedia) you have to use the "move" button on top of the article in order to maintain the list of previous authers. Please correct this.

Have a nice weekend, Kazu89 ^ノート 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the fact that Prekmurian has a written standard, and so does Burgenland Croatian. And since the English-language Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a policy on the language vs. dialect issue, I can't blame you for using the word language, though I don't agree. This is better solved on e.g. the Italian Wikipedia.

But please contact an administrator to get the problem with the version history solved. I don't want you or the Wikipedia to get into trouble because of that. If you feel unsure and want me to do so for you, just tell me ;-) --Kazu89 ^ノート 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about what it says in the lemma, you have all the redirects. It's much more important that the article is written well, and I think it is :-) --Kazu89 ^ノート 10:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anton Trstenjak

Pozdravljen. Mislim, da so bili celo trije Antoni Trstenjaki: 1) tisti, ki je pisal o ogrskih Slovencih, 2) teolog in filozof, in 3) slikar (ki je med vsemi najmanj znan, a ima svoj članek v angleščini: Anton Trstenjak). Če boš zvedel še kakšen podatek o pisatelju, predlagam, da napišeš članek Anton Trstenjak (author); za filozofa in teologa pa načrtujem jaz napisati članek Anton Trstenjak (theologian). Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurski slovar

Hi Ákos, do you need a prekmurski online slovar? You can find one here. Do you know it? --Kazu89 ^ノート 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the answer to you comment on my talk page: There no chance that lingua can be used on the Italian wikipedia, I'm sorry. But their policy says ISO 639 = lingua, no ISO 693 = dialetto. As for the German article, the title will just be Prekmurisch.

And this is my new question: How do you say 60, 70, 80 and 90 in Prekmurian? Use the Slovene or Hungrian alphabet, as you prefer. --Kazu89 ^ノート 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the future I reccomand to have the discussion on only one user talk page, either yours or mine. U redu? --Kazu89 ^ノート 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was become aware in the university, that 80 thousand speak the prekmurian, the previous 60-70 thousand is only a private quess. The spot of discussion then hence my user talk. Doncsecz 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my question :) I want a translation for sixty (šestdeset), seventy (sedemdeset), eighty (osemdeset) and ninety (devetdeset) in Prekmurian language. --Kazu89 ^ノート 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'm sorry. Alike šestdeset (60), sedemdeset (70) and devetdeset (90). This rate 42, is štir'deset-dvej (in slovene dvainštirideset), 65 šestdeset-pet. In 20 (dvajset) 21:endvajset, 22:dvejdvajset, 23:trijdvajset... etc. Doncsecz 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. I compiled this for a comparison.

Number	Standard Slovene¹	Prekmurian¹	Resian²
60	šestdeset (6 × 10)	šestdeset (6 × 10)	rïkart dwisti (3 × 20)
70	sedemdeset (7 × 10)	sedemdeset (7 × 10)	trïkart dwisti nu dësat (3 × 20 + 10)
80	osemdeset (8 × 10)	?	štirikrat dwisti (4 × 20)
90	devetdeset (9 × 10)	devetdeset (9 × 10)	štirikrat dwisti nu dësat (4 × 20 + 10)

¹) decimal system (base 10)
²) partial vigesimal system (base 20)

Copyright problems with Vendvidék

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Vendvidék, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.vendvidek.com/indexe.htm. As a copyright violation, Vendvidék appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Vendvidék has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Vendvidék and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Vendvidék with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Vendvidék.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.

P.S.: If you want me to rewrite this page, I could do it at the weekend. --Kazu89 ^ノート 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore i wrote was the Vendvidék, as a user my banter and incessantly move the Vendvidék in article Prekmurje. Next time a normal Vendvidék article born. Doncsecz 08:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you said. The article Vendvidék was deleted because you simply stole the text from a website. That's not allowed because you infringe the copyright. If you have a closer look at the website, you can see this: © T. Horváth / J. Gerber. If you write the article in your own words, you can start again. --Kazu89 ^ノート 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncsecz~enwiki. You have new messages at Kazu89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Repaired your English language article

