User talk:HunTheGoaT

Basch[edit]

Ott van; [1] this is better.

User:Mo-Al's "clean-up" is deletion.

I think (ich tracht..) it's better to declare that you are Vojvodina-living Hungarian-speaking Banat Swabian - like them - User:Gryffindor, User:Adam78, User:PANONIAN, User:Halibutt, etc.

Photoes are, for example..: Do you know Lenau? Pastior, Hodjak, Cisek (my article).. etc.

--Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 17:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my friend!I can't declare myself as a Hungarain-speaking Banat Swabian,because if I do that, I lie. Truth is that I am a Vojvodina-living Hungarian with some Banat Swabian ancestors. My family name is (naturaly after my father) is Kecskés(means goat trader or a man with a goat on it :D), it is a real Hungarian name. And I have ancestors named Boros Gyevi, Soós, Hevér, Olajos etc. So I don't know Lenau and the other Swabian poets, but I know and i like the poetry of Petőfi, Arany, Kölcsey and etc. But I esteem my great-grandfather(who is my mother's grandfather), because he was a moral, religious and an intelligent person, he don't like Nazis so he said that he don't want to be a German under Hitler's rule, because Nazism is a shame on the German nation. Under WW2 he must prove that he has no Jewish origins, and he proved it with the family tree. He was not Jewish, but he was a German who had a Hungarian wife, Hungarian children and he was influential because he was a good lawyer and that was a good reason to the Serbian Partisans kill him.

You can read about the Mascare og Hungarians in Vojvodina on this link.[2](In Hungarian), and there is the list[3] with the victims and my great-grandfather's name to.(Dr. Basch Lajos, but on the list is writen Dr. Bas Lajos)

User:HunTheGoaT 12:02, 24 August 2006 (CEST)

License tagging for Image:Gyurcsany Ferenc.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gyurcsany Ferenc.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. 13:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Boross.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Boross.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. 18:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Horn_Gyula.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Horn_Gyula.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. 05:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killings[edit]

The number of killed people was never clearly established and estimations range between 4,000 and 40,000. So, what is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that minimum 4,000 is just your tip. I see it nowhere. 40.000 just from Hungarians written there. My great-granfather was killed in November 9 1944 near Senta. And I know that from those who survived it that there is minimum 40,000 victims, and I had read the same from the source to. HunTheGoaT 17:21, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

My tip? That is a quotation from the book I mentioned. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944-1945_Killings_in_Bačka#Notes And by the way that is the only data from this articles that is SOURCED. And you cannot simply ask ordinary people to estimate the number, the official state commisions do this and since there was no such commision in this case, we can only mention ALL other possible estimations, which in this case range between 4,000 and 40,000. PANONIAN (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, Wikipedia article itself is not a valid source - anybody could write that. PANONIAN (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Szia! Jó lenne, hogyha valahol hozzászólást vársz tőlem, akkor linket is adnál a konkrét cikkre, hogy ne nekem kelljen keresni. Nem ígérem, hogy hozzá tudok szólni, de ha adsz linket, akkor legalább esélye lesz a dolognak. Adam78 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Bocsi, nem nagyon értek a történelemnek ehhez a részéhez, de megszellőztettem az ügyet a magyar wikipédisták üzenőfalán, a problémás esetek közt, ott biztosan lesz valaki, aki segít. üdv, – Alensha ^talk 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing[edit]

I am sorry, but your source is not a Holy Bible. Your source claim that there were 40,000 killed people, another source claim that there were 4,000 and the job of Wikipedia is not to declare that one source is correct and another wrong, but to quote BOTH of them. It is simple Wikipedia policy, and if one cannot follow it, his place is not here. Understand? PANONIAN (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, my grandfather's father was not a communist, only a peacefull villager, but Hungarian Axis troops killed him in 1942 raid only because he was Serb. So, do not even think to replace word Serbs with word communists. PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't know about your grandfather. But he was a soldier, don't he? User:HunTheGoaT 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not soldier, just a villager, like many other my cousins who were killed in that time. So, try to read what Hungarian army done here during the war too, not only what partisans done after it. PANONIAN (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Serbs killed 40000 Hungarians, and Hungarians killed 3000

