User talk:Koertefa

General Wikipedia

Google Searches

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bálint Balassi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Samofi (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not make false accusations (with blind copied messages), since I gave a valid and detailed reason for the removal. You gave an url of a google search as a source, which is clearly not good enough, since it is absolutely not guaranteed that in the future the result of the search will be the same for the same query. Thus, it cannot be accepted as a source. You undid my removal, but I will not undo yours (since we are not in kindergarten any more). This time I will correct it for you, but, please, in the future do not add urls pointing to search results as references, add only valid sources. Thank you. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable publication by Slovak academy of Science. It was not google search result, it was search results in the google books. It can be use as a reliable source and you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_searches_and_numbers (" Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar provide results that are more likely to be reliable sources. While you may not be able to view all of them on the Google site itself, and many of them are previews, these can at least show that the sources exist.") Google books search is a tool that helps us find reliable sources. It was found a reliable source from the Slovak Academy of Science. You should read the rules of Wikipedia before you make some edits. You broken at least the 3 rules of the wikipedia. 1. You created your own rule, that a google books search results (btw one of them pointed to the reliable source) are banned - its original research, such rule does not exist. 2. So than you made a removing of the content without a proper reason. 3. Your reactions did not assume a good faith. So you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ("Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks) and content-based (like adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders.") You said that I "make false accusations". You are probably a new editor so ask to someone more skilled before you removing a content without a valid reason. I hope in the future it will the better cooperation. --Samofi (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi; first of all, (1) please, do not make personal attacks like this. (2) Read carefully the article that you have cited, since it states that Google searches are not references. (3) I assumed good faith, since, for example, I have corrected the url in your reference and I never claimed that the book itself was not reliable. It was you who did not assume good faith and attacked me (as this conversation demonstrates). Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was google book search result and it was pointed to one concrete source. The link was just a proof that source exists. And I hope that your warning about personal attack was a joke :) You sould read what the personal attack is (WP:NPA) or contact skilled user or admin. Bye --Samofi (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly not pointed to a concrete source, it was exactly this: [1]. And the warning was not a joke. -- Koertefa (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Users are allowed to remove warnings - this shows that they have read them. See WP:User pages. I'll add a note to his talk page about citations. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK and thanks. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User Samofi's Reports

Report 1

Dear Koertefa, you were mentioned here by User Samofi.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fakirbakir - personal attack, disruptive editing, not assuming a good fight Fakirbakir (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Koertefa (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be "of user Samofi" --Samofi (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Report 2

You were reported here: [2]

Report 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance --Samofi (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cooperation Board

Hello I have noticed your interest in Slovak and Hungarian wikipedians cooperation board[3]. You can sign as participant and start discussion. Regards --Samofi (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics Guideline

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I wrote down my opinion about using diacritics in English Wikipedia on the WT:BLP page. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks very much for your reasoned comments, unfortunately I think that the appearance of PBS to support the hockey/tennis editors means that the 90-to-10 consensus in recent RMs is now lost in the noise of the minority. The name means nothing to me, but I see he's been campaigning for "English WP not international wp" since 2005.

On a more productive note, I asked User Lajbi to check Katalin É. Kiss to see whether Chicago MOS information that this is an exception to Hungarian names (which I recently cleaned up, please see), and whether it really is É. Kiss Katalin as if "É. Kiss" not "Kiss" is the surname. I can't find any other evidence for this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I think that your proposal was good and hope that something like that will be once accepted as the guideline. Regarding "Katalin É. Kiss": Hungarian webpages [4] also give her family name as "É. Kiss" which indicates that it is really her family name. In this case, it is indeed an exception. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tennis Names

Hi, long time no see. see ANI, editors removing WP:TENNISNAMES are being warned. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi, indeed long time no see. :-) Thanks for the notification. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, completely understand your comment. I will ask Joy to reword with something much more limited - focus on the actual 100x BLPs affected. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Banned Users

Szia!

Miért állítottad helyre Iaaasi szerkesztését itt [5]? Ilyet nem szabad csinálni... nem beszélve arról, hogy a "Bzg1920" user név-nek, egy kifejzetten rasszista, és magyarellenes hangzása van. Iaaasi egy site-banned szerkesztő akinek nincsenek a wikipédián szerkesztési jogai.--Nmate (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nmate, and thanks for the message. (1) I did not know that "Bzg" could be interpreted as anti-Hungarian. (2) My experience with (the sockpuppets of) Iaaasi so far is that he is a reasonable editor with whom you can argue with based on sources. He may be a patriotic Romanian, but in itself it should not be a problem, as long as the rules of Wikipedia are kept. On the other hand, I admit that I do not know the reason of his ban. (3) I have restored his edit on the Talk page, because we were in the middle of a discussion and he had a valid argument, so I though his contribution should not be simply deleted. I tried to answer him. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Bocs, hogy nem magyarul válaszoltam (sorry that I did not answer in Hungarian). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ez azért nem így működik.....(Bzg=bozgor ,1920= treaty of trianon) and bozgor is a word used for Székelys by Rumanians ,meaning that they haven't had a homeland since 1920. On the othe hand, I have no objection to you and anybody being in a dispute over content unless said-user is a site-banned one, and I whish you to enjoy editing Wikipedia. However, Iaaasi is a site-banned user with no editing privileges.

PS: have a look to see who Iaaasi is: [6] [7] [8] [9]

There a lot of problems with Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it is likely that on a good day it doesn't even come close to resembling one.--Nmate (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You are right regarding the meaning of his current sock-name and I also find it offending. Additionally, I also think that his original user page (from 2010) has a strong anti-Hungarian sentiment, it is cynical and provocative (for example, "Igen. Igen. Mindörökké"). Nevertheless, based on his edits and my interactions with him from the last year (since I am on Wikipedia), he seems to have changed or at least he is not that xenophobic and extremist as one might think by looking at his original user page. Anyway, I also take your point that banned users should not edit Wikipedia and currently Wikipedia has several issues. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Task forces

Szia!

