User talk:Hobartimus/rchv2

Te barbár állat! Szétcseszed a Hungary cikket az angol wikin, a képek időbeli kronológikus sorrendjét széttúrod te bunkó jószág! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.3.109 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

My edits to the Bridge to Nowhere were based on a large consensus discussion you may not be aware of that began on the "political positions" page where it was agreed that the more extensive text there should be on the main page, with a summary on the political positions page. In fact, I'm putting it back right now. As I describe on the talk page, I think it is more important in Palin's entry to give her views rather than to give other people's views. I don't believe in cutting direct quotes from the subject of the entry on the subject of the section, and I doubt you do either. Better to cut other people's views that belong in their entries. See talk page. (Working on it now.)GreekParadise (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_math.png--Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Fair point on the new reference, as you say this is MSM coverage of a trend in multiple poll results and totally worthy of inclusion. I tried to incorporate it in a way that avoided redundancy with the other poll references already in there, but if you want to change my edit to something you feel better represents the source go right ahead. I would self revert but I don't have time to look at it right now. If I have a problem with what you have written I'll PM you rather than revert rudely. I'm sorry for edit warring with you on the McCain campaign page, I won't do that again. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP all your edits on the Bridge to Nowhere without discussing them first. Many of them violate a long-standing consensus that has taken place over several days and is included in the talk page. I'm trying to stop you now because I know how frustrating it is when you've made changes and someone reverts back. But I am reverting. If you want to delete content, could you please tell me which content and why?GreekParadise (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Empire or not

I need help, you reverted Jedlik, but in

Habsburg Monarchy:

Names of the territory that (with some exceptions) finally became Austria-Hungary:

Habsburg monarchy or Austrian monarchy (1526 – 1867): This was an unofficial, but very frequent name - even at that time. The entity had no official name. Note that technically the term Habsburg monarchy can also refer to the period 1276-1918 when the Habsburgs ruled in the monarchy centered in present-day Austria, and Austrian monarchy can refer to the monarchy centered in present-day Austria 1156 – 1867, but both terms are usually not used this way.
Austrian Empire (1804 – 1867): This was the official name. Note that the German version is "Kaisertum Österreich", i.e. the English translation empire refers to a territory ruled by an emperor, not just to a "widespreading dominion", more accurately the "Emperordom of Austria". and in History of Hungary 1700-1919 Royal Hungary 1545-1699, nothing, 1848 Revolution.

--Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check List_of_Hungarian_rulers or the Ferdinand I of Austria article he was "Emperor of Austria; King of Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia" both terms are correct I just prefer to use something more specific. For example someone was born in Canada in year X, then we write in the article that he was born in Canada in year X then the reader can click on the Canada link and find out that in year X Canada was part of the Commonwelth, part of the British Empire, was ruled by Queen Victoria or whatever was exactly the case with Canada in year X, or if it had a personal union with the UK or whatever, it might be complex to explain. Hobartimus (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by

Thanks for the warning. I'm not sure I got to the 3RR stage? Maybe I don't yet understand the definition. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing for a while, usually more like 300 edits a day, and no one ever said anything like that to me? I'm a little confused.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 edits per article. :)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that's an exaggeration. But Palin is certainly not one of my most heavily-visited articles.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in the habit of editing this way for a while, thanks for your understanding. It may take me a minute to get the hang of it and keep track, as I tend to edit fast and click 'save' a lot. The first edit and second edits were today, and the other one yesterday, but you're right, it has not been 24 hours. I did not see the second edit as a content change, but rather a flow change. I will self-revert on that one. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist

I would appreciate you refraining from further empty threats. I violated no policy as you well know. You made several major edits without consensus to an article on probation. These edits removed major blocks of important and well-cited information on the subject. I will not revert your edit again, but will pursue this through the article's talk page. Arjuna (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the article talk page. We may not actually have major areas of disagreement here. I would like to add back some of the material on Foreign Policy/Environment, but as it's late here and I'm not fresh, rather than be half-assed about it I'd rather wait and see if it still needs to go back in tomorrow. Best, Arjuna (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin article - religion section

Hi, I noticed that you removed the religion section in the article. I appreciate your interest. It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge. Atom (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like you to stop

Like at least one other poster on your talk page, I object to your behavior. I ask you to stop making baseless, defamatory statements and threats, and remove them from my talk page. I added no unsourced material, never have, and never will. Dagoldman (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman." to the Sarah Palin article [1], this statement was completely unreferenced. In Wikipedia terms an acceptable reference for such an execptional statement about someones thoughts or thought process would be a direct quote from McCain. I never threatened you. If you continue adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to biographies of living persons, the matter will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Certainly I can't threaten to block you since I couldn't block you even if I wanted to which is not even the case. Buster7 is right that you can remove whatever you like from your talk page. Policy only requires me to give you the warning and prove it with a diff link like this. Hobartimus (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag on Bridge to Nowhere: Please stop making unilateral, unsourced changes!