HunTheGoaT

Wrong. First, it were not Serbs and Hungarians that killed people, but Hungarian troops and Yugoslav troops. Second, it is disputed whether Yugoslav troops killed 4,000 or 40,000 people, but it is exactly confirmed that Hungarian troops killed exactly 6,177 civilians in 1941-1944 period, 1,674 more killed persons were your "communists" (there were total 19,573 people that were killed, sent to concentration camps, sent to forced labour or forcibly mobilized - the data is for Bačka only), and 56,000 more people that were expelled from the region. PANONIAN (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that I did not read my source well, 19,573 is in fact a number of the people that were killed by the Hungarian authorities, numbers in the table that mention people in the concentration camps do not mention those who were sent to the camps but those who were killed in the camps, a big difference. Interestingly, the most probable estimation of the killed Hungarins after the war is also put at about 20,000, so seems that number of those killed by Hungarian authorities and by partisans is quite same. PANONIAN (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack"[edit]

And how I "attack" the article? My efforts to make this article neutral in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia yo call an "attack", right? Also, the events in 1944-1945 were a consequence of the events in 1941-1944, so you cannot mention only a consequence and not mention its cause. Maybe you are not aware, but the policy of Wikipedia is to mention opinion of all sides about the subject. This is not a place where you can create articles based on your own point of view. The articles here are created by more users with different points of view about the subject and that is what ensure their neutrality. If you want to write articles based on your point of view only, then find another web site for it. PANONIAN (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have reason to hate you. What I hate is POV pushing, but I have no reason to hate you as a person. Now about numbers again: my source say that estimations about number of victims range from 4,000 to 40,000, but it also say that number of 20,000 is most probable, so it is a number that we should use as the most probable too, but to mention other numbers as well. PANONIAN (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer[edit]

"And I have at least 3 source vvhere is vvriten that the number of the victims are around 40000"

But that is just a confirmation of my source that say that estimations range between 4,000 and 40,000. Your sources simply use ONLY ONE estimation. And since most of your sources are irredentist ones ("Hungarian holocaust in Yugoslavia 1944-1992" - what kind of title is that???), it is obvious that such sources use as high as possible numbers in this case, not because they want to show the truth but because they want to spread propaganda for "Hungarian goals". And by the way, the article claim that victims include both "innocent civilians and those who were proved guilty for war crimes", so what is a problem? Nobody claim that your great grandfather was not among those that were innocent. Regarding parisans, most of the partisans were not communist, but ordinary people who became partisans to protect their lives. My grandfather was a partisan. And why he bacame a partisan? Because fascists killed his father and he did not want that they kill him too. But guess what? He was not a communist. And I never said that partisans had reasons to kill civilians. What I said is that partisans were not only one that killed. So, you decide why you wrote this article at all: if you wrote it because your great grandfather was killed, then I do not see why you object to the current version which claim that most probable number of victims is 20,000 (that certainly include your great grandfather) and that victims include innocent civilians (which again include your great grandfather). However, there were indeed some killed people who were guilty for war crimes (Feketehalmi-Cajcner, Grasi, Zeldi, etc, etc) and who were killed for that and that has nothing to do with your great grandfather. Of course, if you had another ("No Trianon") reasons to write this article, that is another story... PANONIAN (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your grandfather supported the murder of my great-grandfather. The sources aren't more irredentist, than your sources are pro-Titoists. One of my source is the memorial site of the innocent victims. Do you think that site is irredentist to?