Orulok, hogy tobb muhelyhez is beirtad magad, ami erdekelne! Mivel kevesen vagyunk, viszont koztuk te vagy az egyik legaktivabb tag, szeretnem megkerdezni, hogy erzel-e magad annyi erot, hogy megszervezd az egyik (vagy esetleg mindket) teged erdeklo muhely eletet. Amint latom Fakirbakir is jelezte reszveteli szandekat a tortelmi temanaknal, szoval ott akar vele egyutt, az erotoket megosztva is felhuzhatnatok a muhelyet. Van ez a kis szosszenet, ami menten el lehet indulni, semmi extra, de kezdetnek tenyleg jo. Neked meg van annyi tapasztalatod szerintem, hogy azt felhasznalva tovabb epitve, mas muhelyeket megnezve kialakitsd az uj muhelyek a rendszeret. Amint gondolom olvastad, en eloszor a sajat userspacemben probalom meg ezt az egeszet osszehozni, oda probalom meg osszegyujteni a potencialis resztvevoket. Ha elegen lesznek, leszunk, onnantol meg mar mehet a projekt egyik aloldalakent, korrekten kilinkelve es kiemelve hogy ilyen meg olyan muhelyeink vannak. Mit gondolsz? (Nem tudom, hova szeretsz valaszolni, de figyelolostara tettelek, ha esetleg itt irnal.)

Udv, Thehoboclown (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thehoboclown, thanks, I gladly participate in the task forces, I will read the guide and make myself familiar with them. Organizing task forces is another question, I may not have time for that. (Hungarian version: Szia Thehoboclown! Kösz, szívesen részt veszek a műhelyekben, elolvasom majd az útmutatást és megnézem, hogyan működnek. A műhelyek megszervezése egy másik kérdés, azt nem biztos, hogy vállalni tudom.) Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Other

Köszönet

Köszönöm a szép szavakat. Még a végén szentté leszek avatva (pedig távolról sem vagyok szent, sőt elég rigorózus vagyok). :)

You are very welcome, Prof. Borsoka ;-), and keep up your excellent work. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania

A Román Wikiproject oldalán elég durva váddal illetnek téged. Gondoltam szólok, hogy felkészülj. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Naturally, I never had any other WP accounts, so the anonymous IP-editor is welcome to lodge a WP:SPI. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:provocation

Thanks for the advice, but I take care of myself. :) And I know, Transerd is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, like as before Carpathians. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and no worries. :) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A feljelentés teljesen új volt számomra, de a vád meglehetősen abszurd, lévén, hogy én csak visszaállítottam azt az állapotot, amelyet a fent nevezett zoknibáb vita és megegyezés nélkül megváltoztatott. A munkám elismerésének tekintem, ha vannak haragosaim. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Biographies

Sándor Petőfi

Sorry to contact you like this, I was hoping if you can take a look at this? It is regarding your last edit at Sándor Petőfi article. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue has been discussed and resolved: Talk:Sándor_Petőfi#Given_name -- Koertefa (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Janus Pannonius

Hi Koertefa,
I have a problem with Makkai' source at the page of Janus Pannonius. I was the one who added that source to the page, however later I removed it because it is maybe original research. I know Makkai is a Professor of Linguistics in Chicago but his statement is problematic in my opinion. Borbála was the sister of Archbishop Vitéz. Archbishop Vitéz alias János Vitéz was a Croatian from Sredna, Croatia. Of course... his origin is obscure. Hungarian researches state that Vitéz family is originated from Garázda genus (on his mother's side). Garázda genus derives from Bosnia[10]. They were Hungarian nobles, but their ethnicities are more than dubious in the 15th century. I am sure they became thoroughly ethnic Hungarians because of the intermarriages with the Hungarian nobility but I am not convinced of Borbála's ethnic Hungarian ancestors in the 15th century. However, I have found a source what states that Vitéz's father was from Pilis county. "Atyja Csévi, másként Vitéz János, kinek ősei Pilismegyéből származtak" [11] If it is true Vitéz (and Janus) will have ethnic Hungarian ancestors, however I know nothing more about this.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to re-edit these pages (János Vitéz, Janus) according to these references.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, Fakirbakir, I appreciate them. I agree with your modifications: your findings on Janus Pannonius' mother are very relevant (though they were also new to me) and it is good that you have inserted them to the article. I understand now why you originally found Makkai's statement about his mother problematic; but based on the other scholarly source that you have found regarding her family, the statement about her origin is plausible. Thanks again for your work, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Miklós Zrínyi

Hello Koertefa, you should know that political situation during Zrinski's lifetime was rather complicated. From the Hungarian point of view there was, for instance, only Csaktornya and only Kingdom of Hungary, nothing else. On the contrary, from the Croatian point of view there was always Čakovec and Kingdom of Croatia (and Kingdom of Slavonia as well) in personal union with Hungary. From time to time, however, Čakovec and Medjimurje County administratively belonged to Hungarian Zala County, but was always at the end turned back to Croatian administration, since the majority of population (more than 90%) have always been Croats. After the death of John Zapolya in 1540, there were members of the Habsburg family who became rulers of Croatia and (the western part of) Hungary, i.e. both countries, Croatia and Hungary, were subdivisions included into Habsburg Monarchy, which was internationally recognized. Within the Monarchy, Croatia retained a large degree of internal independence. Regards, Silverije (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and sorry for my late reply. It seems that we agree in a lot of questions, e.g., that Croatia (and Hungary) retained a large degree of internal independence even when it (they) was (were) part(s) of the Habsburg Empire. The only question is whether Čakovec/Csáktornya belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) or to the Kingdom of Croatia (KoC) in 1620 (when Miklós Zrínyi/Nikola Zrinski was born). I think that it was part of KoH back then, but let's discuss these issues on the Talk page of the article: Talk:Miklós_Zrínyi#POV_Template_and_Information_Removal. Best wishes, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 02:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Szilágyi

