User talk:Wladthemlat

Viktor Orbán and the Polish border

Well I dont remember that Orbán said this (of course this doesn't mean that he didnt say this, but the left oriented media would be full of this... :). Anyway I think this Pland border is confused with his famous Felvidék statement. Cheers--B@xter⁹ 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it's a completely different occasion. This was mentioned by Spidla in 2002, the Felvidek was a bit later, wasn't it? Wladthemlat (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be. I dont know.--B@xter⁹ 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary-Slovakia r.

Please explain to me why do you think that the assertions of Mr. Slota are "irrelevant" (i. e. which induced the biggest tension between Slovakia and Hungary) while in the manner of NPOV (?), sections like Claims of Hungarian irredentism in Viktor Orbán speech and Attack on the Slovak Embassy are still presented as "relevant" informations.--B@xter⁹ 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I claim, that lengthy quoting is unnecessary. AFAIK, slota's quotes are mentioned in the same way the attack is, the most appalling quote is qouted directly. Please start a page 'List of offensive quotes of Jan Slota' or sth in that sense, but do not put it in the article. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vysvetlis mi, prosim ta, preco si sa nahle rozhodol pre vymazanie resp. pre podporenie vymazania viac ako polovice clanku? CoolKoon (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

trimming

Hi, imo you need to allow some comments and a degree of time a few days, a week and other editors to comment, perhaps start a RFC, you would be better adding weight to your case by reverting your recent edit, allow a consensus to arise, that is the way to get the change you desire. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Say hello to a complete ban

I advise you to consider every next month my personal gift that you spend on wikipedia yet. Your contribution is entirely wikihounding, accompanying with slanderous personal attacks as has been going on since you registered yourself on this project. I will most certainly file a request for enforcement.--Nmate (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Rest assured I will use your message above as a proof of your personal attacks. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. You are free to use my message what you just want to use it for. You keep watching out for what Baxter, Hobartimus and I are doing and your interesting field is shaped solely by the result of this reconnaissance. It is very quaint, isn't it?--Nmate (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That our fields of interest overlapping bothers you, is your problem, and your problem only. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war with Nmate and Hobartimus

[1] unsourced claim about ethnicity, other vandalism for Nmate (no of caps etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.192.138 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please no score settling

Hi, just because I voted against your iniciative at Cernova Tragedy, you need not come and settle the score at Odorheiu Secuiesc. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is no score setting, you are removing referenced information and appropriate refimprove box without a single word of explanation in the edit summaries. Please reconsider your approach to editing. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Hobartimus?

Hello. Who is Hobartimus, admin or smth like that? Iam a new one here.. He all the time sabotages my edits - in Cernova tragedy (massacre), in Royal Hungary. He interrogated me after my first edit. I feel harassed from him, is it possible to stop it (to write to the admins)? I know about a lot of his disruptions and manipulations with the facts from his side. I see you had a edit wars with him... Is it possible that he can do here what he wants? He translates uncorectly Hungarian texts, he adds citations with non-scholar sources. Is it possible to do something with this? I have asked him and he did not answer. Thanx for help. (Iam able to write in Slovak) --CsabaBabba (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dakujem za odpoved... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CsabaBabba (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Hunyadi?

Could we please have some discussion of the tags, rather than just reverting? Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Anti-Hungarian sentiment

Maybe is this interesting for you [2]--Yopie (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Moravia =

Gyula Kristo's book is an unverifiable source? He was one of the biggest Hungarian historians! I think it was a joke you from youFakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

........... (uvidis) (you will see)