HunTheGoaT 14:05, 30 September 2006 (CEST)

And what my grandfather should do? To seat in his home and wait that fascists kill him, right? Maybe you should ask the fascists why they came to this country at all. Those fascists are indirectly responsible for death of your great-grandfather too. And I do not know is that source irredentist too, I cannot read it - it is in Hungarian. PANONIAN (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing: most of the partisans did not killed civilians. I do not doubt that these irredentist sites claim that they did, but you certainly should read some serious literature about WW2 where you will see that many ethnic Hungarians were also partisans (one entire Vojvodinian partisan brygade was composed entirelly of Vojvodinian Hungarians). And just one suggestion: I bet that many streets in your town are named after ethnic Hungarians, so I suggest that you make one research to see who they were. You will be surprised how many of them were partisans and communists. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles[edit]

Please explain the relevance of mentioning 1944-1945 events in the article about 1941-1944 events. The reason why 1941-1944 events are mentioned in the article about 1944-1945 events is because the first one preceding the second and the origin of the later cannot be explained if we do not mention the first ones. But in the second article it is not a case: 1944-1945 events do not precede 1941-1944 events and are not relevant for their explanation or their origin. PANONIAN (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers and two articles[edit]

Listen: I really do not have time to discuss what my and your grandfather were and what they supoorted. I want to discuss about logic: tell me what is wrong with this sentence: "The estimated number of the killed persons range between 4,000 and 50,000, with 20,000 being the most probable number." This sentence include data from your "Hungarian books" where number is 35,000-50,000. Data from these Hungarian books is not proved. It is simply an unofficial estimation and nothing else. You cannot present such estimation as a Holy Bible. Understand? We can mention these numbers as an estimation, but we cannot claim that this estimation is more valid than another estimations because there is no proof for it. Do you have some problem with understanding simple facts or what? And I asked you to explain why mention of 1944-1945 killings is relevant for article about 1941-1944 killings. And where is your answer? PANONIAN (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Medgyessy_Peter.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Medgyessy_Peter.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. 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killings in Bácska[edit]

Nevetséges az az állitás, hogy csak négyezren haltak meg a Bácskai partizán (csetnik) vérengzésekben. Majd megkérdezem a Bácskai rokonaimat, hogy mennyien haltak meg (én olyan 30000-40000 áldozatra emlékszem és 50-60000 kitelepítettre = ~ 100000 fö emberveszteség). Nemsokára válaszolok. Öcsi 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ez áll a magyar wikipédiában:

A délvidéki népirtás, 1944-45

A bevonuló szerb partizánalakulatokból létesült új katonai hatóság, a Bánáti, Bácskai és Baranyai Katonai Igazgatás és az OZNA (Odelenje za Zastitu Naroda, vagyis Népvédelmi Osztály) állambiztonsági szerve ellenőrzése alatt katonai közigazgatást vezettek be Vajdaságban. Ezt követően a kommunista pártvezetés (Jugoszláv Népfelszabadító Antifasiszta Tanács) utasítására etnikai alapú, per nélküli kollektív büntető eljárásokat kezdtek. 1944-45 telén lakóhelyükön vagy gyűjtőtáborokban - korra és nemre való tekintet nélkül - tömegesen kínozták meg és végezték ki a magyar és német nemzetiségű polgári lakosságot, a II. világháborúban való kollektív bűnösséggel vádolva őket. A kivégzések több helységben tömeges lincseléssé fajultak, a helyi szerb lakosság egy részének aktív részvételével.

Az áldozatok számát még mindig csak becsülni tudjuk. Újvidéken az akkori lóversenypályánál közel 2000 magyart végeztek ki. Szinte minden magyarlakta településen voltak kivégzések. A vérengzések során harmincöt római katolikus papot, majdnem valamennyi helyben maradt plébánost is megkínozták és megölték. A polgári lakosságon kívül tömegesen végeztek ki hadifogoly magyar honvédeket is. Az 1944-1945 telén meggyilkolt magyarok száma 35.000-45.000 közé tehető.

A kivégzettek nevét, esetleges bűnüket, a kivégzés körülményeit, a nyughelyüket sohasem hozták nyilvánosságra. Utólag háborús bűnössé kiáltották ki valamennyiüket, vagyonukat elkobozták, hozzátartozóikat megbélyegezték. Három helység: Csurog, Zsablya és Mozsor teljes maradék magyar lakosságát - akik túlélték a vérengzést - mindenüktől megfosztva örökre kitiltották lakóhelyükről.