If you persist in putting up unsourced information that is POV, I will put POV tag on the site and we can all vote on your changes. GreekParadise (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find GreekParadise to be errant on this, and consider his belief that he, and he alone, can make changes to a section, to be also errant. Collect (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

palin image update

Bob Weinstein released copyrights to me ;) Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you revert, read here:

The sentence I put back was accidentally removed by Collect. He never went to talk page. It has never been removed before. If you remove it you would be suggesting that Palin NEVER supported the bridges, which you know is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really would help to admit you were wrong

Just read the section with and without that sentence. GP is right: the section without that sentence just makes no sense, because it is not about Palin ~~at all~~. Homunq (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened a section where you can propose more mentions of Palin's support for the bridge if you feel that the ones currently listed there are insufficient. Currently there are only 7 mentions and my edit removed one I understand now that it just had to be reverted. [2] Hobartimus (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semipersonal information

Thanks, you're the first person to reply with a reasonable reason to keep the data out. Cheers, Jim.Jimmetzler (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarah Palin

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit on this page here. I don't know why because you didn't leave an edit summary besides that you were reverting. I was restoring information that was relevant to the page that had been removed initially by User:EconomicsGuy II here. The information concerned information about Sarah Palin and her connection to evangelical pastor Thomas Muthee. The information had been included on Sarah Palin but removed and I assumed that the conversation was ongoing about the removal. The edit that I restored filled in information and I did not consider it to violate rules against the talk page being a forum. Perhaps you disagree. I invite you to discuss this further at my talk page as EconomicsGuy has made it clear that he does not want to discuss it on his. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You might want to drop by Talk: Sarah Palin as it looks like a definition of conses=nsus may be required. Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

56 again

![3] thanks István (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are awarded the order of 56 for your role in defending the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — István (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Muthee

I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing that section from Muthee's page. He gave sermons at Palin's church and blessed her, which I believe was a significant event in his life. I don't think it deserves a place on her pages, but I certainly think it deserves mention on his. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the information without mention of Palin, however I disagree with your interpretation of UNDUE and I would appreciate it if you would discuss it further. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tautologist has been playing in Muthee again. Collect (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kernell

Please review your facts before making claims that you know nothing about. I reverted to the version prior to User:Dof's edits, if somebody else removed previous versions of the article, I don't know what those edits were, I reverted because Dof was removing the hidden text that the article was about the father, not the son. Corvus cornix_talk 07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to any diff in which I removed the reference. Put up or shut up. Corvus cornix_talk 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin Pic

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [[4]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

Being called Gypsy, Nazi, Bullshit, and other stuff in the edit summaries by your lovely compatriot are reasons enough so that he will to be accused of vandalism ? Rezistenta (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of Saint Stephen

hi there,

I have reverted back the article to the original name where it was. As to your comment of a consensus I cannot find one on the talk page. The crown is known almost universally as the Crown of Saint Stephen, see also Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen for example. Gryffindor 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree. Wiki convention on articles stipulates the usage of the most commonly used names (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). In this case it would be the "Crown of Saint Stephen" or a similar version. Again, I do not find any "consensus" on the talk page, the page was simply moved by User:Szilas without a proper moving procedure, therefore I restored it. The crown might be called "Holy Crown" in Hungarian, however this is not the common name in English, see also Britannica [5]. Gryffindor 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest we discuss this best on the talk page of the article itself, to let others participate as well. Gryffindor 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Révay

Hi Hobartimus, this is to explain why the article Révay should include both the Slovak nobility and the Hungarian nobility categories. Although the counts Révay might have been Hungarian in nationality (although noone has provided any sources for that, so even this cannot be considered a proven fact), they lived, worked, died and influenced the politics and history of the Turiec/Turóc county, which lies in the present-day Slovakia, for 500 years. In my opinion this in itself warrants their inclusion in the Slovak nobility category. Noone here is trying to steal anyone's nobles or heroes as has been suggested by one of the editors.PeterRet (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and discussion.