I am ready for a RFC, I am very sure I am right :) Transerd (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then please initiate an RFC, but leave the template in the articles until we have sorted this out. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

János Scheffler

I don't know how much editing I'll be doing just now on János Scheffler, but let me just say that the notion of "Romanian" being a confusing term is not really applicable here, since there's a very clear difference between [[Romania]]n and [[Romanians|Romanian]], and confused readers have merely to click the link to resolve any ambiguity. Thus, people like Ákos Birtalan, László Borbély, Attila Cseke, Péter Eckstein-Kovács, György Frunda, Károly Ferenc Szabó, Attila Verestóy and Iuliu Winkler are all presented as "[[Romania]]n politicians", not because anyone is trying to claim they are ethnic Romanians, but because they are citizens of Romania active in its politics.

Also, red links encourage article creation, and removing them only makes one's job harder. When the article gets created (and a cathedral from 1837, listed as a historic monument, will eventually get an article), it's easier for the link to just turn blue than to have to search for where it might be mentioned and then add the link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, thanks for your comment. I do not agree with you in the first question, but you are right with respect to red links. I've read the section of WP:LINKS about "red links" and that one indeed seems legitimate. Apologies for that. Regarding the first question: I find your approach confusing for that article; and since it seems easy to make a more precise statement, why shouldn't we do so? However, since this question can be interesting for many other editors, let's discuss the issue on Talk:János Scheffler. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Geography

Budapest: History Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest#Timeline_of_the_history_of_Budapest

Don't you think that the passage about the 1919-1919 is too ample? The other events are presented in short statements of only a few lines... Panoniann (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole table (Timeline of the history of Budapest) is a bit ample, but this cannot be solved by simply deleting some sentences that you think are not well-cited. In my opinion, the whole table might be left out from the article (since a similar table is already in the article about the History of Budapest), however, these issues should be initiated and discussed on the Talk page of the Budapest article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the table should be simply deleted without any discussion... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Panoniann was a sock puppet of the banned user Iaaasi. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hungary: External Links

I’m interested in talking with you about my purpose in adding the external link to forecasts from International Futures. I feel that discussions of potential development futures are missing on country pages in Wikipedia, so I joined the WikiProject: Countries community to start this discussion. I’ve been given the go ahead to add this link to country pages – with the understanding that consensus is met by editors of country pages.

The difference between the population figures is purely a matter of sources. According to the World Bank, the population total for Hungary is the same as International Futures. The minute difference between Eurostat, or any national census that you’re referring to, does not render their forecasts meaningless. As you can see from the links below, even historic population totals differ based on the source.

1. Population from the World Bank [12]

2. Population from Eurostat [13]

International Futures is the largest integrated assessment model in the world. In terms of population forecasting, this model is state-of-the-art in the field because it utilizes an agent-cohort approach to model population futures. While long term forecasting is difficult and certainly has its limits, it is a generally accepted practice in the scientific community (See reputable publications like Nature or Science). And there is clearly an interest in the policy community to use a long-term forecasting approach. The purpose and utility of these forecasts is not to predict the future, but to structure relationships and plan for a range of known uncertainties. Could I ask for more clarity as to why you feel there is “no need” for these development forecasts? Cheers. (Shredder2012 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your comment. It might have been better to place it on the Talk page of the "Hungary" article, since other editors may also be interested in the discussion. Can you explain why do you think it would be nice to have that link in the "Hungary" article? Why would it make the article better? In my opinion, International Futures (IF) is just one model to make long-term forecasts, but there are other models, as well, why should we add this one? Please note that Wikipedia is not for advertising models and scientific ideas. I think that Wikipedia articles about countries should primarily contain basic facts, and a long-term forecast based on a computer simulation is, of course, not a basic fact. I do not doubt that this kind of forecasts could be interesting for some people, but I do doubt that it has such an importance that it should be linked from a Wikipedia article about a country. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: It's good that you have mentioned the word "uncertainties". In addition to the deviations from the 2011 Census and the EuroStat data, what makes me suspicious about the linked forecast of International Futures is that it only provides point estimates for the different values and does not state anything about their confidence. Obviously, a prediction (e.g., population) for 2060 is much more uncertain than a prediction for 2012, so providing just one number for each of them without giving appropriate confidence intervals looks kind of amateurish. But, of course, it is just my personal opinion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Slovakization, Hungarian Minority Parties

I have put the section there because some little background of the whole situation should be there. Anyways, I think the whole part "Since the independence of Slovakia" should be entirely rewritten. It is just too wordy, nothwithstanding the fact there is so much BTW info. There's a detailed info on what Jan Slota said about the Hungarians. I don't think that Slota have any real impact on "Slovakization". Slota never held any executive position, he just talks too much. Therefore these kinds of info are irrelevant. --18hangar18 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The situation of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia is a complicated issue, there are many aspects of it. The participation of the Hungarian parties in some governments of Slovakia is surely a positive thing, and as such, it should not be forgotten. However, the "Slovakization" article primarily deals with cases when the assimilation or elimination (e.g., "population exchanges") of minorities (not just Hungarians) were the main aim. Connected to this, the article also discusses xenophobic aspects of some politicians, that's why Slota is mentioned. You are welcome to contribute to the article, but please be careful with removing information. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Ján Slota's SNS was part of several Slovak governments, so his opinion about Hungarians is relevant to the Slovakization article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean if we are saying A then we need to say B too. I know there has been assimilation in Slovakia but we also need to inform about the positive aspects as you said. I am convinced that the reader should see the whole picture, not just the bad parts of it. Therefore, if there is an information that Hungarian parties were part of the government for 10 years the whole situation looks much differently. Otherwise the whole article would be just a half-truth. Anyway, I am also intending to add the backround to the Slovakization, because the reader needs to know that the Slovakization is a response to the Magyarization during the Austo-Hunagarian Empire. --18hangar18 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Slovakization derives from nationalism (Magyarization is the same). It is not a response (and Slovakization is still on). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fakirbakir, the ideology that Slovakization was(is?) just a response to Magyarization [14] (that's why it is sometimes called "re-Slovakization") was just a pretense. The real cause was (in both of the cases) nationalism and the [false] illusion that a culturally homogeneous state is preferable. Even without Magyarization (which was also a shame), there would have been Slovakization, since (even today) Slovakia has a significant Hungarian minority. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