You are welcome, Doncsecz. The English language articles on the Republic of Prekmurje and Prekmurian language of the Hungarian Slovenes needed better grammar, translation and organization. I can see English is not your native language, and some Wikipedians in the article's talk page felt your English translation wasn't comprehensive or understandable. I gotten what you're trying to explain the article's subject, and my advice is you can purchase and install an English language translation program onto your computer for future edits next time. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear static IP, I don't agree with your advice. A text translated with the help of software wouldn't look that different. In fact, I already had the impression that some software was used. But since the Slavic grammar is nearly intact, maybe I'm wrong. --Kazu89 ^ノート 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub is not used for sections

Hi, If you want to show that a section of an article needs to be expanded, please add {{expand|section}} and not {{stub}}. The stub tag means that the whole article is only a stub - clearly not the case for Prekmurian dialect, so it wastes the time of the Stub-sorters. Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koncz Zsuzsa photo

Hello, thank you for your answer, ant thank you especially for the message in your native language! I understood very good, but I propose to communinicate in simple English. I don't want to torture neither Prekmurian nor Hungarian (but I am very glad you understood - I self-study Hungarian language two months only). There's any problem with my photo (derivative work, the file has been deleted). I'll try to contact a Czech administrator and try to fix the problem. The photograph is my own work, but I'm not sure, if it's okay.

By the way, I saw the Koncz Zsuzsa koncert in Százhalombatta - it was great!

Jarba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.32.14 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Szlovenszka krajina

Pozdravljen! Predlagam, da premaknemo na Slovene March (Kingdom of Hungary). March je angleški prevod sl. besede "krajina". Poleg prekmurske Slovenske krajine pa je v srednjem veku obstajala tudi Slovenska krajina na Dolenjskem (po nemško Windische March ali Windic March). Zato predlagam, da se v oklepaju napiše "Kingdom of Hungary", da bo jasno, za katero 'Slovensko krajino' gre. Lep pozdrav, Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Res je, Serbian Krajina ohranja originalno ime, tudi Bosnian Krajina: a to je zato, ker je ime Krajina šteto kot samostojno ime, in sta 'Serbian' in 'Bosnian' le pridevnika. Tudi v srbščini in hrvaščini se večinoma reče enostavno 'Krajina', brez pridevnika, pridevniki 'srpska', 'bosanska' so le dodatki. Nisem prepričan, da je isto v slovenščini in prekmurščini. Bi vi rekli samo 'Krajina' ali bi vedno rekli 'Slovenska krajina'? V prvem primeru (če uporabljate zgolj ime 'Krajina') lahko preimenujemo v 'Slovenian Krajina', vendar se mi to zdi čudno. Srbska in Bosanska Krajina namreč mejita med sabo, sta dva dela iste zgodovinske dežele, v prekmurskem primeru pa je poudarek na besedi 'Slovenska' in je krajina zgolj opis; še toliko bolj, ker izhaja iz 'Slovenska okroglina', Madžari pa rečejo Vendvidék in ne Vend Krajna. Zato naj po mojem ostane Slovene March, ker se krajina po angleško reče 'March' (tako kot se po madžarsko reče vidék). Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Krajina II

Szervusz Ákos :-) Thank your for your response here. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that I didn't understand much. Could you please rewrite it in Hungarian? Then I could try to figure it out with google's language tools. --Kazu89 ^ノート 09:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian trick worked! We could use it to repair the Prekmurian dialect article ;-) --Kazu89 ^ノート 15:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Üdv

Üdv Ákos!

Remélem emlékszel még rám! :) Hogy tudom törölni a felhasználómat? Mert félreérthető a neve meg szeretném tiszta lappal kezdeni a wikit, amikor még ezt regisztráltam kezdő voltam, és a két név nem megengedett, azért szeretném ezt törölni, hogy kell?

Üdv

MagyarTürk Talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Köszi! Igényeltem, hogy átnevezzenek. Van már msn címed? Felvennélek szívesen. Amúgy vannak most problémák? Értem itt a soviniszta dolgokat? Mert, hogy jön a nyár több időm lesz a wikire. :) Esetleg az oszmán-magyar háborúkat kellene szerkeszteni? A noon bell cikket nézd meg, fejleszteni kéne! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 18:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow gratulálok!