Hi, I've been watching the debate on Sarah Palin and I thought I might figuratively take you aside. Your effort to maintain Sarah Palin to the standards of WP:Biographies of Living Persons is laudable, and I thank you for your efforts. However, the BLP policy is not meant as a replacement for the normal wiki process. WP:BLP is the "nuclear option" of debates. Our primary use of BLP is to immediately remove egregious material. It is not meant as a guide during content disputes, disputes about how much weight is proper, what sources to use, what order do the paragraphs go in etc. Wikipedia thrives on the discovery of consensus through discussion of the merits of the content, editing the article, and achieving a compromise, not through citing policy. Happy editing!--Tznkai (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a discussion

I invite you to participate at this discussion. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magyarization

We have a discussion in the talk page.--Olahus (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Didn't you notice that every Wikipedia article does have a talk page? No? Then, take a look here. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Hungary

You reversion of a routine discussion page item with which you disagree will be construed as vandalism if you do it again. Please stop. Student7 (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, please do continue to give your reasons for your edits, but avoid commenting on contributors, ok? Remember to focus on the content, not the contributor. I know in less edited and less contentious articles it can be easier to have a "discussion" via summaries, but when things are more heated, and the article more contested, it really does look like attacks. No sense making things any more tense than they are already, right? Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hello Hobartimus. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kernell article

Please see WP:OWN. Editors don't own the articles, and shouldn't edit unless they are ready to see their contributions edited mercilessly. Editors don't need permission from the main contributor to move a page to another title, and much less it was moved in order to comply with a wikipedia policy (as it was moved under WP:BLP1E). Please understand that this is the way wikipedia has to grow and change. Also, please don't revert it again or you will be on violation of the three reverts rule. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Do you understand the concept of authorship and how is different from ownership? Authorship is when you author something there is nothing wrong or negative about being the author of something, it's also a factual thing either you are the author or you are not, ownership is a completely different concept. Please learn and understand the difference between these two, it's important for basic understanding of WP:GFDL which was the topic of discussion. Asking permission and other such nonsense I don't even know where you get that part, you should know that "anyone can edit". Hobartimus (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of 3RR also seems really weak if you think that after a single revert a second revert would be in violation of 3RR. Let's just not throw around absurd comments like that. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I expressed myself incorrectly, I only used "ownership" because of the name of the policy.

I meant that, on wikipedia, editors don't need to ask permission to the original author of the article in order to change stuff or move it, and authors are not supposed to revert just because they were not asked about it. It would would have been a courtesy to ask first, but there was a discussion on the talk page about compliance with BLP (which is an important policy that asks stuff like reverting BLP violations on sight), and it seemed that there was consensus that BLP1E clearly applied to this case, so the article was simply moved right away without waiting. I'm sure that the editor who moved the page didn't intend to be uncourteous, he just must have thought that you would see the discussion on the talk page for why the article was moved.

About comment on my talk page, there were two problems. One is recreating the article under the old name (which creates duplicate articles), and the other is not discussing on the talk page why it was moved to the new title, and making an argument why the old title was a better title.

One thing: Scott MacDonald was wrong on saying that it was a GFDL violation, as you were the only contributor to the text of the article, the person who created the original article only made a redirect, and the other edits were only to add a maintenance tag. If it was only a GFDL matter, then there would be no problem, as you only restored your own text.

P.D.:(I have seen some disputes over moved or redirected articles, and I saw that most admins, when evaluating a possible 3RR, consider the recreation of a moved article an actual revert, in the sense that it would be a reversion of the move of the article, by reverting to the text that the article had before the move. There are some admins that wouldn't consider it like that, but I think that most would) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I meant that, on wikipedia, editors don't need to ask permission to the original author of the article in order to change stuff or move it," obviously, since we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I never said anyone needs my permission, never said it. Why I mentioned my authorship was to address the GFDL concern, which was surprising since I also stated in the first edit clear that I was the author and got the GFDL violation concern just the same. Now I think this part is settled so we can discuss the other stuff. When I write an article I expect everyone to follow wikipedia processes regarding deletion of content, which usually means the following, 1) Article is marked for speedy deletion and reviewed by an admin for deletion per adherence to CSD 2)an Afd is opened and after 5 days reviewed by an admin for deletion per consensus. I do not expect others to delete the full text of the article (3200 bytes), also known as blanking [6]. IIRC reverting full article blankings done outside of Afd is also something that is explicitly exempt from under 3RR. Everyone has to consider an article notable unless proven otherwise by consensus in Afd. Non-admins are not given deletion rights and for good reason, we have the Afd process. There is where the topic of WP:BIO1E can be discussed and arguments regarding it easily debunked by the amount of sources and worldwide coverage of Kernell. Hobartimus (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that part is settled.