History

Principality of Hungary

Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history however they can judge existence of page without any (proper)historical background. But, your comment will help us because that page can be "free" again, it depends on wish of admins. Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás)Fakirbakir (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and it is sad that articles such as this could be redirected based on vague arguments, for example, claiming that it was an unwanted fork. I think that this topic clearly deserves an own article and hope that the protection will be removed, soon. Probably, as you suggested, we should find an unbiased admin for that. Naturally, we should not give up, even if there were some malicious edits and unfair redirections (és ezen az átirányításon én is eléggé meglepődtem). -- Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919

I see you have removed the other warning, nevertheless this still counts as the second warning. Octavian8 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings, see WP:User_pages, especially since I think that your "warnings" are not justified. You are just desperately trying to keep your control over the article, without even taking the time to pointing out your problem with the (sourced) claims that you keep deleting blindly. Koertefa (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, now that we are ready with modifying the text, I would like to ask you if you want to become an editor for this article besides me. By editor I understand someone who looks over the article and takes care that major changes are done only after agreement on the talk page. You should also keep an eye on vandalism and involve yourself into discussions should they arise on the talk page. In general, we should follow the rules on editing the article, while giving anyone who is interested a chance to explain himself and accordingly improve the article if the contribution is valuable. We should also coordinate our efforts to keep the article balanced and concise.Octavian8 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Octavian8, it was a long discussion, but our efforts resulted in a quite balanced section. On the other hand, my opinion did not change on your set of rules. :-) Nevertheless, even though our viewpoints are sometimes different, we both want an informative, netural article and that is more than enough for cooperation. And, no worries, I will follow the article and help to maintain and improve it. Koertefa (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, please update your sandbox (including the links), where you have gathered all text propositions, (good ideea by the way). I would suggest that you link there also the propositions from our previous discussion on the Aftermath and the Introduction. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, sure, I can update it (by the way, you are also free to edit it if you prefer). I am not sure whether the discussion on the Aftermath should be included, since it has already finished and the article has been updated. Anyway, perhaps a section about past/finished discussions (with links) could be a solution. The previous discussions on the Introduction may indeed still be relevant, though they are in the archives now. Particularly which sections do you have in mind? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am planning the propose text variants for both the Lead and the Introduction in the next days. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, good work with the links! Look forward to seeing your text propositions, but before perhaps we should first agree on what is our intent here, with respect to the Lead. The thing with the Introduction, and I mean her the causes for AH's collapse is pretty clear. Octavian8 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Something else my old discussion partner on "hot" HU-RO topics ;-), what about my text where I introduce in the article (in Phase I) a mentioning of the Magyarization? I really look forward to your input there. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Octavian8, I will provide my propositions and my view on yours, especially on the "hot" topics :-), soon; however, I am a bit engaged in the next days, so I may only be able to write proper answers in the second half of next week. Sorry for the delay, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Magyarization

Hi! I saw your revert on Magyarization article and I was wondering what this edit summary: "The reference to the 1849 minority/ethnic laws should not be deleted." refers to exactly. Because this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magyarization&diff=prev&oldid=460923164 did not remove anything. On the contrary, it added information. Thanks in advance for your answer SSzatmari (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi SSzatmari, you are right, no information was removed, only added. It was my fault, thus I have reverted that undo of mine. Thanks, Koertefa (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, anybody can make such mistakes. However I am not sure if the sentence The eagerness of the Hungarian government in its Magyarization efforts was comparable to that of tsarist Russification from the late 19th century (source: The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state, by Rein Taagepera 1999 (page 84) ) satisfies WP:NPOV. What's your opinion? Would it be better if it would be rephrased to "According to Rein Taagepera,..." or something like that? SSzatmari (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, that sentence treats the opinion of a single source as a fact, thus it should be rephrased. Koertefa (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From the same category is the affirmation: "From the onset of Enlightenment Era, the same or even more severe forced assimilation techniques were used with success by significant Western European countries, such as Spain, France or Britain.", which has no citation. If you have ideas, please make the phrasing adjustments SSzatmari (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a similar style statement and thus it may also need rephrasing. Though, it was not me who added that claim, however, earlier I have also read it in one of the sources about Magyarization. After your message I tried the find the proper one but, unfortunately, so far I could not. Of course, I also agree that it would need a suitable citation (since Wikipedia is no place for original research). Koertefa (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SSzatmari was a sock puppet of the banned user Iaaasi. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hunnic_Empire Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a good idea. Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		As exemplified by your work on the merger discussion at Hunnic Empire. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Mohács

Hello! I found a new source on this subject: [15]. I think there is no contradiction. Two thirds of the members of the Hungarian army were Hungarian, but most of the killed soldiers were mercenaries (probably most of the Hungarian warriors survived) 79.117.175.214 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Iaaasi, your are banned and there is even a warning not to act on your behalf. Moreover, I think that this information is controversial, it needs further clarification and mentioning this in itself would be misleading. As far as I know only a small portion of the mass graves were uncovered that contained the remains of some hundred soldiers out of the 15-20.000 dead, which is not a representative sample. And even it was true, it would not belong to the info box, which is already too ample. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics of Transylvana