A Jewish Task Force tagja vagyok nemzetközi cionista szervezet valamint a magyarországi ARZENU reform cionista szövetség tagja is vagyok, és szeretem Magyarországot! Ezért nem vádolhatnak engem elfogultsággal! :)

Felvettelek —Preceding unsigned comment added by PZJTF (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rendben, segítik. Ez miféle csata? A magyar csatákat is meg kéne csinálni igényesre! :) Amúgy szép munkáid vannak, bocsi láttam, hogy írtál msn-en, de nem voltam gépnél. :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.14.192 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEM VAGYOK REGISZTRÁLVA? ESKÜSZÖM BE VAGYOK LÉPVE! :-O most beléptem újra —Preceding unsigned comment added by PZJTF (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohačka bitka - válasz

Köszönjük a támogatást, de azt hiszem, a probléma nem oldódott meg. Sok cikkek, hogy a közös (Magyarország és Horvátország) történet, minden mondat kapcsolódik a horvátok, és Horvátország volt törölni a szöveget. Mintha a horvátok nem létezett, mivel 1102 évvel a közelmúltig. Üdvözlettel, és sok szerencsét! --Kebeta (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corvinus etc.

Doncsecz, let me be very clear about this: the sources discussing the possible Vlach origin of the two are all of several kinds, and in this case the cited source is anything but Romanian. Yes, some Romanian sources have, for political reasons, jumped ahead and claimed that this means they were both Romanians and heroes of Romania, which, granted is ridiculous. However, this does not mean that a mere mention of the possibility that they were Vlach is a Romanian POV; it means that this account has been exaggerated by nationalist Romanian sources. Mainstream Romanian historiography has relativized that interpretation. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that mainstream Hungarian historiography does not absolutely reject the possibility that the two could have had Vlach origins - just I'm sure that Hungarian nationalists do. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Another thing is that wikipedia strives not to endorse the sort of labels you're pushing into the article. To claim absolute interpretation of the coverage in sources is contrary to WP:OR. To make cited sources say what they do not explicitly say is contrary to a special section of WP:OR, that is WP:SYNTH (and, incidentally, WP:ATTR). And to editorialize in your own opinions about the sources is contrary to WP:WEASEL.

Also, and forgive me for stating this bluntly, but it's pretty glaring: your English lacks skill, and the text you added is ungrammatical. Hardly surprising, given that even your user page is borderline unreadable. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the links I provided here, just above? Because it seems that: a) you're not answering to anything in my post other than my objections to your poor command of the language; b) you're continuing to behave as if they don't exist, adding yet more proof that this is your original research. Dahn (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Hello,

We recently put up a page on Janos Boros, the Hungarian politician from Kolozsvar and ex-vice mayor. But this has been notified by some users on Wiki for deletion. If they had asked us to improve the text, we would have happily obliged. But they are attacking the very credentials of the personality saying that his profile does not comply with neither WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG. They also propose deletion as they see this page as a means to aggrandise Janos Boros. We searched the wiki for other vice mayors from Romania, to see if ex-vice mayors of Roamnian city councils and ex-vice presidents of political parties deserve and have their pages. Many of them, both ex and present have wiki pages dedicated to them. If these Romanian vice mayors can have their pages on wiki, while they some of them have not even served terms in office half of what Mr. Boros did, why not a page for Janos Boros? We are in the process of re-writing the page, as we agree with the critics that the page was poorly written. But outright request for deletion will be a biased one and unfair to our effort. If you find time, your help would be most welcome and appreciated.

Warm Regards,

Kiran Vasudeva Hangakiran (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Válasz

I came upon the Prekmurian article by chance, and started to correct the English because it seemed to need it. :)

Now Doncsesz wrote to me, very graciously, and asked me to give my opinion on this topic.

First, as a native Hungarian speaker, and with a fair amount of editing experience, I'll gladly clear up the problems with English, relying on the Hungarian original when need be.

On the linguistic issue (and I do have an MA in Linguistics (UBC, 1976), therefore I am not a newcomer to the field), I'll read up on the material and then share my views. As we all know (I hope), the language/dialect controversy is not unique to Slovenian/Prekmurian, and in fact seems to come up a lot in connection with Southern Slavic languages. There is even a Crnagoran language now, the last I heard... Anyway, I do not want to prejudge my professional opinion, so give me some time!

Best wishes,

Gábor Sándi Gsandi (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian

You are invited to join WikiProject Intertranswiki and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian. It is intended to be a joint group between Intertranswiki and WikiProject Slovenia of which you are already a part of The aim is to draw up a directory of missing articles from Slovenian wikipedia, extract what is notable or suitable, and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. Even if you can't contribute much in starting content, your help is much needed to help draw up detailed lists of missing articles for Slovenia in the new project space and help other editors work through lists to build content more fully. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The truth it, that i f.i.: i write the articles of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary in english and these get in the hungarian and slovene wiki. Whatever possibly i join.