About deletion of content, it appears that the person moving the page used the "move" button, which preserves the whole content of the article and its history. Since it was just moved from one name to another, with both names on article space, it's neither a deletion nor a blanking, instead it's a renaming, so it would be under WP:MOVE and not under AfD. In this diff you can see that the new article is just the old one under a new name, just compare your text to the text on the diff, click on "previous edit" to see your contributions appearing there on the same order that you made them on the old article.

Page moves can be done by any logged-in editor after just discussion on the talk page, and pages can sometimes be moved after discussions at wikiprojects and other places. There is a more formal process at Wikipedia:Requested moves for moves that require admin help or for controversial moves that need structured discussion (I used once this process for a move that I thought that could be controversial). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience

Thanks for speaking up for me on east's talk page. It's not the kind of inconvenience I'll be bothering anyone with again. -- Noroton (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Holocaust

Our agreement is that Holocaust scholars are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust Extermination camps (stupid definition but ....). Our disagreement is about creation of sub section other extermination camps. With knowledge that there has been many others extermination camps and sites (I know 7 of them) question is: Will we create subsection in The Holocaust template for this camps ? Can you please hear your comments about this question in section Non involved users because maybe even Hungary will have place in rewriten template (events in 1944)?--Rjecina (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Talk Pages

Hello, I have reported your continuous reverts regarding the Cernova Tragedy talk page. Please stop editing other peoples opinions simply based on the fact you dislike them. Bko79

As you can see the false 3RR report was rejected for multiple reasons [7]. It is very honoring that this account, Bko79's only action so far on wikipedia is creating this report. Hobartimus (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My review

Hey Hobartimus, I responded to your question at my editor review. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks, Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

There's an AfD discussion about "Zeituni Onyango" -- HERE. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Zeituni Onyango

I have nominated Zeituni Onyango, an article that 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/Zeituni Onyango (2nd nomination). 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. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erzsébet was not John Hunyadi Father :))

Hello, John Hunyadi's father was not Erzsébet Morzsinay because Erzsébet was a SHE :))) Regarding the text I inserted: since the information is well sustained by an encyclopedia I do not see the reason you deleted it. Carpaticus (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama family member bios

Malik

Sarah

Maya was no-consensus kept July 17

Madelyn was kept March 17.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be accused of trying to innoculate Lolo Soetoro, but I'm going to nominate it for deletion and redirection to Family of Barack Obama right now, since I believe that such a result would be consistent with the majority of the discussions above. (FWIW I believe the charge of attempted innoculation to be somewhat ridiculous in any case. An instance of discussion won't "innoculate" the community's consensus from evolving; just look at the 2nd nominations above or even "Obama family" itself, which

DYK for Zeituni Onyango

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zeituni Onyango, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

In case you didn't mind reading the talk page, the version to which you reverted has been addressed by me on the articles talk page, and was tacitly recognised to be not so NPOV even by other (that is Hungarian, to put it bluntly) editors. If you want to revert again, please adress the issues from the talk page first. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Wikipedians

