User talk:PZJTF

Welcome!

Hello, PZJTF! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Squash Racket (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Fokos

Why did you upload this content in Hungarian? This is the English Wikipedia. --Cbdorsett (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava

Please stop adding the Hungarian name for Bratislava to the article. Historically, it was better known in English under its German name, that's why it's given as the alternative name. Pozsony is less common in English, and is already mentioned in the "Names" section. Remember this is English wikipedia. The complete composition of the population in 1910 is too much detail for the main article, it is already treated in the Demographics of Bratislava article. BTW the 1910 census was not by ethnic origin, but by native language. Markussep ^Talk 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the 1910 demographics sentence, I rephrased it. Most of the information is still there, the details are in the Demographics of Bratislava article. Markussep ^Talk 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop adding this line about the etymology of Pozsony? I already reverted it once, because the etymology of Pozsony is not certain (Poson or Božaň), and already treated in the History of Bratislava article. Markussep ^Talk 09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of removing the former Slovak name Prešporok, so I reverted it. I told you before that the etymology of Pozsony is not certain, and not to be treated in the main article. The etymology of Bratislava and Pressburg aren't discussed here either. (Hungarian) Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Markussep ^Talk 09:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

You may want to look at Help:Image.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board

I thought you may be interested in this friendly corner of our project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please start to read WP:V and WP:CITE. If he had Polish (or Slovak) origin, please give references for that. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it English here:) Always add reliable references for your changes and they will remain in the article.

See WP:CITET, these are helpful. You can use these inserted into <ref> </ref> tags. Squash Racket (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And: slow down a bit. A lot of arguments and counterarguments were already made at WP:HU-SK. Cheers and good editing. Squash Racket (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always sign your comments with the ~~~~ you can find at "Sign your username". Squash Racket (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. You keep inserting assumptions and opinions as facts without any references and even removed some sourced information. Also note that Wikipedia obviously cannot be used as a source.--Svetovid (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Svetovid (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Huns. You can't just add that Attila the Hun was Árpád's great-great grandfather without any sources. Please read WP:V. Khoikhoi 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the source from Magyar Nemzetismeret, but I'm not so sure if it passes WP:RS. I'm looking for scholarly sources, perhaps by a well-known historian. Your source is an essay by Gyula Illyés, who although was a very good poet and novelist, was certainly not a scholar. Also, you need to make sure your sources represent the majority opinion of academics (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Thanks. Khoikhoi 06:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of Hunmagyar.org as well, and I don't think it passes WP:RS either. Please read Stacey's comment below. Khoikhoi 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokaji

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Tokaji. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This article clearly also deals with the small Slovak region. Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad

Hi, Short of DNA evidence, there is no reliable source you could cite to back up the claim that Arpad is a direct descendant of Attila. Please see Gy. Gyorffy's Kronikaink es a magyar ostortenet (Budapest: Neptudomanyi Intezet, 1948; reprint Budapest: Balassi, 1993), pages 126-146. Hun-Magyar identity was invented in the Christian West in the 10th century. Did you know that the royal court of Bela IV rejected the idea of being descended from Attila? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop revert warring and pushing information from unreliable sources. Editors who engage in tendentious editing to push an ideological agenda regarding their nation or ethnic group are not welcome in this project, and you may be blocked if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you didn't react to my warning but continued your disruptive behavious, I've given you a short warning block of 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-Hungarian Wars

Szervusz! Látom te magyar vagy. Én itt szoktam írni a török témáról, otthon is a hu:Török háborúk Magyarországonnal foglalkozom, most ugyan egy időre mást témára váltottam. Itt kicsit kell több dolgon javítani a magyar-török összecsapásokat elemző szócikkben, mert ott 1439-re teszik a harcok kezdetét, noha már 1374-ben megindultak és még jónéhány csatáról lehetne írni, mert mielőtt elkezdtem volna itt ezzel foglalkozni, csak hármat említettek. Te esetleg részt vennél ebben? Doncsecz (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igen, nagyon jó volna. Most a Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664)-et próbálom átjavítani, mert kicsit eléggé valótlannak tűnik az információ róla. Én egyébként ott élek Szentgotthárd mellett. Doncsecz (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Ciupaga.JPG

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Ciupaga.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valaška

Please, stop moving images in the article valaška without talking about it first. At least, please, take the time to explain, why do you think the image of Thököly is of more importance than image of Janosik and why did you misspell word valaška for valaskš while moving. Do not drive it please (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you at my talk, since you moved the discussion there. Do not drive it please (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

english or hungarian wikipedia?

