User talk:Nmate/Archive 2008

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board
Hi. You might be interested in checking out the Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. All Wikipedians interested in Hungary or subjects somehow related to Hungary are invited to use this noticeboard as a tool for better organizing their activities, making announcements to others with similar interests, and discussing any actual issues related to their work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to add this notice board to your watchlist, so that you could see when it is updated and thus take part in any projects, initiatives, and improvements relating to articles about Hungary. Also, you are welcome to report your own articles here so they could be peer-reviewed and expanded by other contributors. Hobartimus (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosice
Thank you for adding more famous people to the Kosice article. Next time, could you add only persons with their own article in Wikipedia please? We are trying to avoid the so-called "red links" (i.e. links to non-existing articles) or names without any link. Another possibility is to create an article for each person you add. For example, Róza Déryné Széppataki would be a good candidate for a new article. If you happen to have any more information about here, you can click on the red link to her name and create a new article. Also the description of the person and his/her connection to Kosice in the list of famous people should be as short as possible. That is why MarkBA and I have copyedited your edit. Cheers. Tankred (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively you can simply delink the name (write it witout the ) [[Róza Déryné Széppataki would look like Róza Déryné Széppataki without the link. I would also add that while red links are sometimes avoided that is not always the case for example I could count about 100 red links(just a guess) in the List of Slovaks              Hobartimus (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we usually do not mention people without an article in Wikipedia in articles about cities and towns. List of Slovaks and other similar lists are full of red links in order to encourage people to write new articles. Articles about cities and towns do not serve this purpose. Red links and delinked names of non-notable people usually prevent an article about a city to achieve a higher status (GA or FA). This practice is strongly discouraged in this type of articles. Tankred (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it can serve the same purpose it's that the city articles are more visible and they can help more with starting new articles. Red links do motivate people to at least start a stub on the person. And if some peoples' eyes are 'hurt' by red links they can still be easily de-linked. Hobartimus (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not believe, try to nominate an article for GA or FA. You will see how it works. Tankred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I know you have made your edits in good faith and I do not want to be discouraging or something, but your today's edits were written in a very bad English and it was sometimes really difficult to figure out what exactly you meant. It took a lot of time to copyedit them. There are also two other points I would like to make: First, the history section of Kosice is supposed to be a short overview and it would be nice if you could think more about your additions in terms of the overall length of an article. What I mean is that a significant part of the section now talks about how Kosice changed hands in the turbulent 17th century. I left it there, but I am sure someone else will cut that paragraph because this kind of information is not very interesting for an English-speaking reader. The overall story and quality of prose are paramount here. Second, you did not provide any citations. Please read WP:CITE and apply it. It is one of the main pillars of this encyclopedia. Again, I do not want do discourage you from editing the English Wikipedia, but it would be perhaps a good idea to spend some time in the Hungarian Wikipedia first and familiarize yourself with the system. Writing an English encyclopedia requires a reasonably good command of English. Tankred (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding properly formatted citations templates. But, unfortunately, sister Wikipedias in other languages are not considered reliable secondary sources here. So, please do not cite the Hungarian Wikipedia. Instead you are more than welcome to cite verifiable published works, such as books and articles (as you have already done on several occasions). Cheers. Tankred (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible harassment by user:MarkBA
Hi I'm concerned that you might feel harassed by this user whose action might be in violation of Wp:AGF, WP:HAR, WP:BITE, WP:NPA. This user openly(!) admits having prejudice against "most but not all" Hungarians (diff ) and refers to the mere presence of Hungarian editors as a "difficulty" and that he sees his own editing as "keeping them (sic) at bay" (diff ). Since you are a new user it is imperative that actions possibly intended to discourage you from editing not be allowed. Also please remember to try to remain calm and try not to react to any possible provocation or harassment coming from other editors. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hobartimus! You are right.Nmate


 * Hobartimus, you are misrepresenting facts as always. What I should do when you have done more damaging edits in sum than I did? I find this intolerable. Please stop harassing me.