The article Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) covers 1570–1711 period. The whole table can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population BMatthew HU (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi...hmmm... Iaaasi(?) Anyway, your are right, sorry. On the other hand, the table shown in History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population is not totally correct, for example, the column of the other ethnicities is missing and some numbers (1850, 1869, etc.) are different than, e.g., here: [16] Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is me, of course. However the table History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population is kind of misleading, because it presents together different theories (Daco-Roman theory with Romanians being 66% in 1241 and 60% in 1600 and the immigrationist theory) BMatthew HU (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and Transylvania

Your edit summary was: "the Voivodeship of Transylvania was not a country, moreover, it did not cover the area of the East. Hung. Kingdom"

• "the Voivodeship of Transylvania was not a country" - Look in the infobox of Banat of Temeswar. None of the territories listed there are countries. Temeşvar Eyalet is not a country, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar is not a country etc
• John Zápolya is the last voivode of TRasnylvania and the ruler of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, so the E Hu K is the natural successor of V of Tr
• "it did not cover the area of the East. Hung. Kingdom" Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) covered the same territory as the Voivodeship of Transylvania of Transylvania (just look at the map), but it is presented as the succesor of the East. Hung. Kingdom Dobitocilor (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi, thanks for your comments. (1) Regarding the country issue: the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (EHK) was a country, one of the successors of the original Kingdom of Hungary (KoH), it did not contain parts from any other countries, so the KoH is the only acceptable predecessor of the EHK. The Banat of Temesvár is a bad example, because it was not country. (2) John Zápolya was indeed the voivode of Transylvania before he became (one of the) king(s) of Hungary. He used the title "king" and not the title "voivode" when he ruled the EHK. (3) Unlike the Voivodeship of Transylvania, the Principality of Transylvania was again a country (though only semi-independent), so that is why it is presented as a successor of the EHK, even though the areas they covered were not exactly the same. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of examples. For example Royal Hungary is displayed as the succesor of Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, even it is not a country. Also the predecessor of the Principality of Bulgaria is Ottoman Bulgaria, which is not a country.

In the infobox of the Voivodeship of Transylvania article, the Principality of Transylvania is mentioned as succesor, what do you say of this? Dobitocilor (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal Hungary was, of course, a country, there is no doubt about that. Only because the Hungarian nobles elected Ferdinand as the king of Hungary (in hope he would help expelling the Turks), it does not mean that KoH ceased to exist. Even if some articles messed up the "predecessor" / "successor" links (as it seems with the Voivodeship of Transylvania), it does not mean that we have to spread the confusion. Could you provide any scholarly sources that the predecessor of the EHK was not the KoH, but only the Voivodeship of Transylvania? If you look at the map, the EHK contained a much larger area than Transylvania. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: One more thing: take a look at this source: [17]. It explicitly states that: "The eastern Hungarian kingdom was not a continuation after 1541 of the medieval Transylvanian province. No Voivode was nominated at all, the crown exercising its power directly [...]". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary" was in "subentity" status, it was one of the Habsburg "countries" (although Anjou, Jagiellon or Luxembourg rulers simultaneously possessed and ruled other countries, kingdoms as well in the past) however it was a "proper" kingdom where the ruler was always an elected king. (Only Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (1780-1790) was an exception, because the nobles elected him in Pozsony but there was no coronation in Hungary and they (the nobles) did not accept him entirely as their king (his nickname was "king with hat")Fakirbakir (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you that as soon as the nobles elected Ferdinand as the king, the Kingdom of Hungary was not independent any more, but it was still a "proper" kingdom. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom: Infobox

[18] What do you think of this format proposal? Bozo1789 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand yours and Fakirbakir's approach. The Treaty of Varad was in effect for only 2 years (1538-1540), more exactly the EHK was recognized until John Zapolya's death, when EHK should have been reunited with the rest of the medieval Kingdom under the Habsburg crown. If we mention 1538 in the infobox, we should also include 1540, the ending year of the agreement. Between 1540 and 1570 the Habsburgs did not recognize the division of the medieval kingdom Bozo1789 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to read--Nmate (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Banat of Temeswar

Are you sure this edit [19] is appropriate? In my opinion the article should refer only to 1718–1778 period, because we have a history section at Banat article Banat#History Dobitocilor (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it some kind of revenge? Anyway, if mentioning Gelou, a probably fictional character from Gesta Hungarorum who (might be) ruled in the 9th century, in an article about the Voivodeship of Transylvania, which existed between the 12th and 16th centuries, then of course, my edit is completely appropriate. As you know, there is a History of Transylvania article, as well, that already mentions Gelou... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Revenge for what? Are you serious? You should know that I am not the one who added the Gelou part to Voivodeship of Transylvania article. I removed it, cause it's not its place there. PS My opinion is that he was a probably real character, but our opinions are not important Dobitocilor (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that every such article (as the Banat of Temesvar or Voivodeship of Transylvania) should have a brief history section that puts the entity in a historical context, even if there are specific articles about their histories that discuss these issues in more detail. Hence, I have no problem with mentioning earlier events in such articles, as long as they are strongly related to the topic in question. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in such case, we would have a dispute about the question of which of the earlier events are "strongly related to the topic in question" and then we would have to copy-paste entire history section from Banat article to Banat of Temeswar article since I do not see how period of administration of one country could be more "related to the topic" then periods of administration of other countries. PANONIAN 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion continues here: Talk:Banat_of_Temeswar. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hungarian conquest of the homeland"

