Talk:Nyitra County

[Untitled]

The article should be merged with Nitra county.Baxter9 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring - names

Norden1990 says that:

• the name of the Presburg County is original research [1]
• the name "Pressburg" is used in the referenced source exclusively as the name of the town and not as the name of the county [2]
• he read the source and it is not there [3]
• and he adhere to this view also after it was noted that can be verified by a simple search in google books [4]

The source can be verified here [5] and it says (letter for letter) about Pressburg County Thus, I am asking User:Norden1990, what is allegedly original research and what is allegedly not in source. I am asking to explain the following comment [6] "your anti-Hungarian remarks". Can you cite my alleged "anti-Hungarian remark" and what exactly do you mean?

Then, Borsoka says that mentioning the name of Pressburg County is SYNTH. Borsoka, can you cite the rule which supports your opinion? Ditinili (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not need to list all pieces of information of a topic in all articles mentioning that topic. For instance, we do not need to mention all nicknames of New York in all articles referring to New York. If you think, that there are relevant alternative names of Pozsony County, please list them in the article dedicated to that county. In an article dedicated to Nyitra County, the alternative names of Pozsony County can hardly add any value. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely not related to SYNTH. Do you mean that you cannot cite anything supporting your original opinion?

From which moment is the mention about other names in the common history "indiscriminate collection of information"? As far as I know, the current consensus is very different. --Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) Would you refer to sources listing Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County? (2) No, the current consensus does not contradict the approach followed in the article. Why do you think that all alternative names of a county bordering on the county which is the topic of the article should be mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) It is not necessary. It is simply other name, various names do not have to be mentioned by the same source. It is not SYNTH. I expect from you an exact quote according which it is SYNTH.

If my understanding is correct, you cannot refer to a reliable source which lists Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to know the exact wording of allegedly violated SYNTH rule. Otherwise, we can discuss forever if it is really violated or no. In my opinion, none such rule exist. --Ditinili (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Have you presented a source which listed Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County? Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What is alleged "conclusion" here? Fact: another name of the Pozsony county is Pressburg county. That's all. If you believe that this is "SYTH", I recommend immediate consultation with other editors. Ditinili (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We easily can verify that New York's known as "Big Apple", which obviously should be mentioned in an article about New York. However, if we cannot verify the usage of the same nickname in other articles (which only refer to or list New York), we apply an original synthesis when mentioning it. Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI: "you cannot refer to a reliable source which lists Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County" -> WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Geographic_names_from_multiple_sources. Ditinili (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(2) Who speaks about "all names"? There was another editor, who wanted to list literally all names in another article and I was against. This belongs to "A Detailed Article->Names". I speak about relevant names that help non-Hungarian readers to better understand the context of the text (in this case, e.g. Slovak names because these names are also the names of the current regions and were used also after 1918/1920 as county names) or reference to the widely accepted English name). Moreover, there is a wide consensus that in the light of the common history one name (other name) is not only OK, but could be also desired. --Ditinili (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. Could we spoke of the "English/Hungarian/Austrian province of the Roman Empire" instead of "Britannia/Pannonia/Noricum"? Would you refer to articles about specific historical regions which list the alternative names of the neighboring historical regions? Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