Doncsecz^znánje 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovski boj

Nije problem u tome, nego je recenica bila potpuno nerazumljiva. Probaj da napises to malo pravilnije. :-) Vanjagenije (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad je mnogo bolje. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurian

Živijo Doncsecz. Oprostite, jaz ne vem dobro slovenščini ampak razumem nekaj! Ta trenutek ne vem a je prekmurščina jezik ali narečje. Res mi čudovito in zanimivo, sedaj bo birati prekmurščinu --- po makedonski, odma će se dogovorime kako da go predstavuvame jazikot, samo prvo da naučam malku poveće prekmurski. Najlepša hvala, bo pisati nanovo. Evlekis (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurian dialect/language

Hi, Doncsezc! Per WP:MOS we have to stick to a single term in the article. As long as the title of the article is Prekmurian dialect, it should be used throughout the article. If you believe the article should be moved to 'Prekmurian language', you may suggest the move using the procedure described at WP:RM. Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cosmin Forrest

Thank you very much for your kind message. To the subject: This is what I was afraid of, that the source you based upon is entirely Polish. The battle was a total disaster for the Polish Army. It wan an epic battle. King Albert, who was the main responsible of the defeat (he personally lead the Army into a trap), after the battle spread the rumor that his defeat was due to an unexpected participation of Ottomans, Tatrs, etc. This was non-sense, because only 4 months earlier Poles and Moldavians were preparing for an anti-Ottoman campaign, but it was a convenient lie for his entourage. I think we should use sources that were not politically tented. I must tell you also that there are many factual incorrectness in the English article. It needs to be seriously re-worked. Dc76\^talk 10:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you available by email? Dc76\^talk 10:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget about my request about email. Sorry I asked.

Stephen was not a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. This is a well established historical fact, that can be easily sourced to 50 sources. Only once he swore allegiance, for Pokuttia to Casimir of Poland in 1485, because Stephen was also the feodal lord of Pokuttia, which was part of the Kingdom of Poland, and not of the Principality of Moldavia (you know, typical medieval stuff). The Romanian WP indicates the Moldavian force at 22,000, not 18,000 as the Polish one does. Also the battle involved little on the Polish side beyond the 5,000 armored knights. So in fact, among those that did saw action, Moldavians had 2:1 superiority. The Polish army was on a retreat march, most have never taken part in action. During the battle of Vaslui in 1475, it is possible that Stephen had some small Szekler, Polish and Hungarian enhancements. He begged 1 year for help from the Cristian neighbors, and some small help did arrive in 1475. But not in 1497. Dc76\^talk 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mátyás Godina

The article Mátyás Godina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thedarxide (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prekmurian dialect

Imaš prav. Bom spremenil. Dejstvo je, da danes prekmurščina ni več regionalni jezik, je pa v preteklosti gotovo bila. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunyadi

Szerintem elsősorban lényegesen le kellene rövidíteni ezt a származás témát, annál is inkább, mert eredménye nem lesz egyik fél részére sem. Fogom az ügyet tanulmányozni, de amennyire én ismerem, itt arról van szó, hogy a Hunyadi család egy olyan területen lépett a történelembe, ahol nagyon vegyes volt a kialakuló uralkodó-réteg etnikai eredete, és valószínűleg az etnikai tudat sem volt megszilárdult. Az, hogy a Hunyadi ősök Havasalföldről jöttek erős hagyománynak látszik, de valószínű, hogy már Havasalföldön kezdhették az akkor ott hűbéri befolyásra törekvő magyarokkal a cimborálást, hiszen a családban elég sok a magyar hangzású név, mely az igazodási szándékot tükrözi. A Vojk névnél érdekes lenne utánanézni az eredetnek, hiszen pl. István király Vaj(k) neve is ha jól emlékszem török eredetű, és bár a kunok ogoz-törökök voltak, lehet, hogy a név ilyen formán török (kun).