1945-1948 között a következő helységekben működtek internáló táborok: Gádor (Gakovo), Tiszaistvánfalva (Jarek), Körtés (Kruševlje), Molidorf, Rezsőháza (Knićanin), Szávaszentdemeter (Sremska Mitrovica). A táborokban becslések szerint több mint 70.000 német és magyar nemzetiségű polgári személy (nagyrészt öregek, asszonyok és gyermekek) vesztette életét éhség, fagyhalál, járványok, kínzás vagy kivégzés következtében.

Sajnos sok elfogult, veszekedös és akaratos User van a Wikipédián. De itt legalább van elég magyar, nem mint a Német Wikipédián, és így effektíven tudunk védekezni ellenük. Öcsi 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beírtam és megadtam a forrást is. Öcsi 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

Ok, see this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_of_the_occupants_in_Vojvodina%2C_1941-1944 In the "1942 raid" section, notice the numbers of victims that I wrote there - 3,808. Do you think that it is the highest possible estimation of this number? No, it is not. It is the official number published by the commision that investigated the events, thus it is the most accurate. I think that I do not have to tell you that some other estimations claimed that this number is 6,000, 7,900, 10,000 and even larger. So, I could follow your example and post here number of 10,000 victims simply to make Hungarian soldiers look more evil, but is that a point of Wikipedia? I do not think so. Also the (Hungarian) source provided by Laslo also claim that there were 20-25,000 killed people, so, you can see that this number is not "Serbian or partisan propaganda". PANONIAN (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to Trianon?[edit]

I can understand how the Treaty of Trianon might've been unfair to all those Hungarians (practicly leaving almost half of the Hungarian populace outside Hungary), but that's ancient history - and I can't understand what will opposing today mean that you want - the restoration of those old borders? --PaxEquilibrium 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall Hungarian is official in Vojvodina on a provincial level - so you're free to speak Hungarian everywhere. :) I always admired Vojvodina, noting that it's a unique place in Europe - no where else such diverse ethnic balance was held in perfect harmony. I never realized that it was that bad. You're a war refugee too? Huh, that's actually sad news. :( Because of what, if I may know? --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People first "accused" me of belonging to "x ethnicity"; then told me to go from their Country "because I belong to x ethnicity" and then because I didn't want to go tried to kill me "because I belong to x ethnicity". The worst experience was in an internment camp (a "temporary relocation site for the indangered" was its official name - it was more of a camp for unwanted citizens). So I went away. --PaxEquilibrium 09:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the world. I thought you noticed on my talk page that I am a cosmopolitan. --PaxEquilibrium 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I currently possess no flat; no house at all. The computer that I'm currently using is from an apartment in Zemun, Belgrade. Hope I answered your question. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is that? --PaxEquilibrium 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Backakillings.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Backakillings.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. 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

The Montenegrin language isn'r yet really composed. Anyway, why not just leave "Serbo-Croat"? --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... Those are political divisions - meaning one language split onto three mainly on the politicized basis (nationalism, mostly) - and now even the 4th. I was trying to say that the Montenegrin language de facto doesn't exist; only de jure - which makes the whole situation even worse.

