User talk:Fz22

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fz22! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 09:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Hello Fz22! When leaving messages on Talk pages, could you sign your name with ~~~~ at the end of your comments? It makes following discussions a lot easier. For more information, see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you! Olessi 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I think your edits are POV. Can you discuss first on the talk page before you push your POV fork? -- Bonaparte talk 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you answered my question or you just wants to ignore it? -- Bonaparte talk 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question? --fz22 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this one Fz22: Can you discuss first on the talk page before you push your POV fork? -- Bonaparte talk 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it is POV? You? Drawn ;)--fz22 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trans pop.jpg

In case you didn't notice, Image:Trans pop.jpg is in danger of being deleted for lack of clarity where you got it from. Figured you'd want to know. Please use an appropriate image copyright tag, or this will certainly be deleted. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Azért írok neked, és még két-három magyar wikipédiásnak, mert szeretnék vmi szervezkedést elindítani a magyar történelemmel illetve a határon túli magyarsággal kapcsolatos oldalak ügyében. Úgy látszik, apró eredmények eléréséért is nagy harcokat kell vívni a szomszédainkkal, akik rendszerint sokkal jobban szervezettek, felkészültebbek és öntudatosabbak nálunk, így a történelmünket érintő cikkek vagy gyatra minőségűek vagy elfogultak vagy egyszerűen elhallgatják a nekünk kedvező tényeket. Kicsit fáradt vagyok már az állandó magányos csatározástól (bár a legérzékenyebb témákat eddig elkerültem) és jól jönne néha a segítség. A wikipedia azon az elven működik, hogy a sok-sok szerző egymást állandóan javítva, korrigálva, egymással vitatkozva jobbítja a cikkeket. Úgy tűnik, mi túl kevesen vagyunk ahhoz, hogy ez természetes módon, tudatos szervezkedés nélkül működjön. Ha van vmi ötleted vagy csak néha benéznél egy-egy felforrósodó topikba, előre is köszi! Üdv. Zello 03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps. ez egy általános üzenet, mi persze már sokszor találkoztunk! Lécci iratkozz fel erre a listára is: Category:Wikipedians in Hungary! Üdv. Zello 03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, megtortent ... Ne vedd tul komolyan az egeszet ... igaz rohejes, ha tortenelmi tenyeken vitatkozunk, mondvan, hogy nem semleges, csak azert mert valaki ezt kijelenti ... Nekunk(nekem), nem kell, hogy kedvezo legyen barmi is ... csak tortenelmileg megalapozott ... Fokent angol tudasom fejlesztese (rafer ;)) es a magyar tortenelem iranti szeretetem vezerel--fz22 07:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page-emen éppen arról beszélgetünk a többiekkel, külön levlista legyen-e vagy használjuk a magyar wikipédiát. Ha megvan a döntés, feltétlenül iratkozz fel! üdv. Zello 19:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar wiki. Ha nem vagy feliratkozva, küldj egy levelet a user page-emen lévő címre és átküldöm a meghívót! üdv! Zello 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bias?

I suggest you to start collaboration otherwise someone will start soon an RfC against you. What is all this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely&diff=prev&oldid=33755957 ? Bonaparte talk 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come and see for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sz%C3%A9kely)--fz22 08:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution

szép térkép, gratula --KIDB 07:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nem. propagandista térkép. Bonaparte talk 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFF. Es mit propagal? ON

Maps

Hello, Fz22! Thank you for your work on maps such as Image:Szeklers-in-hungary.PNG, Image:East-hungary13th.PNG, and Image:East-hungary16th.PNG. Do you think you could enlarge them a little bit? The small text on them is difficult for me to read. Also, they don't have all the same copyright info, which you might want to update. Do you think you could make a map for Partium? Olessi 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval Székely society

Could you please have a look at the new paragraph I wrote in hu:Székelyföld. If there are no objections I will translate it into English, too. --KIDB 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talán egy magyarázatot még betehetnél a temetkezési térképre, hogy a kék kockák mit jelentenek.--KIDB 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

érdekes hír a lovas temetkezéssel kapcs. http://www.mult-kor.hu/cikk.php?article=12757 --KIDB 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005-ben hallottam rola, es olvastam is par romaniai cikket, meg hogy nem volt penz az asatasokra (hol van ilyenkor Mo???). Ha ertesz romanul: http://new.revistapresei.ro/pp_articol_4692-Daci-si-maghiari-in-acelasi-mormant.htm --fz22 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hungarian_horseburial_nearCluj10c.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hungarian_horseburial_nearCluj10c.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Hello,

I've cleaned up and reduced the section history on the Transylvania article, and I intend to reduce it even further and I'll try starting newer sections about more important things such as places to see, and culture (which are almost inexistent). Until then, I would be grateful if you will take a look at the history section and give me some feedback on how to condensate it even further, or if there are some crucial events I forgot. For now, I'll try and search for the distroyed Culture section.