These are completely unrelated cases. The "Hungarian Province" instead of Pannonia is not the widely accepted historic English name. I have better example. Here is the Library of Parliament (Hungarian). It doesn't even mention "Pozsony County", but says about "Pressburg County". I will not list anything because it is not necessary (according to any Wikipedia rule), I will not do any artificial work and there is an existing consensus about geographic names. --Ditinili (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the consensus does not cover this case. Would you quote the exact wording of the allegedly violated consensus? If my understanding is correct, you cannot provide examples when alternative names of historical regions neighboring a historical region which is the subject of the article are listed. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Boroska, I say very clearly: a mention about other names is fully compliant with all wikipedia policies. If it is not and YOU (not me) removes these names YOU (and not me) should do your homework and prove that something is wrong. I do not have to provide any examples, I will not do any additional work only because you dislike something. Ditinili (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) Please remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not need to mention all verifiable fact in all articles. For instance, we do not need to list New York's each nickname in each article mentioning New York. (2) Please remember, you have been trying to add a piece of information, although there are three editors who do not agree with you. (for instance: [7], [8], [9]) (3) Please remember, you have not quoted a single policy or consensus which substantiate your attempt. Sorry, I do not have time to read empty declarations and unilateral statements, so I will not answer your similar messages in the future. (4) Please remember Wikipedia:Edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really sorry for saying that but two of these three editors claim whatever to be "anti-Hungarian" and repeatedly make similar accusations without any basis. How does Norden1990 work with sources is documented in the first paragraph. I will not go to details.

Other names are used regularly in almost all SK-HU articles related to the common history, and until now, nobody said that this is "indiscriminate collection of information".

Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)". --Ditinili (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Do you think "County" in the name of Pozsony County is a Hungarian word? The Hungarian name of the same territory is "Pozsony Vármegye". Can you refer to a source which proves that "Bratislava County" was whenever used by the Slovaks? Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am very serious. In the case of Pressburg, it is simply a "reference to other names". If we speak about Bratislava County, then Slovaks used the name stolica or župa like Hungarians used the name Vármegy. And of course, they used the name Prešporská before 1919 and Bratislavská (officially) thereafter. And of course, they use this name in some cases also backwardly, like Hungarians (backwardly) sometimes use later Hungarian names for the middle ages (undocumented for the period). If you want some sources, ask Norden, he deleted them.Ditinili (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you tell me an example for "like Hungarians (backwardly) sometimes use later Hungarian names for the middle ages (undocumented for the period)"? (KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

Of course. E.g. the name Rózsahegy is not reliably documented in the middle ages (as far as I know), but was created later. It is used also for the period when it was not documented. I don't say that it is wrong or ahistorical, it is simply existing practice. If you do not agree with this example, we can surely find many other. Ditinili (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is not identical with the earlier mentioned. In medieval times the latin or phonetized latin description - as we discussed - just exist on paper, but orally or in practice is not used, or the main etymology has no difference, but regarding the Bratislava case this is not the situation, a newly constructed name replaced the earlier name so retrospectively use it for a non-existing administrative unit never called in such a name is not proper. Like for a Roman Province a new name would be created backwards regarding present-day or later change, or I would refer on Beatles on a different name.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Example: possesion Rozumberk (1340), Rosumberg (1349), civitas Rosenberg (1376), civitas de Rosenbergh (1405), civitas Rosonberg (1410), civitas Rosenbergh (1429), Ruzumberk (1430), civitas Rosonberg (1461), civitas Rosonberg (1525). As you can see, it is clearly not Latinized Hungarian name (Rózsahegy) which is not documented by any reliable medieval source and was artificially created later by straightforward translation from German. However, it does not mean that Hungarian authors do not write about Rózsahegy in the 13th, 14th, 15th century (and it is not something inherently wrong, but a reasonable simplification).

I agree that Bratislava is a little bit different case. Bratislava was renamed in time when this county still existed (also according to you) and the county was really (officially) called Bratislavská župa (Bratislava County). It even does not matter if the county was abolished in 1920 or 1922, or transformed to so called "Bratislava Great County", this is real authentic name used during its existence. Ditinili (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I know the history of the evolution etymology of Rózsahegy, and if you read me properly - "or the main etymology has no difference" - hold also here since Rózsahegy = Rosenberg. Anyway, many of the occurences are written still in Latin phonetics, regardless of the word's particluar origin, so my statement was not contradicted. Regarding Bratislava, the possible "contradicting" viewpoint of legalty - "1918-1920" - makes a little mess, since things happened but were later officially recognized, at least until the end of the official Hungarian Era (1920-(1921)) other name that Pozsony county were not fully recognized legally as it had been for a millenia of it's existence. You have to agree that "Bratislavská župa (Bratislava County)" belongs to the Czechoslovak Era. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Kingir, the county was clearly called also Bratislava county since 1919. It does not matter if you interpret it as "occupation" or nor, this is real, relevant historically documented name (and notably, the county was known under this name also later). Curiously, you argued in the past by som political and cultural dominance. I really don't think that the county was politically and culturally dominated by Hungary until 1920.