Your level of English
Since you are not only a new user but as far as I can tell one that's having some problems with language barriers it would be a good idea to indicate this to other editors. Your actions might be completely misunderstood because of language difficulties or it might be assumed that an edit is vandalism or was made in bad faith when in fact it was a bad choice of words. It's also good to indicate it to others the need to use simple English as far as they are able when communicating with you to ensure better understanding. You can do this by placing a language template on your user page user:Nmate. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC) A template would look like this  to place it you can type  or whatever level is good for you. Hobartimus (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments
I repeat: adding POV tags without proper explanation is vandalism. You have stated something like "because I want". An equivalent would be if I'd put POV tags across Hungarian articles. Why do you refuse to answer to questions? Are you even interested in making a better encyclopedia? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia sources
Yes, I think these may be cited. At the first one I don't know who the author is, so from the first reference it would probably be better to use the sources the author used (see literature at the bottom of the page). This is a good article, so I'd start with the reference from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Squash Racket (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Dear whoever-you-are, I don't know what you are talking about, but I don't know any Mark here, but your edits are only your propaganda and that's not nice. I may only suggest you to download this game, where you can do your rage against someone you hate instead of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.176.151 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment was left by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava Castle
Nmate, I'll try to more straight-forward. What exactly do you find wrong with Bratislava Castle? I mean specific wording, not a vague "it's biased" complaint. Whatever it is, start at a section at Talk:Bratislava Castle and write it out. If people know what your specific issue is, then people can discuss it. Simply claiming that it is biased is not going to get you anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to see what I mean, compare the original complaint and what I started work at Talk:Hedvig Malina. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some advice
Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slow down a bit, patience is needed; this encyclopedia won't be perfect in a couple of weeks, there will always be things you might not like
 * Use talk pages for discussion (at least an attempt) before/while adding templates
 * Careful edit summaries focusing only on the changes you make
 * Always cite reliable sources with inline citations, so that your edits remain in the article
 * Start new articles about something notable to learn to write good articles: how to cite, categories, sources, layout etc. (You can find red links for example at Budapest, Hungary etc.)

All right. Nmate (talk • contribs)


 * No need to comment on that. Warn him to stop it (and/or report him at WP:ANI). It's just not worth it, he deletes it from his talk page anyway. As you can see, Tankred has already tried to get you blocked.
 * Just make your additions using reliable references, everything will be OK. Squash Racket (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. Nmate (talk • contribs)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Nmate, I have yet to see an attempt to the article talk pages. Continuing to edit on the page and edit-warring could result in blocks. Otherwise, I am not interested in playing games with everyone. I blocked User:84.47.32.229 because of how aggressive he's been, but, honestly, you are going to get pushed around here unless you take of things yourself. If you are annoyed with some else's edits, use the warning templates on their talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. If it is appropriate, the person will be blocked. Be prepared that if you are the one who initiated it (or it is equal), you could be blocked as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC) All right Nmate


 * She didn't speak on her cell phone, so don't insert this back, OK? She didn't remember if she had spoken on the cell phone or to someone on the street after feeling dizzy because of the beating. She most probably gave directions to a Hungarian couple in a car.
 * Slow down, read the whole article, look at the talk page, read about it. The article is factually correct right now, so only make changes if you are absolutely sure. Don't talk to other editors in edit summaries, they will only use it against you. Squash Racket (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Nmate

Warning about civility
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if he is uncivil to you, do not respond in kind.  You should review Wikiquette_alerts which, although it veered off, still applies.  You'll see that his comments were criticized as well.  -- 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

False information?!
Please, can you explain what exactly is false in the information removed in this diff? What is wrong with Ján Andrej Segner or Rudolf Vrba for example?! I do not think editing like this is bold, but I have hard time finding appropriate yet civil name for that. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Since it is obvious that I have become too involved, I have asked for other admins to comment at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian counties
Since you're also involved in the Hungarian counties reverting circus, see the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary. Markussep Talk 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I favour Hobartimus opinion. Nmate