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Doncsecz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 12 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Károly Holecz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative toponyms in a template

I am dedicated to free use of minority languages and against of artificial and hypocritical restrictions imposed on it, when people refer to practical reasons but mean simply enforcement of ethnic dominance or indifference. I started to make bilingual templates containing alternative placenames and put them into articles which are in region where Hungarian is, in practice, a regional minority language. My idea is that a footer does not disrupt the articele and noone has to open it it dislikes other names than official ones. One of them is Template:Maros (Mureş) County, which was proposed for deletion. I would like to know your opinion as Prekmurian and Hungarian. I think deletion of the template would be a mistake. If you happen to agree with me, I would appreciate if you could oblect deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion Rokarudi 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Soviet–Turkish War (1917–1918)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Soviet–Turkish War (1917–1918). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet–Turkish War (1917–1918). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunyadi

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajk

Oláh Vajk, Hunyadi János édesapja

Sorry, but what does "Oláh" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name Oláh is not perforce ethnic-meaning, but may territorial-meaning. Accordingly Oláh Vajk may Vajk Oláhországból (Vajk from Wallachia), from that matter the hungarians many a time was name to the every people of Wallachia (Romanians, Cumans, Pechengs, Slavs and others): Wallachians/Vlachs/Oláhok. Doncsecz^talk 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is written black on white Oláh, which means Vlach (romanian) and not Vajk Oláhországból. You hate Romanians so much that you don't want to accept the reality (Iaaasi (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reality? Georghe Funar was together scrabble the statue of Mathias in Napoca, that Mathias is romanian king. The romanian nationalism was apropriate to the quesition of ancestry of Hunyadi and Mathias, but not support to convincingly. In the 14th, and 15th century few wallachian knyaz have Turkish name. When the ancestors of Romanians was come in Wallachia manifestly blend to with the Cumans, otherwise why have Vojk turkish name? I research to my family tree and other Slovene familys in Hungary. Few family have hungarian name, for ex. Nemes. But his wearer was not Magyar, but slovene noble (noble=nemes). When catch to the nobility, his name is Nemes. Doncsecz^talk 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vojk comes from the Slavic root Voj (warrior)(Iaaasi (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting theory, but in the prekmurian language česnek is garlic, but in hungarian csesznek is fucking. Ware with the comparison, as the Slavic languages is indoeuropean languages, but the cuman is turkic. Doncsecz^talk 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavic form is Vojko http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojko(Iaaasi (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good exist family Vojkovich, Vojko, but the Cumans was settle down between the Serbs and Macedonians, accordingly likely this family is Cuman ancestry (else some). Between the Slovenes Vojko is another family such as between the Serbs. Vojkovich may Son of Vojk/Vojko, my name is Doncsecz=Son of Doncs. Doncsecz^talk 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May Vojk is Slavic ancestry, but ware! Slavic languages and Romanian language is indoeuropean language, some word is other, such as in the Cuman language. Doncsecz^talk 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i haven't understood why Vojk doesn't come from Slavic Vojko, but from turkic Bajik(Iaaasi (talk))

Bajik, Vojk and Vojko. Bajik and Vojk if Turkic names, accordingly akins, but if the Vojko have not Turkic ancestry, not identical with the Bajik-Vojk. Doncsecz^talk 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Small Lexicon of the Battles"

Adduce me more info (namely ISBN) about this book, please. I cannot find any further details about it on internet. Thanks a lot! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could You respond me, please? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here the ISBN. Doncsecz^talk 07:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this ISBN (963-645-080-3) is wrong. It doesn't work. Try yourself find such number via Wiki Book sources page.

State proper info about this book, please. Otherwise the reference has to be deleted. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iaroslavvs, sorry for intruding, just wanted to say that the databases of other countries don't necessarily include Hungarian books. Since the ISBN starts with 963 (the code for Hungary), I checked this one in the catalogue of the Hungarian national library, and the book does exist, though only in Hungarian. Csaták kislexikona by Attila Weiszhár and Balázs Weiszhár; Budapest, Maecenas, cop. 2000. – Alensha ^talk 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. And now it's Your turn, Doncsecz. Correct the book's name to the proper (i.e. original Hungarian) form – e.g. here; translation into English can be enclosed into parentheses – and add other relevant bibliographical infos (according to WP:CITET). --Iaroslavvs (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hello, Doncsecz~enwiki. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gratitude

THANKYOU SO MUCH Mr. Doncsecz for your Outstanding Translation effort!

I am overwhelmed with gratitude.

May God Bless you!

(In the future, if you wish to have your favourite article translated into the Chinese language, then I would certainly be glad to help you.)