Thanks Mihai -^talk 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've resonded on the Transylvania talk page. Mihai -^talk 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 12.154.100.15, please do not feel the trolls. ;-) Also, thanks for making the map for Partium! Olessi 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oradea nicknames

Szerbus Fz22. I see that you've reverted my removal of the nicknames for Oradea. Do you have any sources for these? I live in Oradea, and I've never heard any of these names being used, particularly ones like "Hungarian Santiago de Compostela" (for one, Oradea isn't even in Hungary!). "Athens on the Körös", if anything, should be "Athens on the Criş", but even that name I have never heard. I also don't see a particular reasoning behind the "city of tomorrow" and "felix civitas". Additionally, the city has no official motto. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your reply. I think that if the nicknames you talk about are historical, then they should perhaps be included in the history section. Placing them in the introduction makes it seem as if they are commonly used, contemporary nicknames. For example, if would be OK to mention that during Oradea's history, when it was under Hungarian control, it was known as the Hungarian Compostela, as Hungarians would make a pilgrimage there, etc. For the others, it would be good to have a source just so that they are verifiable. But, in any case, in order to avoid ambiguity, it would be good to explain the origin and use of the nicknames rather than just listing them (for example, we could have a Culture section that explains the city's multicultural heritage and how it significant for both Romanians, Hungarians, etc, alike). Thanks,

Ronline ✉ 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately the official Romanian policy in the last century was to deny everything which is Hungarian" Hmmm, I really don't think that's an accurate representation of the situation, particularly at the current moment (I believe that while initiatives like Szekler autonomy need more support, minority rights in Romania are quite advanced. If it is was all about denial, why do we have things like bilingual signs, Hungarian-language education, judicial representation, etc). But anyway, the point is that there will always be cultural differences between Romanians and Hungarians, and therefore each of the two ethnicities will use different vocabularies, references, nicknames, etc. I don't think this has anything to do with any official policy. In any case, I don't know the Hungarian language (outside of a few words), so I wouldn't know if they are used in the Hungarian community. But even if they are, that should be mentioned. Just saying that "these are nicknames for Oradea" is a biased interpretation, when they are really only used by 27% or so of the population. A much better way to do this would be to write in a relevant section (i.e. Culture section) about how Hungarians in Oradea refer to the city using these nicknames, and then perhaps explain the nicknames and how they came about.

Ronline ✉ 11:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the part on Romanianization is very true. Indeed, the Hungarian population has been declining throughout Oradea, and the Communist regime worked very hard to launch the notion of "this city has always been purely Romanian and all other inhabitants are invaders" (of course, in theory, some minority rights still existed). Then again, there was also Magyarization during the Hungarian rule. The point is that it worked both ways, and it was very unfortunate. Hopefully we can now work together in a city that values both nationalities (and the other ethnicities, such as the Roma) equally.

Ronline ✉ 12:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

In case you are interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania --KIDB 10:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for some sources

Szia! Would you be able to help me provide sources for these claims and this? I found one for the 1910 Census, but the others need to have reliable references. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's just that this sentence was recently deleted, and I know that you were the one who added it. Do you have any sources to back up the claim? —Khoikhoi 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thanks for the explanation. :) Adios. —Khoikhoi 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk?

Did you wrote something on this image talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Szekely03.png My watchlist show that you wrote something on this image talk page, but the talk page there is empty. If you wrote something, can you repeat it because there is nothing on the talk page. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 08:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Please take a look at what User:Criztu has begun doing in the article Transylvania. This man has called for mediation, has opened ten debates on the same topic in various places, has been proven wrong every single time, and now he just adds the same views without even caring. Please give your input on the article's talk page about whether this is or isn't trolling/vandalism. Dahn 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Ardeal/Erdély

Hi Fz22, you added the following text: "Ardó/Erdő "forest"; cf. Végardó" to my earlier statement "The Romanian form Ardeal was probably derived from an old Hungarian form". Do you have a source for this information? I'll check my Hungarian etymological dictionary tonight, but I'd be surprised if ardó is another form of erdő (deriving from ered). Also the entry in the Hungarian Wikipedia for Beregardó (Beregszász-Végardó) states: "1332-ben Ordow néven említik először". Scott Moore 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Segitség Fz22nek