Takze zase si sa nadobro vratil a rozhodol si sa zaoberat otravovanim mna a (zrejme) aj inych madarskych editorov svojimi tendecioznymi upravami. Vidim, ze obcas "vypomahas" aj pri sporoch tykajucich sa Sedmohradska. Pri vyhadzovani zdrojov z mojho "doplnku" v clanku "Hungary-Slovakia relations" si si ale ukazal svoju pravu tvar a fakt, ze diskusia je ti ukradnuta, lebo aj tak robis vsetko po svojom. Mozem ta ale ukludnit, ze pozbieral som dalsie zdroje a ked bude treba, tak si ich najdem este viac a to aj z "jedinych madarskych novin, ktore sa pisu po slovensky". Je jasne citit z tvojich prispevkov a pristupu, ze objektivne (a pravdive) dejiny ta nejak nenadchnu a davas prednost mytom z dielni MS a obrovskej hromady dalsich nacionalistov. Musim ta ale sklamat, lebo tu argumenty typu "Slovaci tu boli skor", "Madari nas utlacovali 1000 rokov", "Su to celomadarske sovinisticke zdroje" sa tu (chvalabohu alebo bohuzial, je to vec pohladu, ze) neberu. Mozes teda povymazavat obsah clankov, kde sa detailne popisuje, co za svinstvo spravili Slovaci (ale aj Madari, o tom niet pochyb) v priebehu 20. storocia, ale dlho ti to nevydrzi. Mozes sa dohodnut s blokovanymi editormi o uzamknutie clankov, ale tvoja nadmerna ochota o skreslovanie faktov ta moze dostat aj na osud dotycneho rumunskeho editora. CoolKoon (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wladthemlat, nenechaj sa znechutit - Slovensko Ti fandi. Zurivy boj madarskych redaktorov proti Tebe pokracuje, CoolKoon je toho dokazom. Nech zije Slovensko, nech ziju Slovaci, nech zije slovanska vzajomnost. --195.28.75.114 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ze Slovensko.......skor Slovenska Narodna Sranda a spol. Ale to by som bol strasne zvedavy, ktoryze si editor zo SK WP. Alebo si rovno MarkBA? Vlastje je to aj uplne jedno, totiz slovanska vzajomnost je prosty mytus (kludne sa spytaj Poliakov, pokial mi neveris). No a len aby si bol v obraze: Madari nevedu ziaden zurivy boj proti Wladthemlatovi a ani inym. Jedine, o co sa snazia, je zlepsovanie kvality clankov na EN WP hlavne z oblasti spolocnych dejin Slovakov a Madarov. Jasne, tebe sa to tak nezda, ale kazdy dejepisar, ktory sa stretol s Wikipediou jej nadava prave preto, lebo clanky smrdia zaujatostou. No a slovenska wiki sa za encyklopediu povazovat ani neda. CoolKoon (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Je to mozne, ze tvojim cielom nie je presadzovanie slovenskych mytov, ale napriek tomu sa ocividne branis silou-mocou, aby do clanku neboli zahrnute casti, ktore su podla Slovakov dehonestujuce. A to som len na zaciatku dejin o Madaroch v CS v medzivojnovom obdobi. Kedze si mi povyberal vsetky zdroje, mam pochybnosti o tom, ci to neurobis aj vtedy, ked tam hodim nieco o slovenskych koloniach, alebo vymene obyvatelstva. Preto aj ta snaha ("posadnutost") dat tam co najviac zdrojov, lebo viem, ze v opacnom pripade by si to odtial okamzite dal prec.

Ja viem, ze Angyal nie je historik, ale to este neznamena, ze ta kniha je bezcenna. Cituje tam dostatocny pocet zdrojov a o teme pise velmi objektivne (tusim som tam cital aj o tom, ze madarska vlada potichucky podporovala autonomicke snahy Slovakov az do viedenskej arbitraze). K tvojej poznamke o Forum insitute naozaj nemam co dodat. Pokial si skutocne presvedceny o tom, ze knihy podporene Forum institutom su menejcenne/bezcenne za samotny fakt, ze Forum institut podporila ich vydanie, tak niet o com. Videl som, ze si si nasiel jeden nahradny zdroj, ale co ten zvysok? Zase mi tam povyhadzujes vsetky zdroje, ktore mam preto, lebo to neni "established vedecka ani vzdelavacia institucia"? Mimochodom vacsina tych knih vyslo aj s podporou madarskeho ministerstva kultury. Znamena to teda, ze madarska vlada podporuje len nevedecke knihy? Uz mi len povedz, ze knihy vo vydani MS su "ine" (=lepsie).

