User talk:Petolaszlo
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Matthias Corvinus. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.
Az erdélyi vajda a középkori Magyarország különleges területi hatalommal felruházott tisztségviselője volt. Erdély felett a királyt helyettesítő széles jogkörrel rendelkezett. Szélesebbel mint a nádor, akinek az ő területe felett nem is volt hatásköre. Hadat is gyűjthetett veszély esetén előzetes királyi engedély nélkül, amit területének a központtól való távolsága indokolt. Területén az ispánok neki tartoztak engedelmességgel, nem a királynak. Nagy Károly közigazgatási rendszerében az őrgróf feleltethető meg neki. Magyarországon még a bánok rendelkeztek hasonló jogkörrel.
Hadat nem üzenhetett, önálló külpolitikája sem lehetett, törvényt sem alkothatott. Ne a magyar wikiből indulj ki, mert az tiszta fantasy, nincsenek bőséges hivatkozások. Erdély nem volt önálló. Magyarországon nem voltak őrgrófok, a bánok vajdák hercegnek felelnek meg ha hasonlítgatni akarsz. Az erdélyi fejedelemnek nem volt több joga mint egy márkinak Angliában.
Sulinet nem forrás, csak akadémikusok könyvei térképei számítanak, ezt megtanulhattad volna már a wikin.
Látod, ilyen egy Oxfordi térkép, csak az önálló szuverén külpolitikát folytató entitásokat, azaz országokat jelöli.
https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.142.204 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Erdély integrált része volt a MAgyar királyságnak, jogtörénészektől is olvashatsz erről könyveket: https://www.google.hu/search?q=%22integral+part+of%22+Transylvania&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=PUXHVv2CO8W9PMW4vtAE#q=%22integral+part+of%22+Transylvania&tbm=bks
A te térképed mint valami hűbéres államot ábrázolja , mintha valami konfölderációban lenne csupán Magyarországgal.
Térképed koncepciója tehát hibás. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.142.204 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha tehát az erdélyi vármegyék színezése olyan lenne, mint a magyarországi vármegyéké, akkor elfogadható lenne a térkép? Nagyon szívesen megváltoztatom, ha ez okozza a pontatlanságot.
Közben áttanulmányoztam az általad javasolt "oxfordi" :) térképeket, és rátaláltam erre. https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_peoples_900.jpg Mivel nem tanulmányoztam eléggé az "akadémikusok" könyveit és az ezzel kapcsolatos angol wiki-t sem, lehet, hogy rosszul tudom azt, hogy a románok csak a tatárjárás után jelentek meg azon a területen, ahol ez a térkép Romance Peoples (Rumanian) feliratot tartalmaz, a Kárpát-medencében élő avarok és az Etelközben élő magyarok déli szomszédjaként. (Megjegyzem viszont azt, hogy én ebből nem vonom le azt a következtetést, hogy a térképet rajzoló ember a románok közül való lenne, csupán annyit, hogy a térképét nem megfelelő információk alapján rajzolta.)
I do not think
[edit]DeltaQuad, I am almost 100% sure that Petolaszlo is not identical with Stubes99. The above conversation suggests that Stubes99 attacked him. Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I deleted a part of the conversation because I was ashamed to hear there baseless accusations.
Petolaszlo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not Stubes99 Petolaszlo (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A checkuser has verified that you have indeed abused multiple accounts, therefore at this time we will not be unblocking this account. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As you will doubtless appreciate, most of the users of this English Wikipedia will not understand the above comments, so comments therein regarding the rights and wrongs of the user's editing are not available to us. But this is a checkuser block.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Anthony Bradbury, the above conversation is in the native language of two users, which is quite common on Talk pages. Petolaszlo, who is a new editor, was not blocked because of uncivility, but because of sockpuppetry. However, what is quite clear for me (who is also a native user of the same language) that Petolaszlo is not identical with Stubes99 whose style of communication I know. I think DeltaQuad misunderstood the situation when blocked Petolaszlo. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, and do not object to, the fact that this is the mutual native language of the editors. My point was that it was stated that the conversation suggested that one editor attacked the other, which appeared to be relevant in terms of the block, and the relevance is opaque to those of us not conversant with Eastern European languages. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Anthony Bradbury, the above conversation is in the native language of two users, which is quite common on Talk pages. Petolaszlo, who is a new editor, was not blocked because of uncivility, but because of sockpuppetry. However, what is quite clear for me (who is also a native user of the same language) that Petolaszlo is not identical with Stubes99 whose style of communication I know. I think DeltaQuad misunderstood the situation when blocked Petolaszlo. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)