What is your opinion about this title (above)?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to translate the word "honfoglalás" to somebody who did not speak Hungarian, then this would be my choice. However, this version is not widely used in English scholarly sources [20] and the word "homeland" is not neutral, since it is from a Hungarian point of view. The Carpathian Basin is not the homeland, for example, of a Frenchman. For me, after "Hungarian landtaking", the version "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" seems the best. It is also the most widely used [21]. What do you think? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please have this discussion on the article talk page, maybe other users would like to participate too. Can you please copy this answer to the request for move thread? Jaro88slav (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already told there that my second preference is the "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Banate of Mačva

I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Győri

Hello! Segítségre lenne szükségem vélhetően egy francia szerkesztővel szemben, aki sorozatosan eltávolítja a győri csatáról (Battle of Raab) szóló cikk hadviselő felei közül Magyarországot. Olyan képtelen módon hivatkozik, hogy Magyarország csak egy tartománya volt a Habsburg Monarchiának. Te is tudod, hogy ez csak az 1849-1867-es időszakban volt. A felsorolt forrásokat azért nem tartja hitelesnek, mert magyar nyelvű. Doncsecz^talk 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look at it, tomorrow. Meanwhile, please, don't violate WP:3RR. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nem lenne mégis jobb felszólalni, mert már egy román szerkesztő is bekapcsolódott és ostobaságot beszélt: Magyarország nem rendelkezett önállósággal ekkoriban, csak egy tartománya volt a Habsburg Birodalomnak. Nézd meg a Talk:Napoleonic Wars-t. Doncsecz^talk 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.101.149 (talk)

Battle of Segesvár

Üdv! A segesvári csatához belinkelt képen a kozák lovasság rohamozza a magyar gyalogságot, de kedves román ismerősünk ezt vitatja. A kép egyébként egy tankönyvből származik, erre tisztán emlékszem és ott is le van írva, amúgy pedig a képen is látszik a kucsmákból, hogy a kozákok támadják a magyarokat. Doncsecz^talk 11:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you are right: that picture shows Cossacks charging against the Hungarian infantry. I will try to look up a reference, but I am *very* busy in coming weeks. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Sibiu

Please, tell your opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Science and Education

University of Belgrade

Koertefa, you are invited!

Thanks for the invitation! To be honest, I do not have any connection to the University of Belgrade, but I wish you a successful project! KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Carburetor

The carburetor was invented by Benz in 1885 [22] ArpyArpy (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that your source is based on Wikipedia, hence, not reliable. Take a look at this: [23] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman–Hungarian Wars

Hi Koertefa. Saw your revert on Ottoman Hungarian Wars and your request for sources concerning Moldavia and Serbia being allied to the Ottoman Empire. As of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, Moravian Serbia was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire until Bayezid II lost at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. I was thinking Serbia was semi-independent for some time after that, but unfortunately the Balkans is not my forte. I hope this helps somehow. Happy editing! --Defensor Ursa 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You may be right, unfortunately, I am also not an expert of the history of Balkans. I will take a look at the issue and restore the info if necessary. Thanks again, cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted myself. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca

szia! do you like it more now or not? I did my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiangog (talk • contribs) 07:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Christiangog, in my opinion, you were a bit hasty when you deleted massive number of images. I think that such major changes should be initiated on the Talk Page of the article. Regards, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

I know I should`t contact you like this but I am genuinely surprised with your comment. Don`t get this the wrong way but I am just curious. Did you checked the diffs I provided? And you see nothing wrong there with the behavior of this particular user? Adrian (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, I have checked the diffs, he may be rough sometimes and I may not agree with some of his edits, but as I wrote, I did not see such major mistakes or signs of outrageous behavior that would justify an arbitration. I think that mutual understanding and honest discussions can solve many conflicts. The important is that we should assume good faith and keep the rules (yeah, I know that I am an idealist). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello - Help

Hello, I am contacting you if you are willing to help with another user. There is no problem but I am failing to explain some thing about adding new data to the article, working with sources and similar. Maybe you could participate and try to help. The discussions are taking places here [24] and [25]. There is some data on my talk page also. Thank you in advance. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on holiday, but I will take a look at the issue. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that KIENGIR is not editing right now, but when he does, it would be good to have someone with him to help him in case of misunderstanding the policies. I really tried to explain some policies, but I failed. In the future, if you can, see if you can help.

If you have the time for a quick consultation. There are a bunch of this edits [26], by all the sources I saw and according to the wikipedia article that wasn`t changed for a while, Kingdom of Hungary was created around the year 1000? Saying that it existed in the 9th (801-900 year) is OR in my opinion. What do you think? Adrian (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) is traditionally counted from the coronation of Stephen I, which was either on the Christmas Day of 1000 (one of the last days of the 10th century) or on the 1 January 1001 (the very first day of the 11th century). Hence, you are right that talking about KoH in the 9th century is misleading. On the other hand, KoH had emerged from the Principality of Hungary which was founded after the arrival of the Hungarian tribes in the 9th century. In the example of the village Gbelce, I think that the sentence in question could be corrected as "in the 9th century it became part of the Principality of Hungary out of which later the Kingdom of Hungary had emerged" or something like that. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I did`t checked the data about Principality of Hungary. But even here there is some obscure data. For example I can`t find exactly what territory the Principality controlled. From the article [27] - Around 900 year, not very precise about the year(we can`t claim that it is 9 or 10 century for sure) and [28] 998 year which is the 10th century. Is there any data of the territory controlled by the Principality of Hungary? Also I see a little contradiction (from the same article, Gbelce), In historical records the village was first mentioned in 1233. and this territory became a part of a political entity before it was mentioned? Maybe the best way is to avoid mentioning a century and write the exact year since we have no exact data? Adrian (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That is also fine. Writing the history section from 1233 looks like a safe option. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will refrain from making any changes to this articles at the moment. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Keep up your excellent work! Fakirbakir (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hungary