Tiez je velmi lahke povedat, co by v tom clanku nemal byt (napr. Slotove vypadky, o ktorych ale kazdy zadebneny hejslovak povie, ze "triafaju klinec po hlave", alebo Ficove coraz castejsie vypadky proti vsetkemu, co je madarske), ale co takto si tam nieco aj pridat? V poslednej dobe som bol azda jediny, kto do clanku "HU-SK relations" pridaval dalsi obsah. Nemadarski editori (hlavne Iaaasi a ty) nerobili nic ine, len mazali. Pokial mas ovela lepsie zdroje ako tie s podporou Forum institutu (a nie su to platky ako napr. beo.sk a extra plus), preco si tam o temach, ktore spominas, nic nepridal?

Dalej mi tvrdis, ze zhorsenie SK-HU vztahov nie su dosledkom len slovenskych nacionalistov. Ja to beriem, resp. by som to bral, keby sa zhorsenie vztahov bolo zacalo za prvej vlady Orbana. Jasne, vztah bol aj vtedy trosku napaty (kvoli tomu zakonu, co daval Madarom zo zahranicia znacne vyhody v Madarsku), ale ani zdaleka to nebolo take zle, ako po nastupe arogantnych komunistov v 2006. A to aj napriek tomu, ze v Madarsku vladla vtedy asi najmenej nacionalisticka garnitura, co mala daleko viac problemov doma, nez aby mal potrebu vytvorit si dalsiu v zahranici. Ale predalen musela reagovat na nehoraznosti ako obtazovanie madarskych turistov v Bratislave, "samozbitie" Malinovej a samozrejme vykazanie "Solamyla" zo Slovenska. Proste to boli veci, ktore sa NIKDE inde v civilizovanej Europe nerobia. A potom ten hranaty komunista sa vyblakoval, ze Madari su taki drzi a nevrazivi, ze si dovolia stazovat sa na SK v Bruseli, miesat sa do "vnutornych zalezitosti Slovenska" a robit mu naproti. A to som ani nespomenul jeho dalsie perlicky ako nahubok na tlac alebo bic na mensiny. Mimochodom nasiel som zdroj, kde sa popisuju jeho "finty" celkom detailne a to dokonca aj v anglictine, takze mozes si byt isty, ze postupom casu to hodim aj do clanku. A tie budu daleko relevantnejsie ako "styri kapitoly o sochah". Samozrejme netvrdim, ze madarski nacionalisti nie su, lenze ti sa doteraz vacsinou sustredili na Ciganov a dvojite obcianstvo. CoolKoon (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dobre, tak pozrime sa na to z ineho uhla. Povedzme, ze nejaky vyskumnik vyda vysledky svojho vyskumy s pomocou Forum institutu. Znamena to, ze vyskumnik (resp. jeho dielo) sa stalo tym nedoveryhodnym? Chces mi nahovorit, ze samotny fakt, ze vo vydani vedeckeho diela vyskumnikov sa zucastnil Forum institut, ich automaticky vylucuje zo zoznamu doveryhodnych zdrojov? A je mnoho vyskumnikov, ktori su naozaj renomovani a ich knihy vysli v zastite Forum institutu. Osobne poznam napr. Arpada Popelya, ktoreho vedie aj MTA ako uznavaneho vyskumnika. Alebo Attilu Simona, ktory je veducim katedry historie na Univerzite Janosa Selyeho v Komarne. Totiz povedat o podobnych odbornikoch, ze nie su odbornici len preto, lebo cast svojich diel vydali s pomocou Forum institutu si vyzaduje naozaj velku davku zaujatosti.

UPRAVA: Este ma napadlo, ze bol by som vdacny, keby si v pripade, ze nenajdes lepsie zdroje ako tie, ktore vydavali autori s pomocou Forum institutu, nemazal tie existujuce zdroje a nenahradzoval ich sablonami "citation needed".

