User talk:Nmate/Archive 2009

Your latest revision
Inaccurate edit summaries are not appreciated. You didn't revert the IP, you made your own change to the article. Please be careful, thanks. -- Schcambo aon scéal? 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Rozhanovce
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Wizzard (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names
Hungarian was not official language in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1867 (it was Latin instead Hungarian), and especially was not official during Ottoman administration, so, what is your reason to write Hungarian names for cities of Vojvodina during Ottoman administration in Sanjak of Segedin article? PANONIAN 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed map?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugrin_Cs%C3%A1k&diff=276945784&oldid=276100906

Would you please explain what exactly you consider disputed here? PANONIAN 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Names and map
Please explain how exactly, according to naming conventions, Hungarian names would be relevant for cities within Ottoman Empire whose population was composed of Turks and Serbs? I really do not understand your point here. As for map, the Serbian user did deleted map, but when I asked him why, he did not had an answer. So, would you explain why you consider this map wrong? How can I improve this map to be acceptable for you? PANONIAN 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no intentions to discuss about user Tankred or any other user. As for Sanjak of Segedin, it belong to both, history of Hungary and history of Serbia. However, in this time period the sanjak belonged to Ottomam Empire, and according to Wikipedia naming conventions that you mentioned, names should be in Turkish language and I wrote them in Turkish, but I also wrote in parenthesis alteranative most common names, so that readers would know which city is in question here. But, if you do not want to see Serbian names there then we can remove both, Serbian and Hungarian names and leave only Turkish ones. Anyway, Serbian names for these cities were used during Ottoman period by local Serb population, these cities had mixed Serb-Turkish population in that time, and, yes, there were no Hungarians there in this time since Hungarians escaped from that area to the north when Ottomans conquered it (and just to illustrate this, I can mention the fact that 1720 census recorded only 2 ethnic Hungarians that lived in Subotica). In another words, the only thing that makes this article to be part of the history of Hungary is the fact that this sanjak included part of modern Republic of Hungary and only this part of the sanjak is part of the history of Hungary, while rest is part of the history of Serbia. Also, all of these city articles already contain Hungarian names for the cities, so there is no reason to mention then in every single article, especially if we speak about territory of modern Serbia during Ottoman administration. PANONIAN  17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for map in Ugrin Csak article, I made a new version of this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Srem04.png and this is one of the sources that I used for it (this is hungarian source, by the way): http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/4het/terkep.jpg So, if you still think that my map is not correct in any way, please compare my map with this source and please elaborate is map now OK or something else should be improved in it? PANONIAN  17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Template : History of Slavonia
"Why did you leave out the Kingdom of Hungary from this template?"
 * Well, I listed there only native local political entities that had its political centre in Slavonia (or in the case of Croatia-Slavonia, entity that had word "Slavonia" in its name). Political centre of the Kingdom of Hungary was not in Slavonia, thus I did not listed it here. PANONIAN  10:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names
Why do you insist to pout the Hungarian names on the the cities mentioned in the articles Békéscsaba and Nyíregyháza? Those cities belong today to Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Serbia. --Olahus (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot "fight" for using Hungarian names in English wikipedia only because you are a Hungarian. Same reasons will have Slovak users to use Slovak designations for towns in Hungary, Ukrainian users to use Ukrainian designations for towns in Hungary, Romanian users to use Romanian designations for towns in Hungary, Serbian users to use Serbian designations for towns in Hungary, German users to use German designations for towns in Hungary, Croatian users to use Croatian designations for towns in Hungary... And so on... Sure, we may use foreign-languages too, but primary we have to use the official designation because the rules of this encyclopaedia demand this. Best wishes! --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete citations
You replaced a citation of an academic book with a "citation needed" tag, deleted several other citations and deleted all information about the history of the official name of the town. Please don't do it again. Modrajedobra (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on September 7 2009 to Gabriel Bethlen
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 48 hours.

(actually not technically 3RR just edit warring; still you get a nicer template this way)

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)