 * Ehmm, Hobartimus didn't give his opinion (says he doesn't have the time to), so all we have is his versions of the articles. Markussep Talk 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jadviga
Hi - I just changed Jadviga back to Hedviga on the Hedvig Malina article. Whether this is the correct Slovak version of the name doesn't particularly matter - in most sources of Slovak origin Hedviga is used. We should just copy their usage so that people reading them and Googling for more information can find the right article - as you can see here the Jadviga form is practically unheard of. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Stop using personal attacks in the edit summaries as you did here, here and here.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hungary
Please do not add WikiProject Hungary to the places currently located in the Slovakia or other countries. It is a long time consensus that this doesn't lead to anything then frustration and edit wars. There are hundreds places that could belong to other WikiProjects, wikiproject doesn't establish base for ownership, please remember that. It doesn't make any sense to put for example WikiProject Austria into all places in Hungary and vice versa.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

farewell texts
i was asked to not to harm them, so WP:IGNORE, leave them alone --Rembaoud (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Your edits to articles like Žilina and Trnava are not very constructive to say the least. A few examples:
 * In the Trnava article, you replaced "Magyarisation" with "industrialization" about 10 times (examples:, , , ) since 6 April. Do you really deny that there was a policy in the Kingdom of Hungary of imposing Hungarian language and culture, and discouraging the use of other languages (e.g. in education)? Your message on the is not very convincing.
 * In the Žilina article, you replaced "Slovak inhabitants" with "nomad intruder Slav tribes", , , and  5 times, and after you admitted that these edits were injurious  you started replacing "Slovaks" with "Hungarians" , although the Privilegium pro Slavis document itself (see Slovak translation here) says "Slovaks". Or is that an ancient term for "Hungarians"?
 * This edit to the Trenčín article is nothing more than vandalism, what's the use of replacing the etymology section with the opening line? Calling people "miserable clone" isn't very civil either.

I urge you to stop your disruptive edits immediately. Otherwise you will get blocked sooner or later. Markussep Talk 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can imagine that you don't see your own edits as disruptive (although you said yourself that they were a bit injurious). But the fact that they are instantly reverted should give you a clue. You could at least discuss the disputed parts, without calling people names. I admit I'm not a historian and I don't live in the area, but I know enough about Central European history to see that these edits are biased, to say the least. Markussep Talk 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing, could you refrain from using foreign languages in your edit summaries? Markussep Talk 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should read Etiquette. If someone is uncivil to you, that's not a valid excuse to be uncivil to them. What is this "Netherland nation is not exist" supposed to mean? What happened after WW2 (I suppose that's what your numbers refer to) is not the issue here, we don't deny that the Beneš decrees existed. The Magyarization policy of the Kingdom of Hungary after 1870 is well known, if you deny it that says more about you than about Slovaks. Markussep Talk 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Nmate, I echo the concerns of some of the other editors here, that your comments, especially some of your edit summaries, have not been civil. I think that you will find that your voice will have more weight in your arguments, if you keep your comments polite. --Elonka 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes
I have created a centralized discussion page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If you have concerns about the behavior of editors or the way that certain articles are being edited, please post them there. Thanks, Elonka 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Elonka 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * , I see that you are still reverting pages, but without participating at talk. You must stop.  If you continue reverting without engaging in discussion, your account access will be blocked. --Elonka 08:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * Nmate, I am very sorry to have had to take this step, but these edit wars have to stop. I reviewed the talkpage at Talk:Žilina, as well as the discussions at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and could not find any discussions from you about why you chose to revert Svetovid without comment.  If there is discussion somewhere and I missed it, please provide a link so that I can review the situation.  Thanks, Elonka 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to explain the situation at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please stay calm and civil, you may also ask for unblock as you can see in the block notice. Next time use the talk page of the article if you feel the edit may be questioned by others. Squash Racket (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I forgot myself at Zilina.Nmate
 * Alright, if I lift the block, will you try harder to remember? --Elonka 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Nmate