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. A clear rationale should be provided in the image file for each article. File:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg does not have it for Hungary. You can add it (though it should be unique and different from that of Hungarian Revolution of 1956), but it can always be questioned. The use of "fair-use" images on Wikipedia is limited, i.e., we can't just say "I want this image for my article" for any copyrighted image - it should be irreplaceable, and comply with a few other criteria. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and I have read the rationale guide, but it's quite vague and does not contain clear-cut rules. Since the resolution of the image is low and for that image there is no totally free version available, it seems that it has a chance to qualify as fair use. On the other hand, I am stuck at the question: "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.". Of course, anything can be covered by only text/sentences, but images usually help a lot distributing information. For that particular image (cover of the Time magazine), I think that it is a borderline case. It is surely not indispensable for the article, but it provides a quite nice illustration not only for the event (revolution of 1956), but also its international fame. The revolution was a very significant event in the modern history of Hungary, so it deserves some illustration. I will either provide a rationale on the image file or find a replacement image showing some aspect of the 1956 revolution. Do you have any suggestions for that? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You have hit the core of the problem - it is a matter of debate whether the image is required for the article. You'll certainly need to write a separate justified rationale for the Hungary article, and then the situation is Ok with me. However, if some other two editors will object the use of this image then it can be removed, simply because there are no clear-cut "laws" for the use of fair-use images, and such wikipedia disputes are resolved by consensus among its editors. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, I understand that. Now, I have included a rational in the image file for the article "Hungary", as well. I could only do it by placing another "non-free magazine cover" template, I hope that's the way a 2nd rational should be provided. Do you think that it is OK now? Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, adding another "non-free magazine cover" template with different content is the right way. The "Non-free magazine cover" template (with the red copyright C mark) doesn't need to be multiplied, but don't worry about that. The rationale itself seems Ok, but it is somewhat vague and may be questioned. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I indeed duplicated the copyright notice. I have deleted the extra one. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: I have re-inserted the image to the article. I agree that the rational is a bit vague and thus it might be challenged. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Dams

Hello, I would like you to explain, why did you revert my contribution, where I added few sources (which covered whole section - I hope, that you don´t want me to write reference template after each sentence) and also new information about dam service. When I add relevant sources, you have no right to revert my contribution with explanation that I did not provide sources. --Achernar.sk (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The primary reason of my revert was that you removed several "citation needed" tags without providing explicit reliable sources for the challenged claims. Please, read WP:RS, since it states that English sources are preferred and self-published websites are not acceptable. Your source [29] does not seem to qualify as a reliable one, as published, peer-reviewed academic sources are preferred. Moreover, you should not replace several "citation needed" tags with just one reference claiming that the document contains all the needed information. Each individual "citation needed" tag should be replaced by an individual inline reference. Of course, they can all refer to the same work, but then please provide, for example, page numbers to ensure verifiablility. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but, unfortunately, there are almost no documents in English language, from which this article can be cited. Original documents are or in Slovak, or in Hungarian language. About source [30], it is research done by unbiased company. Nevertheless, I will find more and other sources.

But for the next time, you should not revert the page, because that way you return grammatical mistakes or new, sourced information, too. --Achernar.sk (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy, if you bring reliable sources. Currently, you have just deleted the "citation needed" tags again without providing explicit sources for the statements. Please, note that, as I wrote earlier, that's not the way "citation needed" tags should be handled. Moreover, simple (self-published) websites are not acceptable as reliable sources. Anyone can make a website in 5 mins which claims, for example, that "the Moon is made of green cheese", but that does not mean that such a website can then be used as a source on Wikipedia. Please, try to use documents published by reliable publishers, peer-reviewed academic sources are even better and English language sources are preferred on English Wikipedia. You should read the guidelines which I have previously linked. Cheers and happy editing, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited János Scheffler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki Links

Please inform yourself about the interwiki feature of Wikidata, before doing unnecessary reverts like this one. Thanks.-- 109.48.79.85 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and you might be right about Wikidata. Still: the deletion of a large number of Wikilinks by an anonymous IP editor is a bit dubious, you should admit. You should at least link a relevant policy or website about this in the edit tags. The professional solution would have been to let a bot do these removals with informative edits tag (which links a descriptive page). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A comment "remove interwiki, now provided by Wikidata" is neither difficult to understand nor dubious. -- 109.48.79.85 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, it may be difficult to understand/accept if you never heard of WikiData (hence a link would have been useful) + the fact that it is done by IP-editor(s) makes it a bit dubious. Anyway, no worries and happy editing. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

Hi, could you please indicate to me where the discussion about including Hungary took place. Thanks,--Cormag100 (talk)

Hi Cormag100 and thank you for your message. The related discussion can be found on the Talk Page of the Napoleonic Wars article, especially in the "Hungary : independent belligerent ?" and "Hungary as part of the Austrian Empire" sections. Please, read the arguments and sources there and, naturally, I am happy to discuss the issue with you further if you think that it is necessary. Cheers and happy editing, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koertefa. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Professor Scheppele's analysis and the government's supermajority

‎Biruitorul deleted the following direct quote from Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele saying "how about waiting until the amendment actually passes, and then using a source that isn't alarmist soapboxing?"

I re-instated it, and Koertefa re-deleted it.

Do Biruitorul and Koertefa consider writings by constitutional law scholars to be soap-boxing?

In whose interest is it to suppress scholarly analysis and criticism of a proposed constitutional mega-amendment with enormous consequences until after it has been passed by a government with the supermajority sufficient to have passed the constitution itself plus every one of hundreds of subsequent amendments in the ensuing years?