Megprobálok segíteni neked a "nézeteltéréseddel" user:Panoniannal. Ha továbbra is segitségre szorulsz, nyugottan irjál nekem a vitalapomra. Bihariak, tartsunk össze!! Öcsi 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

By the way Öcsi, there are some strange things here. For example your contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=%C3%96csi Your last Wikipedia edit was in 10 October and now you came exactly here after 3 days in which you did not edited and the only article that you edited is this one. Furthermore, this edit that you made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&diff=80585187&oldid=80407773 You claim there that you "come from Bihar" and if you check User:Fz22 userpage, you can see that he is "Wikipedian from Oradea" (and Oradea is part of Bihar). So, do we have here a strange coincidence that two Wikipedians from Bihar have special interest for this article or I should ask for sockpuppetry check? Some people believe in strange coincidences, but not me. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ez tényleg azt hiszi, hogy te én vagy. Hát ez már paranoia... Öcsi 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Demographic history of Vojvodina

Please make editorial comments on the Talk Page of articles, not on the article page itself. --Richard 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the "pig-headed Pannonian", good or bad. It is not my intent to use a "double standard". I saw your edit via "Recent changes". Whatever dispute you may have with "the pig-headed Pannonian", please restrict it to the Talk Page and keep it off the article page. If I had seen a similar edit from him on the article page, I would have left him a similar message. --Richard 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox ajánló

This user supports Bihar county and the reunification of Bihar and Bihor

Ha tetszik, nyugodtan felhasználhatod. Öcsi 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Láttad már? (Bocs, de nem válaszoltál)

Mindig van egy elsö alkalom. Bár én inkább egy olyan autonóm egyesült eurorégióra gondolok, Nagyváraddal mint központ. Mivel a régi Bihar megye olyan volt mint egy müködö kis ország. Ezt visszakellene állitani, és egy gazdaságilag nagyon erös régiónk lenne. Domborzatátol függve is megvolt minden: Alföld, dombok, hegyek --> részben jó termötalaj a síkságon, "ércgazdag" hegyek. És még aránylag etnikai béke is volt (a már régebben ottlakó Románokkal mindenesetre nem volt baj). És ha ez sikerülne, akkor végre (reményem szerint) elkezdödne egy folyamat, ami magyarokat és románokat közelebb hozza. --Öcsi 14:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

There is a discussion at Talk:World record progression for the Men's 10,000 m about whether Hannes Kolehmainen actually had a ratified world record at this distance, since it appears that Jean Bouin had run a better time at an earlier date. There is a web reference that appears to offer an explanation, but it's in Hungarian. Could you please take a look here (look for "Kolehmainen" and "Bouin") and leave a note at the talk page I mentioned above about what it basically says? Shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. Thank you! GregorB 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partium

Hi Fz22, I would like to ask you a few questions about article Partium. I just want to understand:

Is the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom ruled by John I of Hungary the same thing as the Principality of Transylavania or not? In the article John I of Hungary it is written that in 1538 (so 12 years after the battle of Mohács), Ferdinand of Habsburg, his political rival was designated as Zápolya's successor by the treaty of Nagyvarad, after John I's death, which if I understand right occured in 1540. At first thought that seems to tell that till 1540 one should speak of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, and after that as Principality of Transylavania. But, then, it is also written there that his son John II Sigismund Zápolya succeeded him "as Hungarian King and Ottoman vassal". So, is the name autonomuous Principality of Transylvania incorrect, and one should use rather Eastern Hungarian Kingdom for 1526-1699? Or was it that between 1526 and 1571 both Zápolya and Habsburgs pretended to be kings, and after 1571 only Habsburgs, with Zápolya receiving only Partium?
In which part was Partium in 1526-1571, in Zápolya's part or in Habsburg's part? I guess in Habsburgs' , but I want to be sure I am not mistaken.
You say Parts of the Royal Hungary were entrusted to Prince John II Sigismund of Transylvania, until the extinction of the Zápolya-house. What are these parts? Partium? Transylvania, inlcuding Partium? Partium and somthing to the west of it? Somthing else altogether? I mean after 1571, because your answer to previous question would explain what was before 1571.
You say Both Transylvania and Partium remained integrant members of the Kingdom of Hungary. Which "Kingdom of Hungary" do you refer to, the one dominated by Habsburgs, or Transylavania (the autonomuous one)? I can understand that you don't mean the one before 1526 and the one after 1867, and I can understand if you will say that there is continuity between these. I want first to understand (for me) the parts, which part belong to whom, and then the "continuity issue" will be obvious.
Is it true what I wrote that today the Hungarian part corresponds to the Hajdú-Bihar county, and small parts of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Békés counties of Hungary ? I simply looked at the maps, but I would rather prefer to have someone confirm this.