There is a suspicion about Hungarian Wikipedians who lie and always change the articles about personalities of not Hungarian nationality born in then Kingdom of Hungary, don't you think ? I have read like hundreds of disputes about nationality of personalities on discussion pages of Wikipedians and discussion pages of articles. It is always the same story and these Hungarian Wikipedians know that what they do is not moral. Is it going to end one day or what? Seriously, this is ruining the whole project of Wikipedia. What is great about writing that some non-Hungarian born between 1000 and 1918 in then Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian citizenship, Hungarian ethnicity, Hungarian nationality, whatever other thesaurus of nationality exists..., was a proud Hungarian, preferred Hungarian language, made his pupils speak Hungarian, fought for Hungarian nation, was member of many Hungarian organizations... When we look at the articles about true Hungarians we can see that the nationality of these people is not emphasized that much. That says for itself. If Hungarians want the other nations of once Kingdom of Hungary to not hate them, they have to stop this. Otherwise, Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians and Rusyns will hate Hungarians forever. Jasooon (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that you are such an expert on the topic of "hatred of Hungarians" and determining which groups "will hate Hungarians forever" as you say. Also what about this edit [8] ? You should be happy with a theory that Petőfi had Serb origin so why remove it? Or is that not really the problem, what is it then? Hobartimus (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that Sandor Petofi was a Slovak. Does the fact that his ancestors had come to Slovakia 200 or 300 years before he was born mean that he was a Serb? If so, then no American could be considered American since 99% of them have ancestors in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia... And, other thing is that if it was 200 or 300 years, it means he was only like 1/16 of Serb or even less... His parents were Slovaks, he was a Slovak as well. Of course, that since there was Kingdom of Hungary, he saw the only way to success, career, opportunities... by becoming a Hungarian, what many other Slovaks did between 1000 and 1918 because as Slovaks they would probably never achieve a lot.

Anyway, I do not understand why you left out that Petofi was a Slovak in your last editing of the article. Just because you got angry about what I wrote? You just let the emotions lead you and don't care about the truth. Really, why would other nations want to hate the Hungarians. Is it not better to have healthy true friendly relationships instead? However, since the Hungarians usually lie, do not want to be fair and the truth to be revealed, there is no surprise that other nations hate them for it. Just imagine how would you feel if the Austrians or Germans would lie about the greatest Hungarian personalities as Stephen I or Bela Bartok and on Wikipedia they would be considered as Germans or Austrians. You would be furious because of that, wouldn't you? Jasooon (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that you did exactly what I was complaing about - you changed back all of my editings. There is only one thing I want to say:

The God sees all and he knows all of your sins. Jasooon (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious, I see that now this has to be some kind of a joke. Petőfi, who fought in the revolution and sacrificed his own life for the freedom of Hungary did it because he wanted a "career"? He wanted opportunities? Like the opportunity to fight against an overwhelming force of the Russian army of 200 000 and then dying on the battlefield instead of surrendering or fleeing. What about Nicolas Sarkozy? Should I go around and insert "Hungarian" everywhere where he is mentioned? Or should I accept that his Hungarian father and Hungarian name is discussed in the main article but not mentioned everywhere like "president of France" is mentioned? Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is joking here it is not me. How can you compare Petofi to Sakrozy?! Both of Petofi's parents were Slovaks. Sarkozy's father was Hungarian but his mother was not. Petofi's mother tongue was Slovak, the mother tongue of Sarkozy was French, he doesn't even speak Hungarian. Petofi had Slovak upbringing, attended Slovak schools, Sarkozy's father left the family when Sarko was four so what Hungarian influence could he have on his son?
About Petofi changing his ethnicity: Saying he did it "for success, career, opportunities" doesn't mean it was immoral. It is normal and happening all the time, especially the athletes do it. There had to be a motive for it. So what could it possibly be? Slovakia didn't exist, the Slovak language was probably not a ticket to achieve anything. If he wanted to express himself, gain self-fulfillment, accomplish something in his life, he had to speak Hungarian and become a Hungarian. The fact that he fought for Hungary and died for the nation is not in opposition with his decision to change his ethnicity for the above-mentioned reasons. Jasooon (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

Hey man, no evil intention, that "don't bite newcomers" was just a friendly reminder, basically intended for that "learn first English..." I think people can contribute with not-so-great English, there are enough people around to correct it. I think it's better to encourage people to contribute even if their English is not perfect, even if they don't know yet how Wikipedia works. But I will remove that from the talk page. man with one red shoe 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Balkan POV

In article Stefan Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia you are having very interesting statement about "bad" Hungarians without any source :) --Rjecina (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Hi, I do observe the WP:NPA - could you point out where exactly have I been uncivil in regard to User:Baxter9? He engaged in a subtle nationalistic fervor and edit wars before (he was even banned for breaking the 3RR rule), especially in sensitive topics such as Transylvania and the Hungarian-Romanian relations. Posting a picture with the German troops entering Bucharest would suggest the idea that occupying Bucharest was the last event of the campaign, however the campaign ended on December 9, 1917, with the Focşani armistice. Concerning the picture in the Aftermath section, I believe it belongs there since the war of 1919 is regarded as a continuation of the World War I - since when is there a "one picture in only one article" rule? And please make sure you have solid reasons of accusing someone of engaging in personal attacks - otherwise it's considered itself a form of personal attack. Cheers, Mentatus (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Recent edits have nothing to do with this. But if you mentioned it... Here is a user who is pushing Romanian nacionalistic POV. Some edits:[9], [10],[11],