In March 2013, Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele writes:

"[T]the government is… introducing into the Parliament a 15-page constitutional… mega-amendment... a toxic waste dump of bad constitutional ideas, many of which were introduced before and nullified by the Constitutional Court or changed at the insistence of European bodies. The new constitutional amendment (again) kills off the independence of the judiciary, brings universities under (even more) governmental control, opens the door to political prosecutions, criminalizes homelessness, makes the recognition of religious groups dependent on their cooperation with the government and weakens human rights guarantees across the board. Moreover, the constitution will now buffer the government from further financial sanctions by permitting it to take all fines for noncompliance with the constitution or with European law and pass them on to the Hungarian population as special taxes, not payable by the normal state budget.

"For good measure, the mega-amendment adds a new and nasty twist. It annuls all of the decisions made by the Court before 1 January 2012 so that they have no legal effect. Now, no one in the country – not the Constitutional Court, not the ordinary courts, not human rights groups or ordinary citizens – can rely any longer on the Court’s proud string of rights-protecting decisions...

"The amendment reverses virtually all of the concessions that the government has been forced to make over the last year, and it provides further evidence that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recognizes no limits on his power."

Stevan Harnad 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your remark. I have answered your argument on the appropriate Talk page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Constitutional crisis"

Completely, totally out of control. Personally, I'd just revert to pre-March 4 versions for all of them, and then AFTER the amendment is passed Monday, IF it's passed, do a modest expansion where appropriate. I know they're wasting their time on the Constitution article - as long as I have a say, I won't allow that to degenerate the way it has these past few days.

I did smile at seeing the term "constitutional crisis", nicely defined as "a situation that the legal system's constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government". Obviously, that isn't what we have here. If it even is a crisis, it's a political crisis. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are on the same page about this, and I also think that the article should be returned to the pre-March 4 version. I am quite busy at the moment, but I will look into this issue, soon. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I could - please see my latest revision and the talk page. We need to rein in this mess - preserve my version (or one close to it; obviously I may not have got everything right) and fix the other damaged articles. This (right at the end) is simply parodic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope that the dispute resolution will lead to a solution. It indeed got a bit out of control. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Is Koertefa a Fidesz Vigilante?"

Actually it don't think you are (hope not). I just wanted to illustrate that introducing an allegation like this in the form of a question is not exactly a neutral thing to do.... --Stevan Harnad 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Thanks, point taken. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferenc Szaniszló

I think, it is or it is going to be a soapbox again: it seems to me, it is an effort again to mix Fidesz with Jobbik. The whole article deals with one event: the Award giving ceremony of 15th of March. The author picked three of the awarded to demonstrate his/her political oppinion (there is no difference between FIDESZ and JOBBIK). Other people were given prizes as well, including András Kovács for his reasearch on the Hungarian Jewish history. Even in the USA, mistakes could happen during nominations (Samira Ibrahim). Prof. Baktay was not nominated because of his views on Jesus, but because he was a leading scientist. I don't know Karpathia, I can't say a word about them.

Wikinews would be better place for it.

Ltbuni (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, some editors misuse Wikipedia for political POV pushing. I'll take a look at it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Well done! I highly appreciate your neutral approach at page of János Esterházy! Fakirbakir (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, it is much appreciated. I hope that this kind of approach will be suitable to everybody. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Constitution of_Hungary".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Demographics data problems Hi Koertefa, I've replied to your message regarding Satu Mare in the talk page [31] but also added the following: Regarding your source, Keortefa, it seems interesting but I've noticed that the 1930 census data are wrong. They do not match the official census data which are available. I wouldn't want to generalize, but many some Hungarian sources tend to distort the actual data (that doesn't mean all of them). This one might be the "distorting" type because the cesus of december 1930 is well-recorded. Also the current table contains wrong data for 1930. What should we do about this? Here is the real data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/a/a0/Satmar1930pop1-1.jpg So the current table in the article contains the (most probably falsified) data: 1930 - 53,010 total population, with Romanians 28.9% and Hungarians 57.1%, while the official data is Municipality (=city) of Satu-Mare: total - 51495, Romanians 16251 (=31,6%) and 21916 (=42,6% rounded up!). To me, it seems yet again that some of the (probably Hungarian-ethnicity) editors have a "not-so-well-hidden" agenda of messing with history and population data on all the wikis (believe me, I know what I'm talking). How else could be the blatant discrepancy be explained? Now who is going to correct the table? The table citation is a website which actually contains only tables and doesn't indicate any source. How can we check the other data? Should the table remain there? -Paul- (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) And I have managed to identify the source of error: the census for some of the years including 1930 were recorderd based on both "native langage" and nationality. The a and n letters after the years (1930a and 1930n) in the cited source mean Anyanyelv and Nemzetiség (native language vs nationality), concepts also explained in the abstract of this article [32]. Nevertheless, the contributor who inserted the table decided to handpick the most convenient set of data- that based of declared language, instead of declared nationality. Amost 10'000 (ten thousand) Romanians declared Romanian nationality of Hungarian language (possible result of the half a century of Magyarization): year total romanian hungarian 1930a 53010 15372 30380 / by language 1930n 53010 17679 21940 /by nationality -Paul- (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Paul, for your message. Please, note that the book I have cited calculates the data from the preset administrative territories of the cities and the towns excluding their village components - as the authors state this in the footnote. This could be the potential cause of the inconsistency between the sources. By the way: how can we know that the scanned page you have found is indeed the original one? According to WP policy, *secondary* sources are preferred. Moreover, there were not only Magyarization, but also Romanianization, so those who spoke Hungarian as their mother tongue and reported Romanian as their nationality might do that based on fear. Moreover, the source clearly states that it uses the mother tongue data, as it is more reliable. I agree with you that there are some Romanian and Hungarian authors who prefer messing with the population data, in order to increase the number of their preferred ethnicity. On the other hand, these are manly done by politicians and populist newspapers, but we should trust academic sources, as for example, they are peer-reviewed. This [33] source was published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, thus, some *very serious* inconsistency would be needed to disregard it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)