Jasne ze zvazujem, co tam pridam. Ked uz pre nic ine, tak aspon preto, lebo vidim, ze si sa vratil a spravis vsetko preto, aby si ten clanok skratil. Lenze faktom je, ze tiez napriek svojmu nedostatku casu som to este stale ja, kto v poslednej dobe tam pridaval a nie vymazaval. Vymazavat je vzdy lahsie ako pridat kvalitny obsah podporeny zdrojmi. Ale ked uz tak strasne trvas na odstraneni tych "styroch paragrafov o sochach", preco aspon nenavrhnes nejaky podclanok/iny clanok, kam by sa vacsina tych veci o medzivojnovom obdobi mohla prelozit? Lebo ja si stale nemyslim, ze by sa to malo jednoducho len odstranit. CoolKoon (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation of the above conversation in Slovak, lots and lots of typos guaranteedm
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So it seems you have returned for good and decided to annoy me and (evidently) also other Hungarian editor with your tendentious edits. I see you are occasionally "helping" with disputes regarding Transylvania/ Removing my sources form HU-SK relations you have shown your true face and the fact that a discussion means nothing to you as you do everything after your whim anyway. I can calm you down and assure you that I have found other sources and I will find more if necessary, including ones from the only hungarian newspaper that is in Slovak. It is clear from your edits and approach that you don't enjoy objective and true history but rather prefer myths from Matica slovenska and a vast heap of other nationalists. I have to disappoint you, arguments like "Slavaks were here first", "Magyars have opressed us for 1000 years", "Those are chauvinist sources" don't fly here. S you can delete the content of articles describing what filth have slovaks (and Magyars, no doubt about it) have done in 20th century. You can collude with blocked editors in page protection efforts, but your keenness on distorting the facts can lead you on the path of that Romanian editor. (CoolKoon) Wladthemlat, don't let them put you off, Slovakia is supporting you. Furious fight of the hungarian editors against you continues. CoolKoon is an evidence of that. long live Slovakia, long live Slovaks, long live slavic reciprocity. (IP) Slovakia? more like slovak national party and co. But i'm windering which Slovak editor you are exactly. Mark BA himself? It doesn't matter, slavic reciproicty is a myth (feel freee to ask Poles if you don't trust me on that). Just so you know: Magyars don't fight against Wladthemlat or anybody else. The only thing they are trying to acheive is increased quality of the aricles on Enlglish wikipedia, mainly in the area of the common history of slovaks and hungarians. Sure, you don't perceive it as such, but any history teacher that has come across wikipedia is swearing at it because the articles are not impartial. Slovak wikipedia is not even an encyclopedia. (CoolKoon) It may be true that your goal is not to push Slovak myths, but you are fiercely pushing for the parts of the article offensive to Slovaks to be removed. And to think that I am just at the beginning of the history of Hungarians in Czechslovakia in the inter-war period. As you have delted al lmy sources, I have serious doubts that you won't repeat it again when I add somethin g about Slovak colonies or the population exchange. That's why i am "obsessed" about puting as much sources in as possible, otherwise you would delete it on spot. I know that Bela Angyal is not a historian, but that does not mean that the book is worthless. He cites sufficient amount of sources and writes about the topic objectively (i reckon i have read about Hungarian government silently supporting Slovak push for autonomy until the Vienna arbitration). I have nothing to add to your note about the Forum Institute. If you really think that books funded by Forum Institute are worthless/ less valid just because they were supported by forum institue, we