I've just spent hours of walking around your recent changes, undoing your endless need to express of how proud you are to be a Hungarian. Now, this is not helping your pride (or is it?) and it is not helping the wikipedia itself. Please, stop for a while and think about! I need to ask you: are you an expert in hungarian-slovak-polish-rumunian-austrian history? Can you remain objective? Can you stay out of hungarian Point-Of-View? If you do, please do! Otherwise, please, pretty please, cease imposing POV and rather start working on non-hungarian articles instead. Try to be conductive, not disruptive. Do not drive it please (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my history, your history, her history...

Hey there! More of your edits where the history of hungarians is more important than the history of other nations around? Obviously, I do not live in any of those countries, so maybe I do not get the full picture. Please, explain it to me: Why do you envy them so much? Look, in my opinion, when a historical article writes about someone that lived in Trencsén, which was part of hungary before and which is part of Slovakia today, then I think this someone belongs to history of both Hungary and Slovakia, doesn't it? You said that Slovakia was part of Hungary before 1920, didn't you? Well then, Slovakia didn't come into being in 1920. It existed as part of Hungary. Thus, in my simple reasoning, relevant parts of history of Hungary also belong to history of today's Slovakia. So why do you keep removing categories like History of Slovakia from those articles? The same applies to History of Transilvania and Romania. What kind of attrition war do you fight here? And more importantly: why? I simply do not understand the reason for such effort. In my eyes (the eyes of a reader of wikipedia, who is interested in regional history of today's Czechia, Poland and Slovakia), you are ruining the wikipedia for me. So, I need to ask you to stop doing that. Do not drive it please (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helló

Tudom, hogy 16 évesen minden vagy fehér, vagy fekete, valamint minden időpillanatban csak egy igazság létezik - azonban a Wikipedia nem erről szól. Először is vannak szabályok: csak úgy nem lehet átírni, törölni, új információkat beírni, stb. Minden információt (például a fokossal kapcsolatos információkat is) fel lehet tüntetni, de ez nem jelenti azt, hogy minden más (az általad ismerttel ellentétes) információt rögtön ki kell törölni. Hidd el, ha egy kívülálló végigtekinti, hogy mit csináltál az elmúlt időszakban bizonyos szócikkeknél, azt fogja gondolni, hogy a magyarok rendkívül szűklátókörű, gyermekded emberek, akik még ott tartanak, hogy el sem tudják képzelni, hogy más vélemények, értelmezések, álláspontok is elképzelhetők, mint amelyet az éppen kedvenc szerzőjüktől olvastak. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy egy csomó érdekes és lényeges információt tudsz hozzátenni az egyes szócikkekhez, de ha azt ilyen rombolással teszed, az rendkívül kellemetlen lesz ránk (a többi magyar szerkesztőre) nézve. Eddig más országok néhány szerkesztőjénél tapasztaltam azt, hogy el sem tudják képzelni, hogy a történelmi tényeket, forrásokat többféle módon is lehet értelmezni, és a saját kicsi világukkal ellentétes információkat minden erővel el akarják tüntetni. Most úgy érzem, hogy a te neved alatt megjelent módosítások ebbe a sorba illeszkednek, vagyis nagyon "tótosak" és "oláhosak". Csak egy példa: a Csák Máté cikknél mindenáron bele akarod írni, hogy magyar volt, valamint mindenáron törölni akarod az északi szomszédra vonatkozó utalásokat, miközben a szócikkben szerepel, hogy magyar nyelven bíztatta csapatait, ez elég egyértelmű információ, nincs szükség külön erőltetni, mert kívülállóként nagyon visszatetsző. Miután elolvastad ezt a szöveget és túl vagy az első felinduláson, próbálj meg elgondolkodni azon, hogy mi az igazi üzenete. Remélem, hogy szemlátomást széleskörű ismereteiddel a későbbiekben is hozzájárulsz a Wikipédia jobbításához, és ezt olyan módon teszed, hogy elfogadod, hogy sokféle nézőpont létezhet, és egyikünk sincs a teljes igazság birtokában. Üdv, Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Szlovén