Is the situation as bad as you describe? I mean, I think that Vojvodina is the most culturally & ethnicly diverse region of the Balkans and among the most unique in whole of Europe - with such harmonical balance established. Imagine that you're a Serb or Jew and live in Croatia; or imagine that you're a Muslim in the Serb part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Imagine that you're a Serb in Kosovo. Imagine that you're a Macedonian in Greece or Bulgaria, or any non-Albanian in Albania... I think that your situation is far better than any of these far more primitive areas. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that there was no war in Vojvodina. I think that you should be a little more objective regarding the issue; you have already expressed how ojbective I am, and I come from (and because of) a war. However I do not share such strong opinions. I must express that I question your opinions that you hate Senta, Vojvodina & Serbia. Be it Senta or Zenta or maybe, that will always be Your City. Why should you hate Vojvodina? Isn't its existence there only to help its multiculturalness? You shouldn't also dislike the whole of Your country - that's generalizing. AFAIC, you shouldn't hate anything at all - I tend to dislike things for the most; and those that I dislike I never express openly about it (for instance I dislike the way my mother used to make me potatoes - but I do not hate that). Most Serbs, Croats & Montenegrins do not have nationalist zeal, but care nothing 'bout it. It is the ultra-nationalistic minority that you're reffering-to. What do you mean by "Kosovo is an Albanian terrotory not Serbian"? Although you "s***ting on it", I am afraid I do not really understand, sadly. Cheers, pal! --PaxEquilibrium 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone knows that the Serbian Radical Party (read: the sane part of the population) can bring no good. But what is with the DSS? Also, I know that life of a member of one ethnic, religious or linguistical group in a country where another's in majority is bad, regardless of the situation. I was merely trying to point out that it cannot be that bad, when compared to all the Yugoslav wars that yielded millions of forcebly rm people and God knows how many (300,000?) dead. What you You mean by your country not being Serbia? I was reffering the name of the country you live in. Also, you didn't answer some of my previous questions. Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 18:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Vojvodina an autonomous province of Serbia? Ah; well, I understand that you don't recognize now, but frankly does the citizen's decision count? I too live here, even though I don't want to - and I really have no choice. The Kosovo is an Albanian terrotory not Serbian you did not respond. Also, your generalization of disliking a whole country merely because of several factors. I am sure that the exiles from Croatia, Kosovo or elsewhere (Bosnia?) do not hate Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia or whatever - but the respective persons that brought them into this situation (Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Milosevic). Also, what's wrong with the DSS? --PaxEquilibrium 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Vojvodina is an autonomous province of Serbia, right? You mentioned how Vojvodina was a country
2. Who knows. It might get independent - it might not. Although there are strong factors on its independence part, the strongest part - International Law - is on the non-independence part. Joining Albania is not an option expressed by anyone at all except the rightest and extremist Albanians - that's a movement called Greater Albania
3. What percisely are you reffering to. It can mean a lot of things the way you say it... This way it seems stereotypic.
4. What is wrong with that statement? What's the problem if he's a moderate nationalist? Most of the world's population are nationalists, and simply opposing someone's personality because of that is I think improper, unless there's a good reason. Is there one? If there's not, why fear/oppose him? I personally think that he is one of the better politicians of Serbia.
5. I didn't know that the SPS are nationalists. As far as recall, they are the only party of Serbia that voted against the rehabilitation of the Chetniks and other people damaged by the Communist regime.

Cheers! Hope to hear from you soon! --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you answer me? Did I say something bad? --PaxEquilibrium 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Demographic history of Vojvodina[edit]

Panonian össze-vissza badarságokat ír. Beszálhatnál te is a diskuba. Öcsi 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlöktem a Temerini diszkó-verekedést a Serbophobia cikkbe. --Öcsi 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I understand that people often lose their self-control during edit-wars, but an edit summary "because you are the best exemple for people with anti-hungarian sentiments" will certainly not contribute to a faster resolution of the dispute between you and PANONIAN.[4] It would be perhaps better to seek a third opinion instead of reverting PANONIAN's edits. Tankred 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not Backa Killings on my watchlist, but I will check it out. As for Anti-Hungarian sentiment, you have violated the 3RR policy by reverting this article four times in less than one day. Such behavior harms Wikipedia. Let us try to discuss all the differences between your version and PANONIAN's version on the article's talk page before making new reverts. Tankred 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I suggest you read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule first and then Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have kindly asked you not to call other editors names. If you call another editor "The Funniest Agressive Wikipedist Of All The Time",[5] it is very uncivil and I am sure it will only escalate your dispute. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Tankred 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Május nyolcadika[edit]

Te is Május nyolcadikán születtél (csak most vettem észre), én is! Hát ez nem igaz, micsoda véletlen!! Most már tudom miért értjük meg olyan jól egymást. :D --Öcsi 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Az 1989es Május 8 nem volt vasárnap, ugye? --Öcsi 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bocs, de eggyelöre anonim akarok maradni, majd ha elhatároztam hogy kiadjam az email-címemet, te leszel az elsö wikipédiás aki megkapja. Remélem megértesz. --Öcsi 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[6] made on November 3 2006 to Anti-Hungarian sentiment[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELTE[edit]