 * Alright, in a minute I'll lift the block as "time served". However, you are now on a 30-day "no revert" editing restriction.  You can revert obvious vandalism, but you are not to engage in any other types of content reverts, for 30 days. --Elonka 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nmate, I just spot-checked your contributions since your block was released, and I am very disappointed. You seem to be adding unsourced information, making controversial edits without discussion at talk, and using uncivil edit summaries.  If I impose another block, it will be for a longer period of time. I recommend that you immediately provide sources for the information that you added, that you put notes at the talkpage on any article where you made a controversial edit, and that you ensure that all of your edit summaries from now on are extremely civil.  I am not going to warn you again. --Elonka 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K.

But I think for example if there is a debate about an article, putting out an NPOV template to it would be just. I do not understand that why should accept the reverted earlier version without a trace  for the Hungarians.Nmate
 * I am not sure that I am understanding you (language difficulties). But I think you're asking if it's okay to put an NPOV template on an article?  Yes, you can, but you must put a good reason for the template on the article's talkpage.  If someone removes the template, you should not put it back.  Instead, put more on the talkpage for why you think NPOV is the right template.  Also, post about it at the Experiment page.  Ask for other editors' opinions about whether the NPOV template is appropriate. If there is consensus to put the template back, the template will go back on the page. --Elonka 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has challenged your putting NPOV template on these articles so far. The problems are different. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Slovaks
It is a nationalist invention. Since you seemingly speak Slovak, I guess you can read all the articles in this topic too in both HUN, SK and ENG. Please help collecting all these articles from where Fico speaks about proto-Slovaks to the recent rewriting of history books to here:. If they are all in the same place (English, Slovak, Hungarian), they would create a base wich will be more than enough to delete some real propaganda. Do not insert or delete anything without sources. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Why was I uncivilized? That many Dutchmans do not know that Hungary is exists?I do not know much things about Netherlands.He knows the  many Hungarian cities opposite this and He is surprising informed in the Central European history.I was surprised at this.Where is here an ethnic conflict? Nothing my trouble with the Dutchs, or with Markussep.Nmate


 * Nmate, how are you making your signatures? Are you signing with ~ ? --Elonka 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nmate (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, that's non-standard. It would be better if a date appears in your signature, as it does for most other editors.  It looks like you are trying to sign with three tildes  instead of four ( ~ )
 * Also, did you try playing with your preferences at some point? You might want to start over from the beginning:
 * Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page
 * Look for the box that says "Signature". Blank it.
 * Look for the box that says "Raw Signature". Make sure it is not checked
 * Try signing again, with ~ (make sure that you use four tildes)
 * --Elonka (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For more information, see Signatures. --Elonka 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros Dams
Hi, why did you place the cleanup tag on this article? "it is a poorly written incomplete article" is a vague statement.--Svetovid (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this is an Hungarian - Slovak common topic, but  does not imply the Hungarian point of view at all.Nmate