Yours Sincerely, --Jose77 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurian

"Prekmurian" (like "Ljubljanian", "Murska Sobotian", etc.) is not acceptable English. Good native English scholarship (and phraseology) on this topic can be found here: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/5268/1/2Greenberg.pdf Doremo (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia entries should follow acceptable English grammar, spelling, and style. It is irrelevant where the authors come from as long as they provide quality information.

Doremo (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not good English. Please read some native English scholarship on the issue as a model of good usage. Doremo (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the message. Doremo (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prekmurian

Pozdravljen. Zdaj na žalost nimam časa, da bi o tem razpravljal. Tudi meni pa se Prekmurian zdi boljše. Konec meseca bom nekaj napisal o tem. Zdaj res nimam časa. Lep pozdrav, Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egy kis segítség

Kedves szláv sorstársam! Látom, megint kapod a baszogatást az otthoni wikin. Azért is írok ide, mert a kérésem az angol wikire vonatkozik. Egyik cikkemet törlésre jelölték, de nem is ez fáj, hanem hogy egy hülye amerikai javasolta azt, aki azt sem tudja, hol van Szlovákia vagy Magyarország. A cikkem a szlovák-magyar megbékélési, együttműködési díjról szól, ami ezekben a bajos időkben egy kis örömhír, már hogy van ilyen, ezt szerettem volna megosztani a világgal (mint magyarországi szlovák). Már páran támogattak, de te, mint szláv testvér, ha gondolod, nézz rá a vitalapra és véleményezz: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Award for Good Neighborhood and Understanding Ami a SIL-es leveledet illeti, remélem, sikerül, eddig is sokat tettél a vend wiki létrejöttéért, ha bárhol támogatni kell, csak szólj :) Köszönöm! --Eino81 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hagyjuk, nem keveredj bele, neked nem szabad ezt az utat járnod, mint nekem. Nekem már túl sok volt, hogy hiteles és elismert forrásokat propagandának kiáltottak, nem szerkesztek többet a magyaron. Inkább a szlovénra megyek, ott is van aki kukacoskodik, de lényegében véve nem annyira nehéz eset, ráadásul általában egyedül csak vele van a legtöbb baj, nem a többiekkel. Doncsecz^talk 09:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semmi baj, gondoltam, hogy így döntesz. Néha engem is kiakasztanak a wikisek, érdekes módon nem is annyira a magyarok, inkább az angol vagy a finn wiki szerkesztői. Bármennyire is szeretem a finneket, a szerkesztők ott barmok, a legtöbbje, 2-t ismerek, aki nem. Segítesz azért majd szlovénosítani a Rogán Antal szócikket? (Majd megírom angolul is...) Vagy legalább keresni valakit, aki a szlovénen megteszi? :)

Gondoltam már, hogy megírom szlovénul is. Doncsecz^talk 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Előre is köszönöm. Tudod, ez amiatt az "őrületem" miatt van, hogy ha egy cikk egy másik népre is vonatkozik, akkor legyen meg azon a nyelven is. A törlésre jelölt cikkemet pl tegnap kezdtem el szlovákra fordítani... --Eino81 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A másik cikk amiben segítségedet kérném, az István Sándorfi lenne. Ő az egyik példaképem, ismerem személyesen a lányát, és az az én megemlékezésem róla, hogy a lehető legtöbbre megírom vagy iratom a cikkét, a magyart is én írtam, az angolt is, no meg még párat. szlovénül viszont nem tudok :) --Eino81 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lehet, hogy kicsit nehéz lesz a Sándorfi, eltarthat egy darabig. Doncsecz^talk 10:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jajaja, a művészet szakszótára mindig megnyomja a munkát :) Nem baj, így is nő azért a nyelvek listája. --Eino81 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, jövő héten agyalok rajtam, izgalmasan hangzik :) --Eino81 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Te, én megpróbáltam elképzelni, így fel is merült pár kérdés:

1. hány kereszt van? Mert azt írtad, jhogy ezek szegélyezik (tbsz.) 2. Az L-ek egy keresztet hoznak össze, mint a norvég vagy izlandi zászlón? 3. Egy gólya van, ugye? Az jó, ha a széllét vastagon húzom meg fekete vonalla, és stilizált, mint minden zászlójelkép? 4. Hol helyezkedik vagy helyezkednek el a kereszt(ek)? Középen, ha egy? És ha több, akkor a négy sarokban? --Eino81 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Szóval az, hogy körbefogják a gólyát, azt jelenti, hogy a gólya a keresztet alkotó L-ek között van, vagy felettük, úgy értem, takarja-e az L-eket? --Eino81 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Küldtem mailt a címedre, benne két zászlóterv :) --Eino81 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jó, délután ráugrok még egyszer. Amúgy az egyes változaton a párhuzamos aranyszárak távolsága jó vagy növeljem? Szóval két gólya és egy fészek, menni fog. a szárhosszúság gondolom, a két oldalon legyen rövidebb, vertikálisan megfelelő volt? --Eino81 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, a két gólya. Az egyik üljön a fészekben, a másik álljon mellette? Vagy legyenek egymásnak háttal, azaz nézzenek a zászló két oldala felé, vagy inkább egymással szembe nézzenek? --Eino81 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prekmurščina po grško

A ti je lažje če pišem slovensko ali angleško? Žal se ukvarjam samo s staro grščino tako da res ne vem kako se reče Prekmurski v (moderni) grščini. Prek je ὑπέρ + 4. sklon oziroma πέραν + 2. sklon, in Mura bi bila verjetno Μύρα. Za enkrat ne vem, kakšno ime so imeli stari Grki za tole reko. Seveda ime mora obstajati. Malo bom raziskoval. Lp. --Ioscius^∞ 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torej to bi bilo ὑπέρ Μύραv ali πέραν Μύραs. --Ioscius^∞ 14:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja malenkost. --Ioscius^∞ 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish–Portuguese War (1509)

An article you created has been proposed for merger/deletion; the discussion is here should you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this article will be transformed into a redirect to Battle of Diu (1509) in one day if there is no further opposition. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Turkish–Portuguese War (1509)

Template:Campaignbox Turkish–Portuguese War (1509) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --R.Schuster (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed. --R.Schuster (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Prekmurian dialect

Hello Doncsecz. I filed a dispute at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Prekmurian dialect. --R.Schuster (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvanian Saxon

Hi! I invite you at this talk. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --R.Schuster (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Sandstein 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid insulting WP editors

Hello. Please avoid insulting WP editors with expressions like "foolish intrude" [[2]] Doremo (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a bit "folly," here neither the Prekmurian, neither the Prekmurje functional, as oversea now come to know the prekmurian. Doncsecz^talk 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Válasz

Szia!

A válaszom egy kicsit megkésett, mert mostanában nem látogatom nagyon gyakran a wikipédiát.

Hát persze, ha gondolod. Miért is ne?--Nmate (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majd egy kicsit később jó? Most van egy balhém egy románnal, és majdha az lecseng... --Nmate (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jó, de konkrétan nem tudnád leírni magyarul, hogy a cikknek szerinted milyen mondatokat kéne még tartalmaznia? Ha az megvan, akkor majd lefordítom, és bemásolom a cikkbe, és persze adj hozzá forrásokat is légyszi.

Azt még megkérdezhetem hogy éltél-e azzal az ajánlattal, hogy kinaira lefordítsák a kedvenc cikkedet[3]? Gondolom, a kínai wikinek nagy olvasótábora van. --Nmate (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Még nem tudtam, mert akkor épp egyetemen voltam, s nem foglalkozhattam sok mindennel. Doncsecz^talk 08:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banat Bulgarian language

Hi, expanding the Language section of Banat Bulgarians to a Banat Bulgarian language article is a good idea, but you have to make sure it's more than just the original section text copied with a new name. As is stands, Banat Bulgarians#Language is a good summary rather than a proper article on its own. It does have some more specific information which could be left out from the section if it is included in the language article, but I can't agree with wiping out the entire section and replacing it with a single link.

You have to keep in mind that Banat Bulgarians is a GA and I'd actually like to keep it as such :) So the way I imagine things is having a large summary of Banat Bulgarian language as a section in Banat Bulgarians, with at least two average-sized paragraphs (the size of the current first two paragraphs of Banat Bulgarians#Language, for example). Everything else from the section can go in a separate article, but do make an effort to expand it! After all, if I wanted to make an article from the current available text only, I would have done so myself :)

Greetings from Bulgaria and thanks for you interest in the Banat Bulgarians :) Todor →Bozhinov 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trnava

I don't really understand your English, but if you are trying to say that there were other battles called the Battle of Trnava, then perhaps we will need disambiguation when articles are written about those battles. Deb (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]