Thank you.:Dc76 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are right, Satu Mare is not part of the Maramures historical region. The confusion's origin is very simple: when regions were introduced in Romania in 1952, what today are Maramures and Satu Mare counties formed together Baia Mare region. Then in 1960 the name of the region was changed to Maramures region (I think not the other way around, but to be sure we'd need to double check), until 1968, when counties were reintroduced, with borders sometimes close, but sometimes quite different than before 1952. After 1989, politicians wanted to speak of Dobrogea, Moldova, Muntenia, Oltenia, Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures, and that to mean specific counties according to the existing county boundaries. Now, obviously there would be some present-day boundaries of counties that would not correspond to the historical ones. Moreover, in saying Crisana and Maramures, they had to say "3+1" counties or "2+2". It was easier for many to simply "remember" the map before 1968, than to think back in history. But as you can see, this dies out, almost noone any longer uses that. Now it's back to historical regions which don't have to correspond to modern boundaries, or to development regions (which are exactly the statistical regions that the statisticians always used, without the rest to even know or care about it). Me and User:Biruitorul, plus a few others are trying to make a template for Maramures, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, plus a few other thing, and edit some of those article. One of the first things we decided is to drop the 2+2 as no longer valid. If you are interested, feel free to join here (we are still in very initial stages):Dc76 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your answers to the Partium article. I have modified the article a little according to what I've learned from you. By all means, feel free to correct more where needed. I removed the NPOV, since I don't see any NPOV issues there. If someone has more issues, noone forbods him/her to bring them up latter. I placed a request for links tag, because we must work to have links after the key phrases in the article, just so that an outside reader can see that the article has quality. Again, thank you.:Dc76 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

You cannot upload new version? Did you tried to upload it under new name? That will help, but you will have to replace old map with new one in the articles where old map is posted. PANONIAN (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom AfD

I have no opinion on the subject - just a procedural memo... The confusion here is that Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was never an article per se, but was a simply a redirect. Redirect deletion is not handled at Afd, there is a specific forum for those, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - parties involved are asked to bring up the discussion there. It didn't look like a bad faith edit, just a confusion on where this should have been handled. SkierRMH 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I reverted this map to previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarian_migration.png If you want to post your map on Wikipedia, please post it under different name. If you did not noticed, my version of this map show Yugra and therefore is posted in the Yugra article, while your version does not show Yugra, but was still posted into Yugra article, which is ridiculous. Besides this, I based my map on Hungarian sources, so why you have problem with it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Europe998new.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Europe998new.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hi Fz22! Just to let you know that some time ago I asked you for some reference for the internal migration within Romania, as I found some contradictory figures and I'd like to clarify the situation if possible. Please answer here. Alexrap 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Újjabb bajkeverö

Olvasd el az alatta levö hozzászolásomat - csak azért, hogy informálva legyél_ [1] --Öcsi 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beszélj angolul

I noticed that you have posted comments on an article or user discussion page in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you are addressing your comments. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —Psychonaut 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Fz22, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, K issL 09:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo... You wanna go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania (second nomination), not the first AfD. Grand master ka 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

Can you have a look at my last edit in Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Effect_of_the_Naming_Convention_on_Hungarian_settelements_in_neighbouring_countries --KIDB 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komám, a dél-tiroliak megcsinálták. - It was sucessful in the South Tyrol articles. --KIDB 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at the Székelyudvarhely article. --KIDB 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move Odorheiu Secuiesc to Székelyudvarhely

In case you are interested, there is a proposal to move the Odorheiu Secuiesc page to its native name Székelyudvarhely, similarly to Swedish settlements in Finnland, or German settlements in South Tyrol. For more, see the talk page of the article. Please remember that this is not simply a vote; your comments must include reasons to carry weight. Many Romanian users have already expressed their opinion there --KIDB 06:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

false report about magyarabs in Congo deleted

Okay, I guess you're right. It was a fake news. I read it here. Why did they made it up? Also, are you Transylvanian Saxon? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Csonthegy