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Of course he removed the warnings from his talkpage. Dont you want to ask User:Biruitorul to help? I hope some users are not more equal than others, or are they?Baxter9 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. And for the sake of consistency, please delete the picture depicting Falkenhayn's cavalry entering Bucharest on December 6, 1916 from the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. I hope some pictures are not more equal than others, or are they? Mentatus (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more translation, perhaps?

I've come across the word földközitengerre in several places in my Hungarian source for A-H submarines, as in this sentence: "A Cattarói-öbölből a földközitengerre indult bevetésre." Any idea what the word means? Thanks again for your help. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Leko

See discussion at Talk:Péter Lékó#Requested move. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name change

Hi! I have reverted the move mainly because of the majority of the people think it should be Peter Leko. I think there should first be consensus before the page be moved to anything else. It would be good to have a firm wikipedia policy on diatrics. Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer original names, but to reiterate, I think pages should not be moved if there is controversy, unless there is a firm wikipedia policy to do so. Voorlandt (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, didn't see that reply :) Voorlandt (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Hungary edits

O.K, but what do you think about the other edits like music and sports ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishGunner (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the images in the Hungary article

I don't know about you, but when I use a resolution above 1400x900 the pictures in the Hungary article pile up on the right side of the page, pushing the remaining images out of the relative sections, and by the middle of the page the image File:BushInBudapest2.jpg is at the same height of the "science" section. Do you know any way to solve this without removing some files from the page?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Reffael 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reffael 02.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Cozma

The street is in Tei, Bucharest. 89.33.128.101 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Sztojka.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sztojka.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Toroko again ??

We are having new-old Hungary-Croatia problem. Newly created disruptive account is called user:Bizso. Can you please talk with user and if nothing else discover his knowledge of hungarian language so that we can know if this is Toroko or somebody else ? --Rjecina (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal?

What the heck? I feel like being in the USSR. If a say a word that is not the accepted by SOME PEOPLE then I am accused of being a vandal? Do you know what the concept of FREE SPEECH means? Are you accusing me because of the Croatia Hungary relationships?! THAT's CALLED A DISPUTE! And it's not only me! Historians argue on ACADEMIC LEVEL! WIKIPEDIA is NOT YOURS!. It's meant to present the sheer facts! Wikipedia lists all significant viewpoints! That the policy of NPOV:Balance. What you do is you oppress one of the viewpoints, so that you artifically justify yours! ALL viewpoints should exists beside one another if there is a dispute! Are you going to ban me for citing the opinions of other academics that do not conform to you ideas? Who the hell do you think you are? And who the hell are those names that you put on my user page? Are you paranoid? Am I Torokko? Rly? I didn't know that. What you do is you exploit your admin rights to censor Wikipedia. But it is not just you. In the Croatia in personal union with Hungary talk everything was deleted that cited sourced Academic Level References of the other viewpoint. And because I readded them I am called a Vandal? That's the Joke of the century! --Bizso (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WE MUST ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH? Is that your motto?? LOL
DISRUPTIVE ACCOUNT? Omfg I shit my pants! Man try to restrain your dictatoristic attitude Rjecina and also my other nationalistic Croat firendes like User:Ivan Štambuk!--Bizso (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain it to me User:Rjecina why you removed the information on the dispute about the pacta conventa in the article Croatia? I am looking forward to you answer!--Bizso (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) --Bizso (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG. You not only CENSOR the articles but the TALKS PAGES AS WELL! You DELETED the Croatia in personal union with Hungary Talk page AGAIN Rjecina Somebody? Hey? Hello?? Admin?? Is this normal here?!?!

I can't believe this. You not only deleted the Croatia and Croatia in the union with Hungary articles and all their talk pages!! But you removed any traces of this dispute in all other articles too! You virtually erased it form WIKIPEDIA! LOL Is this serious?!
And you are indeed an ADMIN and now you threaten to block me!.... OK that's too much, I need to have a nap.--Bizso (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]