Szlovén vagyok, de magyar állampolgár, a szüleim is Magyarországon születtek, az anyanyelven pedig a magyarországi szlovén nyelvjárás, a vend, amit a Muravidéken is beszélnek. Doncsecz (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Én megértem a magyarokat és támogatom a magyar lakta területek visszacsatolását, mert ilyen jelentősrészt magyar területek, mint amilyen a Csallóköz, vagy Székelyföld az vissza kellene, hogy szálljon az anyaországhoz véleményem szerint, ugyanakkor ott vannak szintén a történelmi Magyarország területén élt régi népek a ruszinok és az erdélyi szászok, utóbbinak különösen csökken a száma manapság, akikkel szintén együtt érzek, s ha rajtam múlva a korábban elűzött, vagy elmenekült szászokat visszahoznám eredeti hazájába. Nos a forrásként megadott magyar nyelvű oldalon van egy olyan adat, hogy a kenyérmezei csatában 10 ezer román harcolt volna magyar oldalán. Na persze én ezt nem fogadom el és voltak más könyvi források melyeket nem említettem meg, mert részletesen nem írják le a csatát, de említenek románokat, viszont nem annyit mint a link. Ezek között voltak cel Bătrânnak Havasalföldről menekült hívei és voltak Erdély területén élő románok, akiket feltehetőleg a fejedelem toborzott, de az erdélyi vajda seregében is szolgáltak románok akik között voltak a török birodalom területéről származók és voltak erdélyiek. A Budai Nagy Antal felkelésben is sok román paraszt vett részt. Hogy mennyi lehetett a számuk azt nem lehet megállapítani, de szerintem annyi mint a törökök oldalán harcoló románoké, talán ezer fő.
Nyugodj meg én semmi szín alatt nem állítom, hogy Kinizsi és Báthory serege nagyrészt románokból állna, de harcoltak mellettük.

A szlovén kultúráról konkrétan melyik érted, a miénket, a magyarországi és muravidékit, vagy esetleg a szlovéniait? Én tervezem, hogy később írok itt az angolon is a magyarországi szlovén kultúráról, most ugyan el vagyok foglalva, ami miatt a magyaron sem igazán tudok. MSN-re sajnos nincs lehetőségem. Doncsecz (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokaji wine

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Tokaji. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been warned previously about removing the article from Category:Slovak wine, despite the undisputable fact that there is a small amount of Slovak wine from this (today) cross-border region in addition to the larger amount of Hungarian Tokaji. Your edit history and previous warnings suggests that you frequently engage in ethnically motivated POV. I would like to ask you to please just stop it. Tomas e (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional advice

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may 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. Thank you.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at John Hunyadi, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do NOT call others "Nazis". This is your only warning. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please take up issues with content on the talk page of the article rather than blindly editing. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Roma people. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Révay Family

Hi there. Well, concerning the article, there are several points which I would like to contest:

the family comes from the region of Syrmia, which lies in Serbia and Croatia - not Hungary
the name of the family most probably comes from the German word Rebe, meaning Grapevine
I am not disputing that the nationality of the family was Hungarian - that was the nationality of most of the nobility at that time, so I do not dispute your putting the adjective "Hungarian" in front of their name in the article
However, since they were active in the area of present-day Slovakia and lived in the area of the present-day Slovakia, they directly influenced Slovak history and politics, and therefore should be included in the category Slovak nobility, as well as Hungarian nobility
I reverted your edit as vandalism, because you removed an interwiki link for the Slovak wikipedia

Therefore, I will once again reinstate the category of the article as Slovak nobility (in addition to Hungarian nobility), but I will keep the adjective Hungarian, which you included. Have a nice day and should you have any doubts, please do not hesitate to contact me, PeterRet (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because

according to 2002 Census 1,431,807 people declared themselves hungarians and because only 5000 declared themselves "Csangos", (not that they would have something in common with the hungarians. 90% of csangos are speaking romanian language and they don't know a word of hungarian language) Rezistenta (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tha's a hungarian source (hungarians try to magyarise the csangos for political reasons if you didn't knew that ) How could anyone say there are 200.000 Csangos when only 5000 declared themselves to be part of this ethnicity/identity ? 200.000 is the number of people of catholic faith but they didn't identified themselves as csangos this mean they don't want to be csangos or different from Romanians Rezistenta (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)

Szervusz! A Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) cikkben egy anonim egyfolytában eltűnteti a sablonból és a szövegből az álltalam betett szövegeket, amihez én forrást linkeltem be. A csatában a császáriak oldalán ugyanis négy magyar és két horvát huszárezred is harcolt, de az anont ez nem érdekli, folyamatosan eltűnteti. Mondtam, hogy hagyja abba, de ha megint letörli, akkor valahogy próbálj te is rászólni légyszíves. Doncsecz (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megint megcsinálta, egyáltalán miért hagyja figyelmenkívül a forrást? Doncsecz (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism

I don't hurt any wikipedia rule, so you can't accuse me of vandalism. --Olahus (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Kingdom of Hungary

Hello MagyarTürk; I am glad to help in restructuring sentences and paragraphs for people using English as a 2nd language. I haven't finished, and I marked the text with an HTML comment where to continue from, if it's OK with you. I speak Hungarian with some difficulty but, read and understand it well. History is one of my main interests.Ineuw (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am originally from Hungary. Thanks to you, I now know where Abercom, Quebec is, and I am curious to know: Are you going there permanently? . . . and why there? Ineuw (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your whole family moving? Have you ever been to Quebec? As you know, the primary language of Quebec is French, which is most important to know, even if you will be living in a predominantly English speaking area. It is also true that it is beautiful country there. Not unlike the Mátra area of Northeastern Hungary. Ineuw (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I use the Yahoo Messenger which connects to the MSN Messenger. My name on Yahoo is donquixotic and my email is donquixotic_at_yahoo_dot_com. I will be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. Also, you may have noticed that I continued restructuring (slowly) some of the Kingdom of Hungary paragraphs. I hope it meets with your approval, as I don't want to loose the article's original meaning.Ineuw (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnic language

Hi, Just wanted to let you know how offensive it is that you consider my removal of the original research on Hunnic words to be vandalism. Did you even read the talk page? The Esfahani Codex is considered at best to be original research and at worse to be fringe. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for disruptive edit-warring. Thanks for notifying me of this case, but you are clearly in the wrong here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ükapám.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ükapám.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Vitéz Ükapám.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Vitéz Ükapám.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Hunnic and relationship with Hungarian

You will be blocked again for disruptive edit-warring if you continue to revert consistently common-sense edits contributed to the Hunnic language article by users Sborsody (talk), 75.166.87.88 and myself. The Hunnic language article is not the place to express private beliefs about your own origins which cannot be substantiated scientifically. Best, Eklir (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Istvan Kovats

An article that you have been involved in editing, Istvan Kovats, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istvan Kovats. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cunard (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I added a description field to the two images you uploaded of Istvan Kovats.

One of the challenges to your images is that they don't have any liscensing info. Liscensing information is required.

But it may not really be a problem.

These pictures were taken prior to 1923? How familiar are you with the Hungarian copyright laws? If I am not mistaken, if an image's copyright has expired in the country where it was taken (or first published?) and its copyright has expired in the USA, then it can be published under a {{PD-old}} tag. This means no other liscensing tag is required as it is so old it is in the "public domain" -- it doesn't require liscencing.

If it is a family photo, and you say your family has given you permission to upload it, I think that would be fine.

But, if the Hungarian copyright laws say so, I'd go with {{PD-old}}.

What is a "Valiant"? Is a Valiant a kind of officer? Or is it an award, like the Victoria Cross? If it is an award, like the Congressional Medal of Honor, I believe Istvan would be considered "notable" simply for being awarded it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your note on my talk page. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sibiu