Csak jártam. Egy darabig, párhuzamosan egy másik fősulival, aztán a fősuli mellett döntöttem. Javaslat? Vagy okos vagy, vagy tanulj sokat :) Emelt érettségi magyarból és töriből. Nekem még pont nem kellett :) --VinceB 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

I'll adopt you.--User: Rat235478683--

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your recent adoption, HunTheGoaT, and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. Being an experienced editor myself, I accepted your request. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the person to see about it - just leave a message on my Rat235478683. Remember, I am willing to help you and make your time here more enjoyable. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have, and remember to "be BOLD!"- I'm here to help you; no question is a stupid one. In the mean time, here are some pages that you might find helpful, in case you haven't already gotten the offical welcoming:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and congratulations!

Talk:Sajan (village)[edit]

Panonian megint járatja az eszét: Azt írta hogy a Bánságban volt a "Szlovák-Szerb-(nyelv-)határ" a középkorban - csatlakozhatnál a diszkuhoz, úgyis már ki van készülve a mi barátunk a sok hazudozásától. --Öcsi 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ahs1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahs1.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. 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...[edit]

I waited patiently a week... --PaxEquilibrium 16:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Please, have a say here. --PaxEquilibrium 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could still just skim my questions and answer. And of course, a land cannot "belong to a nation or ethnic group". That's a rather weird opinion - perhaps only if 100% of the inhabitants were a part of that people - but where is such case? --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fidesz logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fidesz logo.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, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kosztolanyi.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kosztolanyi.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. 08:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beszélj angolul[edit]

I noticed that you have posted comments on an article or user discussion page in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you are addressing your comments. This is because comments should 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. —Psychonaut 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attila József[edit]

I reverted your edit to the Attila József article. I'm not sure that Attila József should (could) be categorized as a communist. Please read WP:Categorization of people. Lelkesa 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:MDF.png[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MDF.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Jobbik.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jobbik.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vojvodina-politician-stub}}[edit]

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Republic of Vojvodina[edit]

An editor has nominated Republic of Vojvodina, an article on which you have worked or that you created, 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/Republic of Vojvodina 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. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Üdv[edit]

Szervusz! Én Magyarországról írok az angol wikibe. Láttam, hogy te vajdasági szerkesztő vagy. Otthon én a hu:Török háborúk Magyarországon című összefoglaló szócikkekhez kapcsolódó cikkekkel foglalkozok, jelenleg a hu:Magyar–török háború (1521–26)-ot akarom kiemelté tenni. Ehhez kapcsolódóan több csata van ami a mostani Szerbia és Horvátország területén zajlott. Nem egy esetben volt, hogy horvát internetes anyag alapján írtam meg egy szócikket, s megpróbáltam egy szerkesztő társam útján felvenni a kapcsolatot szerb és horvát wikisekkel, ha tudnak információkat adni mondjuk Jajca, Osztrovica, vagy Knin ostromairól. Arra hivatkoztak nem tudnak segíteni, de egyszerűen nem tudom elhinni, hogy tényleg ne tudnának. Te mint szerbiai lakos tudsz valamit, vannak szerb nyelvű kutatások a délvidéki harcokról a mohácsi vész korából? Doncsecz (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm. Bár megszerzésével akadhatnak gondok, mivel én nagyon távol élek a Vajdaságtól. Csak ha annyira kérnélek bele tudnál nézni a könyvekbe, s csak röviden, pár mondatban a leglényegesebb információkról tudnál beszámolni egyes összecsapásokról? Doncsecz (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semmi baj. Én is hasonlóan vagyok az angollal, jobban értem az olvasott szöveget. Köszönöm továbbá az információt! Doncsecz (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm[edit]

Hálásan köszönöm! Most épp kiemelt szavazáson van a hu:Magyar–török háború (1521–26). Hétvégén átnézem. Köszönöm mégegyszer! Doncsecz (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello HunTheGoaT! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

József Kasza - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Attila Juhász - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]