have nothing to talk about. I saw you have found one alternatie source, but what about the rest? Will you again remove all the references because it is not an established educational or scientific institution? By the way, majority of those books was published with the support of the Hungarian ministry of culture. Does it mean that Hugarian government supports only unscientific books? Tell me which books from Matica slovanska are different or better. It's easy to say what should not be in the article (e.g. Slota's tirades, which are however praised by any slovak nationalist as hitting the nail on the head, or Fico's more and more frequent tirades against anything that is hungarian) but what about adding something as well? I have been the only one who has added something to the HU-SK relations in the recent past. Non-hungarian editors (mainly you and Iaasi) were only deleting. If you have better sources than those from Forum Institute (and if they are not worthless like beo.sk or Extra plus, why don't you add something on the topics you have mentioned? You also claim that that the deterioration of HU-SK relations is not only due to slovak nationalists. I agree, or I would agree if it started during first Orban overnment. Sure, the relations were strenuos then as well (because of the law granting foreign Hungarians substantial advatages in Hungary) but it was far from being as bad as after the arrogant communists took power in 2006. And that is despte the fact that Hungary had probably the least nationalistic government at the time. They had no choice but to react to bothering of Hungarian tourists in Bratislava, "self-beating" of Hedviga Malinova and refusal of entrance to Solyom. Those were things that happen NOWHERE in the civilised Europe. And then the cuboidal communist shouted that Hungarians are so insolent and hateful that they complain about Slovakia in Brussels, meddle into her internal affairs and generally act against her. And I have not mentioned other things like the media law or language law. By the way I have found another source tat describes his moves in detail, it's even in english, so rest assured I will ad it into the article. And it will be far more relevant than the four paragraphs about the statues. I of course don't say that there are no Hungarian nationalists, but they have been focusing on Gypsies and double-citizenship so far. (CoolKoon) Ok, let's look at it from a different point of view. Let's say that a researcher will release the results of their research in forum institue. Does it mean that the research and researcher are rendered untrustworthy? Are you trying to say that the sole fact of Forum instutue being involved in a publication of a scientific research makes it an unreliable sources by default? There's a lot of researchers that are renowned and their books have been published with the help of Forum institute. I know about Arpad Popely who is a respected researcher in MTA. Or Attila Simon who is a head of the history department on the unversity in Komarno. To say about these experts that they are in fact no experts just because they have published a portion of their work via forum institute is very biased. EDIT: It came to mi mind that I would be grateful if you would not delete the existing sources from forum institute and replace the with citation needed templates if you cannot find better ones Of course I think about what to add. If for no other reason then because I see you have returned and will do anything to make the article shorter. But the fact is that it is me who has been adding to the article not deleting from it, despite my lack of time. Deleting is always easier than adding quality content supprted by sources. If you are so insistent on deletion of the "four paragraphs on statues" why don't you suggest an arcitle or a subarticle the content could be moved to? Because I still don't think it should be plain removed. (CoolKoon)