The etymology is absolutely secondary (the key point is that also Hungarian authors /like other authors/ use artificially created names for the periods when they were not documented and they were created later). Ditinili (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the question is also by whom it was called or it was recognized or not. Political and cultural dominance means also belonging to a country, these issues may be more complex sometimes regarding all the distractions we discussed in relevant timelines. I don't think that etymology would be secondary, since - as you recognized - there is a huge difference between more versions of the same etymology, or totally constructing a new word. Like on the other debate ongoing - where I am uninvolved yet - it is desirable to distinguish between the two Eras, then such problems will not occur as these pages are meant for the historical counties of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC))

"by whom it was called" By the state which controlled the territory and the name really existed, the fact with encyclopedic relevance.

"as you recognized" I did not recognize anything like that. "There is a huge difference between more versions of the same etymology" It is your opinion, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) does not say anything like this. (By the way, the etymology of the name Bratislava has roots in Brezalauspurc od Predslava, however, it is absolutely irrelevant. It does not matter if some name was translated, reconstructed or whatever, what matters is that it was used and its known under that name). --Ditinili (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to that it was not recognized, since we speak about officiality.

Well, sorry, not "huge" different, but "bit" different you recognized, anyway the difference is relevant. Yes it is my opinion - along with with others who share it - the two cases should not be mixed (the roots I knew of course). The story of Bratislava County properly belongs to the articles dealing with the counties of Czechoslovakia.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, I will not open again the topic what was recognized, by whom and when. The name was used (also before 1920) and this the only one encyclopedic relevant fact. Period. --Ditinili (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages" -> this was not fulfilled, but anyway, what is really relevant that Hungary did not have a county named Bratislava or any county that would neighbor of such recognized. In the modern period, even if there are overlapping de facto and de jure status quo, these things can clearly separated this case, since the article and it's context dealing with the counties of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC))

What was the "local authority" in 1919 or 1920? You can say that

a) it ceased to exist as a "Hungarian county" before 1920

b) it existed until 1920, but this county was called also Bratislava. Sorry, but it really was.

I am OK with any solution. Ditinili (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is who recognized anything, or anything else there was or was not. Thus neither a, or b, leads to a solution mutually eligible. The "Hungarian county" was never called Bratislava county, the Czechoslovak county was called like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC))

No, the question is: did this county exist in 1919/1920? If yes, the local authority administering the county used exactly this name. If no then the end date should be changed. Ditinili (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the problem is there are conflicting de jure and de facto situations thus conflicting viewpoints. The "local authority" - if it considered as Czechoslovak - was not recognized. Pozsony county existed as county of Hungary, Bratislava County of Czechoslovakia was not recognized before the Trianon Treaty. The Czechoslovak viewpoint regard Bratislava county as an existing county of Czechoslovakia, regradless of mutual or full de jure recognition, but what is sure, Hungary never regarded Bratislava county as her county, as vica versa. Thus this conflict can be only solved without problem if the era of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is distuinguished. I.e. in Czechoslovakia related articles as reference on the created county - regardless of de jure recognition or not - should be mentioned but also indicated the new status quo was recognized and the new borders were set in the Treaty. In Hungary related articles "Pozsony County" is proper until 1920, if there is an aftermath section there it can be mentioned how the things were regarded by Czechslovak side, as it is already written.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

What is important here is not if this status was "de facto", "de iure" or whatever else (I will not open the question how was Hungary recogized as a new subject of the international law and her borders), but a plain historic fact that this county was called by several names (beyond controversy), including this Slovak one. Even if the territory was Chinese and it was inhabited by a notable Klingon population and was called "loDnI' pa'" in the Klingon language this can be mentioned according to any wikipedia policy. Especially, if Klingons had a relative majority in the county (42.6% - the most numerous ethnic group) and de facto administered it.