 * Can you please give an example of something from the Hungarian point of view that is missing? --Elonka 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1,The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract. 2,Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area.(Danube river more serious river than Wisła river because I saw the Wisła river in Warszawa.) 3,The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all.Nmate
 * Thanks, I'll copy that over to the article's talkpage, and I'll change the "cleanup" tag for a "neutrality" tag. Also, please fix your signature so that it includes a date stamp.  See Signatures. --Elonka 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me disagree with you on points 2 and 3.
 * The mere fact of large amount of water divertion had no effect on territorial integrity of Hungary. The border has not changed at all, it is still old stream filled with water, albeit with less water. This was a matter of dispute before court as far as I know. On what do you base your claim?
 * Article deals with ecology aspect in sentences "The argument against the dam was danger to the environment and to the water supply of Budapest." and "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." Of course, this is unsourced, but your claim of article not dealing with this is not true. Expansion of this would be surely helpful, I would even say that enviromental aspect would be worthy of own section later, after expansion of article.
 * On general, however, I would not say the article is "poorly" written. Incomplete - why not, there are many facts missing there. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Better to stay that it hurt Slovakia's territorial integrity, since the border between HU & SK is the main stream of the Danube, according to the treaties. Or not, I don't remember where did I read this. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rembaoud. Nmate (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What´s the problem with my edits of Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros Dams? There is nothing, what is not true. Informations are from official website of slovak government, books or directly from Water Research Institute in Slovakia. If it seems to be one-sided to you, you can (and I´ll be glad) fill the hungarian point of view in. We could discuss it at the article discussion page of the article. Until than, please, don´t undo my changes, they are verified. Thanks.--Michalides (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there are some changes in the article, I verified, rearanged it and would like to remove the neutrality tag from the article. So if you want, check it out.--Michalides (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass edits
Please stop. --Elonka 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the anon is blocked. In case you didn't notice, you were being reverted as fast as you were making changes.  I recommend going in smaller batches.  Let's stop for  now and look at the articles that you changed.  How are you choosing them? --Elonka 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a thread at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, let's talk there. --Elonka 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll
I haven't seen your votes yet in the poll about modifications to the Hungarian-Slovak naming convention proposed earlier. Voting is open until 11 May 20:06. Markussep Talk 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know exactly that where is the place of the votes.Nmate (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Markussep Talk 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Nmate, you are not allowed to revert. This edit was a revert. Please do not do this or you will be blocked. Talk about the problem on the talk page of the article or at the experiment page please. Shell   babelfish 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC) All right.Nmate (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

adding names
Hi, I see you've added Hungarian names to a lot of (I counted 22) biography articles yesterday, referring to the naming convention we're discussing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please wait with that until we have finished the discussion, as there are still several points on which no consensus has been reached yet. As I already wrote on the experiment page, my edits last week were meant as a test, not as a starting signal for mass implementation. I'll check your edits later. Markussep Talk 10:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some advice from what I saw in your edits:
 * the proposed naming convention says that alternative names are given only at the first occurrence. The alternative names shouldn't be linked.
 * in the Jozef Tiso article you linked to the Nitra article several times. If this happens several times in one paragraph, it's considered to be excessive, see Manual of Style (links).
 * I noticed that several Hungarian names for Slovak towns changed over the years, for instance Terchová (Tyerhova to Terhely) and Štiavnické Bane (Pjerg to Hegybánya). Make sure you use the contemporary name, see also what Elonka and I discussed at Talk:Juraj Jánošík and the link I gave there. Markussep Talk 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Spiš, Bratislava etc.
Some replies:
 * I didn't see you adding Presporok, I only saw you removing Slovak names. That's definitely not right, the least you could have done is leave the Slovak names there in parentheses.
 * Don't give me that "I know the local history better than you" line again, you know nothing about me.
 * Don't complain to me about other users.
 * I'm not very familiar with the Zápolyas, but if the Slovak name is commonly used, is it really that bad to show it in an article? After all, he was born in a predominantly Slovak speaking area.
 * I don't have a clue about what you mean with this reverting phrase. I revert edits I consider wrong, and I explain that.
 * Where did you find that the really native name of Spiš Castle is the Hungarian variant? The area never had a large Hungarian-speaking minority (in 1910 11% in whole Spiš, 18% in Spišské Podhradie).
 * My main problem with your most recent edits is that you completely replaced Slovak names with Hungarian names. I'm fine with you adding Hungarian names, not removing Slovak ones. Markussep Talk 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I missed that one (I don't think that's the right place for all those alternative names BTW), I meant in the body text of the article, for instance several instances where you replaced Devín with Dévény (Theben) (same for the castle), thus completely hiding the Slovak name. I thought you were improving your editing style (most of your biography edits were OK), but this was disappointing, and your Spiš edits even more. Same problem, you completely hid the Slovak names, and that was even in post-1918 context. Markussep Talk 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits you made today to the Bratislava article are again not in line with the naming convention. Some examples:
 * Devín is more commonly used in English than Theben. And even if you choose Theben as the primary name, you must mention the Slovak name at least once, at the first appearance. You should also mention Bratislava at the first mention of Pressburg.
 * same for Szentgyörgy and Svätý Jur. According to the naming convention, you should mention both the Hungarian and the Slovak name at the first appearance. And since this is not a Hungarian biographic article, there's no reason to make the Hungarian name the primary one.
 * I modified your additions about Bratislava after WW1. I don't think education in Hungarian and German was already terminated after WW1, provide a reference if it is true. The nameplates are not so relevant.