Do you have another name for this battle? I googled the name and found no results. A short stub, even if it only consisted of a couple of lines, would be sufficient. I don't think I've heard of that battle. If you can, you could write a stub on it. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you reply to my message? Do you have a problem with me or what? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for replying. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Transylvania16cent adm div.PNG

I had a look at this image and I have a question: What does the grey spot mean in the Tusnád area?
Also, do you have a more detailed map, showing the different Székely Seats? --KIDB 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a new map from this and placed it into the Aranyosszék article. --KIDB 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the actual border of Romania is represented in the map. Please explain. Romania is a country which did not exist in the 13th or 16th century. The two maps concerned are: -Diocese of Transylvania in the 13th century -Administrative division of Transylvania in the 16th century --Zmiklos 21:44, 15 June 2007

History of Vojvodina

I reverted your edits in this article because of two things:

1. King of Hungary was not local ruler of Vojvodina and this article is related only to things that are directly connected to Vojvodina. Following your logic we can post pictures of all Ottoman sultans and Habsburg emperors in that article, but that would be totally ridiculous. Contrary to this, Stefan Dragutin was a king of Srem and Srem is one of 3 historical parts of Vojvodina.
2. It is POV if you post your ethnic map and if not post other maps that show that area was inhabited by Slavs before that (and article does not have this other map, does it?). PANONIAN 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

830

Hi Fz22, your recently uploaded map Carpathianbasin 830.png is beautiful, but I wonder what sources you used because I found a couple of inaccuracies there. Great Moravia was founded in 833. In 830, its territory was still divided into two independent principalities (Moravia and Nitra). The south-eastern frontier of the Principality of Nitra was not at the Hron river, but at the Ipel. The principality also included Orava, Liptov, and Spiš. By the way, the map looks really professional. If you have time, could you tell me please what tools you use to create maps with semi-transparent colors? I have played with Photoshop, but the resulting maps were quite pathetic. Tankred 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your advice. But would you mind elaborating more on the sources of your map? As far as I know, exclusion of the eastern bank of Hron and of the Turiec, Orava, Liptov, and Spiš regions from the Principality of Nitra (before 833) and from Great Moravia (after 833) contradicts the archaeological evidence. For instance, the destruction of Spisske Tomasovce, the foundation of Smizany (both in Spis), and the destruction of Ostra skala in Orava are connected to the violent unification of Moravia and Nitra in 833. Perhaps you have used some older literature? Tankred 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are willing to address the issues raised in my previous post (see above). Also, the actual version of the map shows a redish entity called "Moravia". Either you call it Great Moravia (it is now possible after you changed the title of the map from "in 830" to "in the 9th century") or you divide it into two territories, Moravia and Nitra. But what is more disturbing is exclusion of the north-western regions from the redish state (whatever it is), as I mention above. I would appreciate if you could either correct your map or list your sources. I guess the problem might be explained by the use of older books, not reflecting the archaeological findings of the last 30-40 years. Cheers. Tankred 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I guess this is just one of many discrepancies between the Slovak and Hungarian historiography. I would be happy to provide sources for the data I mentioned here, but all those books are published in Slovak:-( However, they were written by archaeologists with international reputation. What the mainstream Slovak historiography says about the territory of Great Moravia is summarized in this map. Although interpretation of the findings can be disputed, the existence of the findings themselves is not. So, we there is a great amount of evidence showing that the northern regions were inhabited by the Slavs. The evidence indicating those regions belonged to Great Moravia is indirect (construction/destruction of settlements, cultural change). We can relatively safely identify the approximate borders of Great Moravia under Svatopluk I (871-894) using Frankish chronicles. As to the term "Great Moravia", you are right, it sounds quite cheesy to me too, but it is how the state appears in English sources. Anyway, I greatly appreciate your offer to include the data from the Slovak sources along with the data from the Hungarian sources. If you need any more information, feel free to drop me a line. Tankred 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have already added your new map to Hungary before the Magyars. I hope you do not mind. Tankred 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fz

Please stop your vandalism. Your map is false, see for yourself: http://curug.rastko.net/karte/img/5_varvari_vizantija.jpg Slavs were majority in this area in the 6th century, not Avars. Your map is false and must be deleted from Wikipedia. PANONIAN 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathianbasin late avar.png