Thus, I am restoring or reintroducing all Slovak names (the same way like bilingual names are used in other Slovak-Hungarian articles). Moreover, this bilingual approach is the way how to prevent conflicts, I don't believe that somebody can haw real problem with it. Ditinili (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you confuse the things. Bratislava County was not used to designate the county of Hungary, but the county of Czechoslovakia. This is the catch. I don't recommend you to do anything without consensus. Bilinguality where it is properly applicable is already present, if you have further concerns, share it here. By listing neighboring non-existing administrative units that cannot have a modern name in Hungarian context it is enough to have a reference on their main page (anyway these do not belong to any "bilingual" approach, since these counties had anyway multiple names, not just two), and these articles are not "Slovak-Hungarian" articles, but Hungarian articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC))

No, these articles are about the common history. Ditinili (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This a very broad approach, you could then also mention Germans, Jews an others who we share a common history. Also in Czechoslovak articles we don't put the Hungarian name of the counties when they are listed.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, do not reinvent the wheel. This has been already discussed so many times:

The naming convention for places in Slovakia. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases.

Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".

There is also an explanation related to Czechoslovakia: After 1918: use the Slovak name. Use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population.

I am restoring all Slovak names based on this widely accepted consensus. Ditinili (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not reinvent the wheel, you do not want to understand and continuing your campaign on a daily basis by stressing some editors and Hungarian related matters. Surprisingly these consensus you did not seem to know in an earlier case, however you misuse it totally, you just seek all the time a foxy way to push through something, you don't care it's validity or proper basis. it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. -> this is a case - it has been explained more times and demonstrated - where it is not desirable, but this goes not just to Slovak but any other names also, details above, read through as many times as you get finally. There is a difference between existing places or non-existing former units that cannot have a modern name also. This consensus is applied where it is wisely applicable. Finally this article is not about Czechoslovakia, as in those related articles also nobody demands by listing neighboring counties in Hungarian or other names. Your continous conflict generating attempts are very apparent unfortunately, this is the second time you harmed WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, since this discussion is moach broader and special and contains other distractions that an other consensus you cite here, and you know it very-well. Moreover, you did not restore anything you added such content also that has no consensus and improver since the county of Hungary was never called Bratislava. I am sorry that you are not willing to co-operate with a good faith(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

"this is a case - it has been explained more times and demonstrated - where it is not desirable" Who says? The existing consensus does not contain any statement supporting your opinion that it is not desirable. It says (very clearly) about naming convention for places in Slovakia and clearly describes the rules applied before 1918 and after 1918.

"this article is not about Czechoslovakia" Kiengir, read the rules for the period before 1918. I cited (letter for letter) what is the existing consensus. Please, cite a sentence from this consensus which give you a right to remove other names. If you are not able to do so, I will restore all Slovak names immediately.

Moreover, the names like Turiec, Orava, Liptov and others are not some "modern names", they are historic names used before 1918. Ditinili (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't know who says? You must be joking. Again: it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases -> Several cases, where it is properly applicable it is mentioned, any you can read back very easily what is the problem with your push although the whole case is not about "Slovak names", but any other names regarding listing non-existing administrative units that cannot have a modern name. for places in Slovakia -> These counties were not in Slovakia, but Hungary as they only existed in Hungary. You have to read and interpret the rules, since you are again showing the very bad symptom that you don't want to understand what can be easily understand. Especially This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used. I cited everything and explained everything more times. I repeat, by listing neighboring non-existent administrative units that existed only in Hungary, not any historic names are listed or should be listed, countless times it was explained also by other users. If you are not able to do so, I will restore all Slovak names immediately. -> Be aware it would be a 3RR - even with outside the 24 hour - and as an aggravating circumstance that you continue edit warring and harming WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS during an ongoing discussion/resolution, you have to expect a very hash punishment for such an activity.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

You don't know who says? You must be joking. I am very serious.