Szervusz! Írtam ezzel a címen cikket, ha érdekel nézd meg. Már tegnap is írtam üzenetet, de valaki kivette innen. Doncsecz (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azért írtam a román nevét, mert azt veszem észre, hogy itt az angolon mindig azt a nevét írják ki az ütközeteknek, ahol a hely most éppen van. Szeben pedig Romániában van. A Battle of Byczyna szócikk is ilyen. Byczyna most Csehországban található, de régebben Pitschen volt a neve és más források pitscheni csatának írják az eseményt, így a magyaron is. A magyar források mindig az eredeti név mellett vannak, az angolok általában az újnál. Doncsecz (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nekem most ez az msn problémás egyelőre. Megnézem, ha megtudom csinálni, de most még nem megy. Doncsecz (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szerintük nem érdemes írni ide, mert annyira megszállták a román és a szlovák, no meg persze Jován-pajtás sovinisztái a wikit, hogy képtelenség velük szemben felvenni a küzdelmet. Én magam próbálkozom, több-kevesebb eredménnyel. Igazából vádolhatnának elfogultsággal, de némelyikük tudja, hogy nem vagyok magyar nemzetiségű. Másrészt a szentgotthárdi csatát akarom valahogy kijavítani, mert lóbaromságot írnak benne és én ott élek Gotthárd mellett. A török szerkesztőkkel egy közvetítőn keresztül már konzultáltam, hogy ne vegyék át az angol wikiről a hülyeségét.
Szerintem próbáld meg egy adminnal megbeszélni ezt én nem akarok rájuk erőltetni semmit, de amikor néhány amerikai szerkesztő törölni akar magyarországi szlovén témájú cikket, akkor kérem a többiek segítségét, mert az amerikaiak érve túlzottan béna, amellé vannak külföldön élő szlovének, akik örömmel veszik ezeket a cikkeket és angolszász szerkesztőket is érdekel. Ha ennyire erősködnek az amerikaiak, akkor valószínűleg az alapján nem kellene wikipédia se. Doncsecz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A magyar királyságról nem is tudom, otthon nem írtam annyira bele, de itt talán lehetne. Megnézem jövőhéten, mert most hétvége van és hétfőn megyek vissza az egyetemre. Doncsecz (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Én is láttam a Hunyadi cikket. Jézusom, "román király"??!! Hát ilyen erővel akkor mondjuk azt inkább, hogy kun, vagy tatár király. Hunyadinak a nagyapja Vojk volt, hát az nem is román név hanem kun. Doncsecz (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A törlésnek ellene szavaztam, felhoztam példaként egy totál ismeretlen amerikai katonát, még a polgárháború utánról, akiről van szócikk. Ja és én írtam egy István Kováts című cikket, az ékezetek nincsenek a tiédben, de valamilyen oknál fogva később megtévesztő lehet. Egyébként nekem a nagyapámról van cikk még a wikin, ő is az egyik leghíresebb szlovén volt Magyarországon, a halála után már angolul terjeszteni kezdték a hírét. Ezt is törölni akarták, de végül nem sikerült nekik. Doncsecz (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elküldtem olyan hét szerkesztőnek az üzenetet, de ez most rajtuk áll, hogy döntenek. Lehet, hogy lesz olyan, mint Carlos71, aki előtte beszél veled, nem tudom. Carlos Londonban él. Doncsecz (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I've blocked you again, for renewed revert-warring and disruptive editing against WP:V, this time on John Hunyadi. Your edits on Jörg Haider the other day should have earned you a block too. When you come back, please make up your mind: Either learn to edit differently, or leave the project. Or we'll make you leave. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Törlés

Hát már nem tudok küldeni az az igazság, olyanoknak igyekeztem küldeni akik regisztrálva is vannak és akik szavaznának is, mert rendszeresen a wikin vannak. Többe nem tudok segíteni, sajnos. Doncsecz (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szia!

Köszi, mindig tervezem, hogy visszatelepülök az angol wikire, csak annyi minden van most (egyetem, meló, magyar WP, satöbbi) és a soviniszták is eléggé el bírják venni a kedvem, hozzám inkább a kulturális témák állnak közel és nem szokott kedvem lenni velük vitatkozni. – Alensha ^talk 12:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fogok még itt szerkeszteni, csak a huwikin is sok dolgom van, nagy témákba vágtam bele :) mondjuk az egyik nagy projektem, az egyiptomi újbirodalmi fáraók már készen vannak :) msn-em nincs, de a gmail címem ugyanaz, mint az itteni nickem, ha privátban akarsz mondani valamit. – Alensha ^talk 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marchfeld

Egy anon megpróbálja nekem bedumálni, hogy a morvamezei csatában a magyarok és Rudolf százmillióan voltak, szegény Ottokár meg egyedül harcolt a nagy tömeg ellen. A forrásként megemlített magyar szerzőket, akik hangsúlyozom mostani magyar szerzők, lepatriótázza, amikor a cseh történészek közül van jó sok nacionalista. A magyar és német források szerint Rudolf és Kun László serege összesen kb. huszonegyezer, míg Ottokár serege harmincezer katonát számlált, mert a cseh király a birodalom minden sarkából kapott támogatást, míg Rudolf mellé csak stájerek, osztrákok és svábok álltak, összesen talán háromezren, ezért nagy segítségre volt szüksége Kun László 18 ezer fős seregére, amelyben kunok, besenyők, királyi hűbéres vitézek és székelyek voltak. Erre az anon kitalálja, hogy Csák Máté oligarcha serege is részt vett a csatában. Csák Máté úgy 1291-ben indult élete első hadjáratára és 1278-ban még sehol nem volt az oligarchák között. Az anon még plusszba hozzáír, hogy ezek a németek, meg cseh lázadók harcoltak Rudolf oldalán, de ez nonszensz. Német források lehetnek ennyire elfogultak Rudolf irányába, de azok szerint is nem volt akkora serege és Ottokár volt túlerőben, mert a legtöbb német állam őt támogatta. Doncsecz (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Az anon kicsit durván támadott, hazugnak nevezett. Én visszaválaszoltam neki a saját nyelvemen, ekkor lehiggadt és ajánlott egy cseh nyelvű oldalt. Meg néztem, mondjuk nem beszélek csehül, de szerintem abban sincs olyan utalás, hogy a magyar-osztrák sereg marha nagy lett volna. Én előálltam neki azzal, hogy a király által feállítható sereg nem lehetett nagyobb húszezernél és az oligarchák többsége nem vett részt a háborúban, de nem is vehetett, mert nem kötelezhetett erre mindenkit, de ő ezt úgy látszik nem tudja. Valamit még le kéne írni a csata cikkében ezen indoklásaként, hogy miért volt tizennyolcezer fős László serege. Doncsecz (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info on English Quebec