Černová tragedy

Though I am not a native speaker, I am more than willing to assist in any Slovak-related article issues! I'm glad you asked me for help and never be afraid to ask my help in the future! Demokratickid (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Digwuren notice

In accordance with WP:DIGWUREN, I'm giving you the following notification. Essentially, it means that you should be aware that, if your conduct doesn't meet the standards of decorum expected of editors, you may face discretioanry sanctions, at the discretion of any administrator evaluating your conduct. You should be particualrly mindful to make a conscious effot to avoid getting into edit wars, such as the one at Győr, which is the reason for this notice. Note that I'm not making a judgement on who is right or wrong, but repeatedly reverting others' edits, especially with a script intended to combat vandalism, is not in keeping with the expected standards fo decorum. If you require clarification on anything in the notice, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

HU-SK relations.....

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

English translation

Hi, Wladthemat, can you provide an English translation to your text, when you are conversing in Slovak with others on Wikipedia, as it is suggested per WP:Talk? You should also avoid making similar edits to multiple articles without discussing them as this could lead to the same issue spilling over to multiple articles. Hobartimus (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IP editor. Zeby ty?

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Entwined....

Hello Wladthemlat,

It would be exceedingly good that if you stopped sauntering me around as you did here :[3]. It is because I do not "enjoy" your presence at all.--Nmate (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Nmate, can you please explain how you came to that page? You obviously tracked my edits. I do not consider your last edits wrong since improvement of grammar is constructive contribution, but is it a little strange that you edit same articles that I edited in last days? And I also do not see that contribution of user Wladthemlat in that article was wrong in any way. PANONIAN 08:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trolling

Would you be so kind as to stop trolling, Wladthemlat? The fact that I did not want to answer on your talk page, means that you should not have followed me there either. Second, I have no idea of what you mean by this [4]. As that is only a list ,which means nothing in itself, and there are a lot of edits there in top 100 that were no edit warring.--Nmate (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean you are editing almost exclusively Slovak- and Romanian-related articles, wondering why would you focus on this area other than wanting to be a first-class troll yourself. And next time - if you don't want me to answer, do not talk about me in the first place. Much obliged. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1st, Wondering about, or not, you have already usurped that position for a long time. 2nd, Of course I never want you to answer me as much as you are a cause of my Wiki-abhorrence, however, I did not tell you at this point to avoid giving any answers to concerns, which were adduced in relation to you. But you could have also answered that on your own talk page as well. And because the thread was started on your talk page, the accosted people may also be able to notice your thoughts on your talk page as well. 3rd I have planned to concoct an ArbCom report concerning you ,in which I could be the plaintiff. But because the proofs are not only affluent, but diversified ,too, it is not possible to make it in a jiffy. Nonetheless, an ostensible lull on my part, does not mean that I do not want to have you jettisoned from here. However, it causes me some quandary that I do not wish to devote any time to deal with your person, but it looks to me that I must perforce do certain steps because of the untenable circumstances.--Nmate (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, by all means, save your oh so valuable time and do not comment on me or interact with me in any way, both our lives will be much more pleasant. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You are on thin ice here Wladthemlat by repeatedly going against the established guideline. You have already received an Arbcom warning as I see, It would be best if you would drop the issue simply without various forms of dispute resolution being necessary. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to the guideline you think I am going against? Wladthemlat (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian names for places before 1867

As I am currently doing edits on several articles and plan on to add to the count, here is explanation for my actions on Kingdom of Hungary related articles (switching Hungarian alternative names to modern ones). Feel free to engage in a discussion if you disagree.