Several cases, where it is properly applicable it is mentioned Yes, it is. "for places in Slovakia", the first point: "before 1918". Whatever else what has been mentioned in this discussion is an additional criteria not listed in this consensus.

These counties were not in Slovakia, but Hungary as they only existed in Hungary. Kiengir, you misunderstood the consensus. These places are in Slovakia and the rule about names before 1918 applies. (Moreover, they had Slovak names also before 1918 and existed also after 1918).

The sentence This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used is followed by the list of special cases. Did you overlooked this list? None item in the list supporst removal of Slovak names.

I cited everything and explained everything more times. As you can see, you did not. You have created your own additional criteria (not present in the consensus) and cited partial sentences. Full text is here.

I repeat, by listing neighboring non-existent administrative units What is allegedly non-existing administrative unit? Other names clearly existed.

you continue edit warring and harming WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS As far as I can understand, I do not violate any consensus, but I follow it. Word by word. By the way, I opened this section instead of some "warring" editors who have not been able to explain their changes until now (see the first comment in this section). Ditinili (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome "seriosity".

These counties are not in Slovakia. Consensuses, criterias etc. can supplement or override each other regarding special or not clear cases.

No, no I definetely understand, you don't want understand as usual in the past months. These places = counties existed only in Hungary, they are not existinging in Slovakia. And again, this is about not "Slovak names" or whatsoever.

Of course I overlooked them, and you mix the current case with other cases, since a few examples are listed that are clear, but this case the subject are counties that are non-existent and existed only in Hungary.

I did, other's did, you again act like you would not understand - a tendentious activity since months - , and again a consensus is regulating some cases but not all emerging special cases. Your goal is apparent and you don't choose peaceful collaboration but instead a continous provocative attitude regarding Hungary related matters.

The counties of Kingdom of Hungary are non-exsitent administrative units, don't mix it with the names.

You understand it wrong you harmed twice WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS process in this page regarding the relevant section about an ongoing issue still being discussed/resolved, regardless who opened this thread.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, I will not argue with you. Here is the concensus, I will simply try to involve some neutral editors.

I have absolutely no idea what so "provocative" or "not peaceful" in a simple mention about historic Slovak place names in the territory of present-day Slovakia.

consensus is regulating some cases but not all emerging special cases In other words, the existing consensus does not support removal of Slovak names so you decided that this is a special case, not covered by the consensus. Ditinili (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's your choice, you don't need to link every second what I have showed you, it is totally useless. I don't think some editors already involved would not be neutral. I spoke about a behavior in the past month, and again do not mix the case of Slovak names here, that are anyway mentioned in every county article, this situation is different since neighboring counties are listed in a specific Hungarian context and any names are affected, not just Slovak ones. In other words, without ending the discussion/resolution you introduced new edits also that was not part the prelude of the edit warring case and you turn this issue to a totally different case than it was started, and without consensus for your newly introduced edit's - of course only if they are proper - you simply cannot apply them according to Wiki rules. Do not mix the terms existing consensus on a subject or a consensus on a current page. Apparently the linked consensus unambigously is regulating many cases, but also it does not regulate or specify some special case or not totally clear and not even covering all possibilities -> this is not necessarily a bad faith mistake, simply only this could be achived that time or the participants who builded it were not careful or precise enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

I don't think some editors already involved would not be neutral You mean e.g. the editor who says that there are not any historic Slovak names and Slovak language was invented in the 19th century? No, thanks.