Hi Peter, Here is link I found that may be of interest to you.

http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/forums/p/5337/20712.aspx#20712

Also, please check my response to your question about msn. I posted it here, in your talk page undet the 'Kingdom of Hungary' section.Ineuw (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marchfeld

Tudod mi a helyzet, most hogy megy ez a hacacáré a szlovákokkal, a morvamezei csata cikk már megint középpontba került, ismét százmillió magyar, német még kun ellen harcol Ottokár király egymaga. Doncsecz (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

József Szakovics; István Szelmár

Ismét rájött az amerikai szerkesztőkre a nemzeti felsőbbrendűség érzése és ezeket akarják törölni. Nem találom még sehol a törlési lapot, de valamit már tényleg tenni kell ez ellen, mert szinte tényleg azt hiszik ők a világ urai. Doncsecz (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Még nem találtam törlési linket, de az még nem jelentené, hogy nincsen, vagy nem lesz. A hivatkozásokban nem látok semmit, szerintem a vitalapon kellene hozzászólni. Doncsecz (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about EklerEklir

Hello, please help because I do not get something.

Did you request people to avoid writing Hungarian on your talk page? Have you asked anyone (and by any chance user:Eklir) to revert things from your talk page?

Or, on the contrary, you are okay and happy with Hungarian (or other foreign language) comments on your own talk page? Or maybe even disagree with third parties removing sections from here?

Thanks for your reply. --grin ✎ 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page, a new question (actuall the old one again) arrived for you. :-) --grin ✎ 13:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian people

Hi there. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule, and try to take disputed content to the Talk page for discussion instead of simply reverting. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ányos Jedlik

Hi there. Thank you for your recent edits of the Ányos Jedlik article. However, in the future please refrain from removing sourced statements from articles without previously discussing such changes on the article's talk page. Also, please refrain from statements such as "Slovak chauvinism". Thank you and have a nice day. PeterRet (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

figyelj kishaver

MEgmondtam már neked párszor youtube*n is (cigány-türk) elméleteddel kapcsolatban a mondandóm. A Hungary article history részét egymagam építettem fel különböző reggelt neveken (mert a képek illegális használata miatt gyakran töröltek), ahol a XIX.sz-i magyar történelemről (középkor kora-újkor) 6 sor volt csupán. Ez az én homokozóm. Megértetted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.4.34 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman–Hungarian Wars

Nem tudod mi lehet, mert a magyar-török háborúk cikkbe a botok folyton beviszik a lengyel szócikket, ami nem is létezik még. Doncsecz 07:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Alexander the Great have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not use edit summaries to make comments such as you did recently in this article (about Nazis) or to comment on other articles. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar, notice there are plenty of reliable sources that call Alexander a Greek and a Greek king, this matter has nothing to do with wikipedia not having to be a "greek nazi site"[1], it's just a question of what sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Új user

Hát úgy hiszem, hogy db| ({{}}-ben), ahol megindoklod miért akarod törölni. Nem tudom, ha itt változtattak azóta rajta, mert a magyaron még alá is kell írni db|indoklás|aláírás formában. De szerintem egyszerűbb ha átnevezed, mert azt is meg lehet tenni. A move-val teheted, aztán az átnevezet régi nevet a MagyarTürköt törlöd. Ha megakarod a korábbi vitalapod tartalmát tartani, akkor az átnevezéssel átjön ez az új névbe. Doncsecz^znánje 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]