I do not know the situation south of the Danube very well, but at least the yellow area of the map north of the Danube definitely includes some mixed population. Mixed Slavic-Avar graveyards or Slavic graveyards neighboring their Avar counterparts have been found in Gbely, Zahorska Bystrica, Devinska Nova Ves, Bernolakovo, Bratislava (Vajnory), Besenovo (near Nove Zamky), Bajc-Vlkanovo (near Nove Zamky), Dvory nad Zitavou, Vycapy-Opatovce (near Nitra), etc. Although Devinska Nova Ves (incorrectly called "Devinska Nova" on your map) is marked as an "Avar regional center", its graveyard was mixed and the settlement itself was a Slavic agricultural village. The mixed character should be somehow taken into account. If you do not like PANONIAN's solution (the yellow color indicating Avar and Slavic population), could you highlight those areas with a mixed population by other means? Tankred 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about false map

If you want to see something interesting you must to look article Borders before and after Yugoslavia, PANONIAN map of Serbia in 1918 and our discussion about this map. Discussion is on discussion page of article for which I have given you link. In last week I am fighting with PANONIAN that this fantasy map in which even Pecs and Timisoara are Serbian territory be deleted on wiki. ---Rjecina 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bácska

Szia!

Segítenél, kérlek, egy NPOV vitában a következő szócikknél?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%C4%8Dka

Köszi!

Csaba

Fcsaba 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum = királyság

Szia!

Nem hiszem hogy a "folytonossági vitához" tartozna a helyes fordítás kérdése. Egyszerűen csak szótárt igényel és kis nyelvtudást feltételez. Ezek híján viszont nem érdemes vitázni.

--peyerk 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (hu:user:Peyerk)[reply]

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the Red Map

Would you also give the source for the Red Map? And also please give an exact description of each color. Squash Racket (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your maps

Keep up the good work, we need a lot more historical maps and your map's are already an improvement to what we had before and have a lot of potential to become even better. Can you tell me what type of program you used and how hard it is to master it to the level where you can make minor changes to existing maps? :) Hobartimus (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx I will try my luck with this. If you send me an email on wiki I'll be able to show you the result, I have email enabled. If you don't care at all that's fine too, in that case just don't reply to this and I'll understand. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I, too, like your maps. I am really interested in Balkan history and want to dabble at making a few maps. I was wandering that , if u don;t mind, sharing with me where you get the templates you use for constructing maps, and what program you use to draw details on top? Hxseek (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i got Paint. NET. Do you know where I can get some help points on how to edit and build upon map templates on it (i have never used it, and i am quite a beginner) Hxseek (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian-Slovak disputes

Hi, I notice that you occasionally edit in these topic areas. We have recently put together a discussion page to try and address some disputed sections of articles, and I would like to invite you to participate, as the more opinions, the better. :) If you are interested, set your watchlist on User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and feel free to participate in any of the discussions there. :) --El on ka 11:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avars

Please check the Eurasian Avars article. I made some more edits. I think it is quite a good quality article now. I hope you agree.

By the way, where do you get the blank map templates you use for the Carpathian basin maps you draw ? ? Hxseek (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rezistenta

I just noticed the recent edits on Romania in the Middle Ages and your post on the talk page, and I thought it only fair to warn you.

Rezistenta is a far-right-winger from Romania who advocates an (needless to say, imaginary) conspiracy theory that the Hungarian and Romani minorities of Romania are trying to take over the government (of Romania). His anti-Hungarian bias may explain his edits on that article.

He never listens to anyone's arguments as long as he disagrees with their points. He also has a history of threatening users who revert him via Wikimail, as long as the user in question sufficiently annoys him. I know we don't know each other at all, but I don't want you to suffer because of him, too. So, please, please be careful when dealing with this guy. --Kuaichik (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian-Hungarian Wars

Greeting! I saw the maps you made in your user page and I would like to ask you if you can expand the section for the Hungarian conquest in the Bulgarian-Hungarian Wars (called 10th century conflicts there, you can rename it if you think that Hungarian conquest is more appropriate), of course if you are interested and have time. In Bulgaria that period is often overlooked and in some books (including those I have) the information is scarce. --Gligan (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please open new sections at the bottom of the talk page. Cheers, Squash Racket (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Bthlen seal

Hello, You uploaded the file Image:Bethlen seal.jpg, don't You know what is written there? If yes, pleas write it (the best choice: under the file or here in discussio). Thaks before --marv1N (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel elected king of Hungary Croatia Dalmatia Sclavonia, Prince of Transylvania XXXXX. something like this ... --fz22 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]