I spoke about a behavior in the past month Sorry? Look on the history of this page how sources are removed (under various pretexts - when one is refuted another is introduced), how false statements about the content were made, false accusations were made on various places (including lies like "almost all Hungarian names were removed"), etc.

the linked consensus unambiguously is regulating many cases, but also it does not regulate or specify some special case If you believe that it does not regulate some case, you should initiate changes or follow the existing rules. Ditinili (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by neutrality exactly here? Why you mix happenings on other pages the situation here that is a bit different?

I know the page history, this was also discussed here and also in the incidents's page, and there is no agreement on false "statements" or false "accusations" or "lies", it's useless to repeat, read back if the problems are not still clear for you, and about the behavior also we already spoken many times, on almost daily basis since a while you generate unnecessary conflicts.

I have always initiated and tried to follow existing rules in the most proper way it is possible and I was never interested in conflict generating. The current issue was not started because of me, but mainly your problematic edits where simply the conflict-generating attitude we met and what is sure in Czechoslovakia / Slovakia related artciles we do not initiate such conflicts as also in other pages. Simply the non-combattant attitude, a drop of good faith, a drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians is missing, as well to the former Kingdom of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

What do you mean by neutrality exactly here? I mean editors who were not involved in the conflict.

Why you mix happenings on other pages the situation here that is a bit different I really do not think that the editor who had such comments like "language XYZ was invented in the 19th century", "there are no historic names in language ABC" will be neutral here.

there is no agreement on false "statements" Just for an illustration - the content of the book allegedly not containing any mention about Pressburg County is here.

false "accusations" I repeatedly asked for a citation of my alleged "anti-Hungarian remarks". Nobody, never ever documented anything like that.

or "lies" When and where were "almost all Hungarians names removed"?

The current issue was not started because of me, but mainly your problematic edits This a very subjective statement and point of view.

Simply the non-combattant attitude, a drop of good faith This sound a little bit strange, because just a simple mention about non-Hungarian names raised accusations about "clear anti-Hungarian attitude" and "anti-Hungarian aims". I don't think that this is good faith or non-combatant attitude".

drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians is missing, as well to the former Kingdom of Hungary What are you talking about? A mention about non-Hungarian names (especially on the territories in present day Slovakia and where the Slovak population was > 90% like Trenčín County) is a "drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians"? How this "respect" should be demonstrated? Ditinili (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion neutrality is not connected to involvement, but connected to an approach. Anyway it does not change the fact that all involved's agreement needed.

You know very well not necessarily Pressburg was the ground of escalation.

"false accusation" + "lies" -> this had been already discussed in an other time, no need to repeat

Definetely not, it is crystal-clear.

Not true, because non-Hungarian names are present everywhere where it is wisely applicable, this is not a problem, the problem is partially to push an invalid name and turn upside down the listing of counties where not even Hungarian names are written in full content just the reference on their pages and since they are non-existent administrative units etc. so it is totally useless to push the same that is normal by other existing locations.

Read back if it's still not clear. It does not matter what is present-day or other disctractions, since also we don't demand in Czechoslovakia or in today's Slovakia by listing counties to write also the Hungarian name or any other name, regardless of i.e. ethnical percentage, they are official units of the country, we don't bring in politics in it. Of course as here, in the current article also other names are shown and demonstrated in the lead. You make too much fuss of something that you should not, and you should as much respect the Hungarian Era as we respect the Czechoslovak or Slovak era. I.e. This article is about historical Hungarian county. For the region in today's Slovakia, see Nitra Region.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC))

In my opinion neutrality is not connected to involvement If you are involved in the conflict you are not neutral by any mean.

Again here is the existing consensus and it simply does not contain any "special rules". I am currently more interested on the opinions of other editors, it is not necessary to repeat our views or now.

Unfortunately, if somebody interprets even the mention about the Slovak names as a "disrespect" to Hungary and Hungarians (or he says that this is allegedly a proof of anti-Hungarian aims) it is a very bad ground for further discussion. Historical "Hungarian" county is not the same as historical Magyar County. These names existed and were actively used during the existence of these counties by the majority population, they are used in the literature covering this period, moreover they are the same as names of the regions/counties used in (English) scientific literature, touristic brochures, their usage is complaint with the existing consensus (and even if you do not agree, it does not violate anything in the consensus).