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [5], using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names.Wladthemlat (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Following many other examples (using that particular official language for that specific time), I would support this motion IF Latin names can`t be found. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the input. I agree and share your view, but the use of modern names seems to be more acceptable. The thing is, that medieval latin names are generally extremely hard to find except for a few larger cities. But the importance of cities has changed drastically over the time, thus places that are referred to often in historical context have only very scarce info available on them. Consequently, we would then introduce a double naming convention which I think would be confusing (part of the names in Latin, the rest modern ones). And as many records prove, the names have changed frequently over the time (see e.g. [6]) thus it is a monumental task to search for the appropriate name for every single historical period. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we should follow wiki guild-lines since this can be a really sensitive subject. This can be seen (in this case, by some Hungarian editors), as an "anti-Hungarian" campaign. I was called "anti-Hungarian" just for removing Hungarian name-places where they don`t belong (even by any kind of logic or wiki rule). If I could decide, everywhere in the world, we should use modern names in texts no matter what time period we are talking about. Like this, reading about one city under totally different name that isn`t being used is really confusing. I don`t think there is any possibility for this idea (without raging edit wars and etc.. :) ) to work, except to make a special rule for this period. Something like here [7]. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting discussion. Generally, usage of Hungarian names for medieval time period is acceptable (no matter that even then official language was Latin, but medieval Kingdom of Hungary was more-less an "Hungarian" state). However, there is no any valid basis for usage of Hungarian names for time periods of Ottoman and Habsburg administration (in this time, neither Hungarian language was official, neither state administration was "Hungarian"). For these time periods usage of German and Ottoman Turkish names should be practiced instead. As for the question whether Hungarian, Latin or modern names should be used for medieval time period, that would depend of situation, location of the settlement, local ethnic population, etc. I am not sure that we can have an general rule for this. There is also problem that historical Hungarian names were often different from modern ones. Perhaps best choice would be (neutral) Latin names, but I am also not against usage of historical Hungarian or modern "English" names. PANONIAN 13:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "medieval Kingdom of Hungary was more-less an "Hungarian" state" - the whole point of having Latin as the official language was that there was no single prevalent language, see the source. The place names were used in vast variety of languages and Hungarian ones are just one of the options with no special status. On the other hand, to use different names for Ottoman period and then for Habsburg period if they are not widely used in English would be confusing. If there is no documented prevalent English RS use, we should go with modern ones. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that various languages were spoken in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and that is why I said that Latin names would be the best choice. By term "Hungarian state" I did not meant "ethnic Hungarian", but rather "ruled by Hungarian elite". Anyway, I saw that various English sources (for example history maps) are using historical German names for places in the Habsburg Monarchy or historical Turkish names for places in the Ottoman Empire. Of course, that is not an rule because various names are used by various sources. For example this English language map is using German names even for medieval Kingdom of Hungary. I am just saying that German and Turkish names are better choice for usage instead Hungarian names at least if we speak about time periods of Ottoman and Habsburg administration. I am not saying that German and Turkish names should be used everywhere instead modern ones, but at least in article names of historical provinces, such are Banat of Temeswar of Sanjak of Segedin these names are best possible choice. However, if we speak about history section of article about Košice (for example) then better solution would be that modern name is used in that whole article (but with mentioning of former historical names as well). Different situations would require different approach. Well, I have several books written by Serbian geographer Slobodan Ćurčić where he wrote histories of settlements in Vojvodina and where he always used modern names for these settlements. The problem is that many of these settlements had different Serbian names in the past (for example, Zrenjanin was known as Veliki Bečkerek). So, while usage of modern names would have justification in some sources, I believe that usage of name Zrenjanin instead Veliki Bečkerek would be bad if we speak about older history of the town (so I would somewhere rather mention together historical non-Serbian official and historical Serbian name instead just modern Serbian one). Similar problem would be some Slovak names - for example, should we use current Slovak name for Bratislava, or historical one (Prešporok) if we speak about older history of the town? PANONIAN 14:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bratislava or Banats are clear cases, English use is absolutely clear, we should follow that. The purpose of those names is to denote location, this purpose is served the best with modern names where English use is not as clear. There is no single historical name that should be given preference in articles pre 1867(1844, depends) as there were multiple (Latin, German, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, etc. etc.) names used and there is simply no justification for preferring Hungarian en-bloc. In articles post 1867 it is clear that the offical language was indeed Hungarian and Hungarian should be used. But until that date all names other than Latin are equivalent. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Hungary

I would appreciate your opinion about this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demographics_of_Hungary#POV_presentation_of_early_demographics PANONIAN 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Nazdar, poslal som ti mail tak si cekni emailovu schranku. Dakujem --Bizovne (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus

Hello Wladthemlat, good afternoon. There is a small issue that you and I have to resolve on this article where you seen to think you monopolize the article. You are oblivious to late Medieval central European history and have not read the article in its entirety. This was the second occasion where you reverted my edits on totally factual material that are based upon the material presented in the article itself. If you actually took the time to read the article you'll realize that my addition is completely factual and objective. It is an encyclopedic analysis of Corvinus' career grounded on real facts. I'm inclined and tempted to bring in outside arbiters to resolve this dispute, and I will no doubt refer my case to Wikipedia administration is you don't cease monopolizing this article, it is meant to be a collaborative effort. Thank you for your attention. ~

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You were mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors --Samofi (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bratislava

Ahoj, pozri prosim aktualnu diskusnu stranku clanku Bratislava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.47.189 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Slovakian help needed

Hello Wladthemlat, I'm contacting you because we need some Slovakian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sk.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Slovakian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR on Kingdom of Hungary

I also reported you. [8] --Norden1990 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wladthemlat (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I did not block you, I warn you that your edit-warring is not ok. If I see you edit-warring again I will block you regardless of whether you break 3rr. --John (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)