 * The Bratislava article is not the place for your personal opinion on Slovak history. We've had this Magyarisation / Slovakisation discussion several times before (see Trnava, Nové Zámky, Komárno, ...), and I don't want to keep repeating it. Please stop. Markussep Talk 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits to the Bratislava article are still very biased and they're simplifications of more complex reality:
 * it wasn't the Czechs and the Slovaks that expelled the Germans, it was the Czechoslovak government, a subtle difference
 * settlement of Czechs and Slovaks was not the only reason for the decreasing proportion of Hungarians and Germans after WW1 (see the cited Czech sociological review article)
 * the (temporary) expulsion of Hungarians and Germans after WW2 was already covered, no need to go into more detail (except mentioning the Beneš decrees)
 * individual people don't choose a Slovakisation process. The Czech sociological review article has a much better description: adaptation to the "political winners" and assuming a "suitable" identity (and hiding a "dangerous" identity, which is more applicable to the totalitary years 1938-1989). This also goes for the years 1867-1918.
 * BTW you really should use a dictionary: consecquence, elinametid and expropietid are not English. The edit summary you gave yesterday ("Hungarian ethnic vilification") was very much beside the point, the only thing you changed (and what could be interpreted as "vilification" IMO) was "strong Magyarisation" to "strong voluntary Magyarisation". You're not deliberately provoking new edit wars here, are you? Markussep Talk 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you are biased (though everyone is biased in a way, by their background and environment), but your edits are biased. They represent an interpretation of facts, rather than the facts themselves. One other problem I see is that you add lots of information related to the Hungarian population of Bratislava, which results in an unbalanced article. I suggest you read Neutral point of view, specifically the WP:Undue weight part. Markussep Talk 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please verify information before you add it? The German IPA you added to the Bratislava article was completely wrong. Markussep Talk 09:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Turiec Basin
Hi there,

I'd like to discuss your addition of a Hungarian name in the Turiec Basin article. Should it be really included in the article? It is located in northern Slovakia, is a name of a basin (not a town or a person born before 1918) and the population of ethnic Hungarians living in the basin is very close to 0 (that is around 10 out of roughly 100.000 inhabitants of the basin, i.e about 0,01% by my reckoning)? There have recently been reverts on the topic, looking like a potential start of a revert war, which, in my opinion, should be prevented at all costs, so why not discuss the changes as per the Slovak/Hungarian Experiment?

PeterRet (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for 2 weeks from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.
 * Nmate, this block is for engaging in disruptive editing, and engaging in assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks at other editors, such as accusing Svetovid of vandalism. When you return, please try to work in a more cooperative and civil way with other editors, otherwise your next block will be for even longer.  Thanks, Elonka 04:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should
see result of the poll at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. dear nmate, please help me, I see: In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively, have I see another bagatelle? --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop incivil behavior
1. Please stop making puns with my nickname. "man with pink shoe" 2. Please stop accusing me of suckpuppeteering, if you suspect anything ask for a checkuser, otherwise please stop 'now. No reply is needed, just change your behaviour. Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted this originally on the talk page of User:Man with one red shoe but he deleted it, it is about the suspicious IP that appeared on the article, Hungary, 134.147.247.12 "Maybe we should ask admin if they think if it looks like an obvious sock/meat puppet? Checkuser is almost never used for such a small case. " Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)