The opinion that the usage of exclusively Hungarian native names and not the bilingual approach recommended in the consensus will reduce conflicts is inherently wrong. I can guarantee you that this will be the source of long term conflicts, it was the source of conflicts in the past, it is now and it will be in the future .Ditinili (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are involved in the conflict you are not neutral by any mean. -> ridicoulus, because then any other editor involved will became also not neutral :) Anyway, I was not involved, I joined the discussion later. Neutrality is an approach or state.

It is ridicoulus the nth time to put a content I showed you :) Yes, the consensus has defections.

Unfortunately, if somebody interprets even the mention about the Slovak names as a "disrespect" to Hungary and Hungarians (or he says that this is allegedly a proof of anti-Hungarian aims) it is a very bad ground for further discussion. -> Where the heck you invented this fantasmagory? Again you are generating conflicts, a type of hidden provocation to always misinterpret everything and turn out of it's real meaning, the usual symptome. Very apparent and tiring, it is a very bad ground for further discussion.

Historical Hungarian County is a historical Magyar county, since Hungary = Magyarország, so do not try again this joke. :) "touristic brochures" :))) You again entered in a paradoxon :) Do not mix present-day things woth contemporary times.

The opinion that the usage of exclusively Hungarian native names and not the bilingual approach recommended in the consensus will reduce conflicts is inherently wrong. -> You are again deteriorating foxily the things as usual. The case is just the non-existent administrative units existed only in Hungary listed where not even the Hungarian exclusively in is used, but the reference to the Wiki pages - if you would not know, the bilingual approach is used whenever it is wisely applicable, much more then in any Czechoslovak or Slovak article. Moreover your continous attempt to identify that it would against anything "Slovak", although it is not the case, since not any other names are listed instead of the Wiki links Read this as many times, as soon you get if you did not manage in the past two weeks :)

I can guarantee you that this will be the source of long term conflicts, it was the source of conflicts in the past, it is now and it will be in the future -> With this you reaffirmed and reinforced that you are interested in conflicts, as since more months you manifest almost on daily basis to a very negative approach and activity regarding Hungarians and Hungary related topic, regardless how much you try to hide it or deny it, it is apparent you are lacking the necessary good faith. This is how you are recognized also by more editors, and this is reinforced that all the time in a foxy way you repeat, reinvent, generate earlier, later, recent or closed conflicts, you provocate, deteriorate earlier or recent things and content, you talk once like so, on the other time in an other, with many illogism and controversy and contradiction. Be aware, even if you don't think or deny, it is sensible. There is no peace or will to have peace in your heart, your goal is obvious, and anyway this syndrome has also a name. To uphold the conflict, be in the center and never end. I am proud along with other editors, that we don't make similar mess in Czechoslovakia or Slovakia related articles, we don't have any inferiority complex. Since years, you are almost the only one who is persisting continous long term mess regarding Hungarian topics, it is not a surprise anymore.

PS: if you link so may times your new favorite, you should have noticed that it is for The naming convention for places in Slovakia. These counties were never places in Slovakia, they simply did not exist. But I know you don't care, the show must go on yes? Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC))

because then any other editor involved will became also not neutral You get it.

Historical Hungarian County is a historical Magyar county. No it is not. The word "Magyar" is an ethnic name, the word "Hungarian" (in the historic context) has also broader meaning. This is simply point of view, nothing more or less. Example: "I am Hungarian, but I am not Magyar" (Ľudovít Štúr). Yes, the Hungarian language has the same word for historic and modern Hungary. On the other hand, Slovak language (and some other languages in the Central Europe and Balkan) has not, so it is really difficult to argue by some native names like "Magyarországh".

You are again deteriorating foxily the things as usual Sorry, I will ignore any arguments ad hominem.

existed only in Hungary a) Historic Hungary, not modern Hungary b) they did not exist only in historic Hungary but survived disintegration of Austria-Hungary.

you reaffirmed and reinforced that you are interested in conflicts No, I proposed a solution based on the existing consensus to prevent these permanent conflicts.

your goal is obvious Kiengir, what is my goal? --Ditinili (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

-You are again mixing the things. Hungarian is a broader meaning - like every other nation/country name where all citizens of the country with different ethnicity is included, but Hungarian is including and mainly referring to Magyars as an exonym, similarly like German/Deutsch, etc. Anyway it does not matter here, since these counties were the counties of Hungary, not other country or other nation or whatsoever. Similarly as an other county nowadays is the county of Slovakia, regardless of different ethnic ratio, it is a Slovak county.

-You ignore or not, be aware that we are aware!

-Again deteriorating. It does not matter what is modern-Hungary, since the article is about the historical Hungary, present-day matters only in case the entity exist also today. These counties existed only in Hungary, regardless of the disintegration of Austria-Hungary, since until 1920 historic Hungary is dating.

-Again deteriorating. Your initial aim was not this, the consensus is valid for existing places, there is no permanent conflict, you are insisting them only. Moreover you even guaranteed that there will be conflicts, this is not a good faith attitude and approach, better to say the worst is possible.

-Your goal - based on a long term behavior - is apparently to permanently sustain coflicts, clashes even in those questions where it should not be, with a drop of good faith they could be avoided, on the other hand a harsh ego is working on you and you think with such a behavior you save the honor of the Slovak nation against Hungarians, even in such cases where there is not any intention or will to do anything that is Slovak or whatsoever. You see in everything something negative, regardless what it is. Since years, I repeat, you are the only, the only Slovak who generated such daily encounter, I've never met with any trouble with them so far, even if I made edit's regarding Slovakia or Czechoslovaka, I have never harmed their national identity, a never harmed any principle that I would not respect anything that I have to accept, I never started to push Hungarian names blatantly everywhere, just in some cases I put some because of the context but never removed the present-day name, as well also the county names I did not push anything since they were/are official administrative units of Czechoslovakia or Slovakia. No reason, in the lead or the infobox alternate names are present. Of course, if something is about an existing location, as usual since years without any trouble depending on the context both names are mentioned in the desirable order. You just simply try to shoot with a cannon on a sparrow.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

No comment. I created a request for mediation and I suggest simply to wait and to take it less emotionally. Particularly, I will not react on theories about "saving the honor of the Slovak nation against Hungarians", "anti-Hungarian aims", "inferior complex" and similar. Ditinili (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's your choice, anyway I don't approach things emotionally, but on a long-term assessment people start to think on the reasons. The second "theory" listed were already discussed more times and it is not the subject of our discussion now. What is sure, I would never make a fuss to list alternate names for counties of Czechoslovakia or Slovakia or any other country in the world regarding such units that existed only by them, it would be totally unprofessional as it is not applied in other articles also, twice as more because of the context and at the same time the listing purpose is the neighborhood of units of an identical level.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

Please, don't repeat yourself and wait for mediation. Thanks. Ditinili (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I could not be able to compete with you by repeating :) (KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

WP:Civility --Ditinili (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and I recommend you the "It's OK to say sorry" & "They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment" sections also.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

? --Ditinili (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, continous negative approach, provocations, creation of conflicts != focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment, on the other hand forgiveness exist if the other party is also making steps to a good direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, please try to avoid statements like "continuous negative approach", "provocations", etc. Thanks. --Ditinili (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have avoided if it would not have happened, you should have avoided them from the beginning.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

No, Kiengir. I have avoided such sentences from the beginning, I expect the same behavior from your side. Ditinili (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, no, do not distract, it is about your behavior and activity as it has been the main cause for everything from the beginning since more months.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC))