User talk:Nmate

.

AN thread

There's an AN thread about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User deleting all contributions of other users. lifebaka++ 16:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't just claim that I and User:Oficeri are some MarkBA. Don't revert all our contributions without any proof of your claim. You should use WP:SPI. If you say something, prove it. How would you feel if I deleted your contributions and said you are MarkBA? Modrajedobra (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Banská Bystrica. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accussations

Hello. Can you please stop with deleting the contributions of all editors who happen to come from a particular IP range. You have no evidence that they are the same person other than the IP range (which covered a large geographic area, not fixed to just one person.) In future if you suspect a sockpuppet please report them to WP:SPI, as your mass deletions are of a disruptive nature. You must assume good faith until sockpuppetry is proven, as not everyone who edits on those articles is a sockpuppet. Looking through your own edits it could be argued you could be one as pretty much all your edits are doing is undoing other people's edits, though I shall also assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Aplication to undelete my post in the discussion about bratislava.

Hello.

I have no Idea, why you delete my post in discussion about bratislava. But probably it was done because you considered my Ip address as proxy. If you validate my IP as proxy IP, that is wrong. It is not even dynamic Ip Address. If administrator of such site can not find out which IP address is dynamic, which is static, or what is Proxy, that is for crying.

I am working as abuse crew leader of one international site and I work with IP addresses a lot. I never saw such example of amateur and not competent work as in this case.

If there is some other argument for deleting my message, please be so kind and let me know. You will not have hard work to find a post, about which I am talking about according to fact, that it was just my second post on wikipedia.

Good luck and thanks in advance.

Juraj Oniščenko alias jurajda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.80.176 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

First of all, thank you for your reply and saying the reason of deletation my post. The reason was: "I deleted your comment out of the talk page of Pozsony/Bratislava for you intend to getting involved with provoking the Hungarians instead of you would have made some costructive or at least good faith edits there, helping to improve the article."

I found your reason as not sufficient. 1. That "talk page" is not about Pozsony/Bratislava, it is about Bratislava, if you want to make a talk page about Pozsony, please feel free and make a new article. 2. Sorry, if you understood my post, and If you deleted it, you should know what you deleted, that whole was just about one thing: That whole problem should be judged by native english speaker, not by hungarian or slovak citizens. Certainly, be sure, that I was not writing that for one hungarian, who will delete that... 3. Ad constructivity: As I mentioned on second point, that article will be much more improoved, if there will be usage of official english name of the town. Not Celtic, Slavonic, Hungarian, German, Turkish, French, Slovak. I think, that is enough understable for Slovakian and Hungarian either. I am sure, that this was clear in my article.

Look, my dear rude administrator/moderator, my father spoke hungarian language as native speaker, I am teaching hungarian students on slovakian university whose slovakian language is far worse than my english, I was working 3 years under hungarian bosses who were far better than slovak one, and you are starting to say me, that I am provoking hungarians. If I am against something, that is not hungarians, but nationalistic sentiments. I will laugh on this and it should be showed, if it is on slovakian side, or hungarian side.

Those discussions, articles about jobbik, representatives of jobbik, černova tragedy, Bratislava, Komarno/Komarom, Hedviga Malinova, showed to me what kind of people are doing wikipedia and what level of reliability this whole project has. Censorship, power, intolerance, prejudice, interests of some groups are far more present than values as truth and knowledge.

My post certainly was not for deletation and you made wrong step, for which wikipedia should be ashamed of.

Good Luck.

jurajda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.80.176 (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Slovak dialect

It is really not a very important matter, but I do't think it is needed to write necessarily Upper Hungary or Feldvídek there. There was/is no Upper Hungary or Feldvídek language, but Slovak language existed even before the codification of Bernolák and before constituting Czechoslovakia.--Pelex (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bratislava

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bratislava, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cease the disruptive reverting? The name is properly referenced, it should not be removed. Also, could you quit reversions of János Aczél as they are in violation of WP:NCGN.  wlad 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Micronation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Bratislava. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

János Aczél

Could you please engage in a proper discussion instead of mindless reversions? I have made a comment on the Talk:János Aczél you are very welcome to reply.  wlad 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cluj

With pleasure, Nmate. Regarding the fact that Romanians in Transylvania had a higher standard of living than in the Old Kingdom - perhaps, but we need to cite a reliable source saying that. The way you did it, it seems as if Lazarovici wrote that, but I don't think that's true (correct me if I'm wrong). Regarding the 1910 census data: first, the same requirement for citation holds; second, the information already seems to be covered in the demographics section. I hope this explains matters, and I look forward to editing the article with you in the future. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

56 Article FAR

Hello Nmate, if you have a moment, please direct your attention here. Thanks! István (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbs in Vojvodina which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungary and Great Moravia

"When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. " so please, do not try that 'you may not this or that' on me. You have not provided a single word of opinion on the matter, you are relentlessly reverting nevertheless. If it wouldn't bother you too much, would you mind explaining your problem with the inclusion of Great Moravia? Best if you do so on the article's talk page. Wladthemlat (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

In response to your message on my talk page: I don't understand your Enlgish. Could you, please, be more clear and write me in simple and short sentences, what do you want me to do? Dc76\^talk 20:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, allow me to observe that this is what we should be talking about, because this shows precisely what I added to the anon's edit. (I see no point in discussing things I do not dispute.) In more detail:

1. The anon wrote "In 1918 and 1919, most of the Banat was given without any plebiscite to..". I put instead "In the wake of the Declaration of Union of Transylvania with Romania on December 1, 1918, in 1919, most of the Banat became part of..." and "No plebiscite was held." My version does convey exactly the same information, plus additional information. Also, it is more precise: says what exactly happened in 1918 and what in 1919. Also, please note that "was given to" does not say "by whom", and is disputed by historians, while "became part of" is neutral and is not disputed by anybody.
2. Anon wrote "A small area near Szeged remained in Hungary." I changed it to "A small area near Szeged became part of newly independent Hungary." Do you agree or disagree with this formulation?
3. In addition, I added: "At the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the delegates of the Romanian and German communities voted for union with Romania, the delegates of the Serbian community voted for union with Serbia, while the Hungarian minority remained loyal to the government in Budapest." which helps understand the background. Do you dispute this?

In short, let me remark that I have no problem with anon's edits per se. I simply improved them. As the things look from my view so far, it is rather you who has a problem with my improvements. But I hope it is just a misunderstanding. Do you dispute any of the 3 things above? Dc76\^talk 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The name of the Assembly on December 15, 1918 was National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat. Perhaps we need to search more sources in libraries. Dc76\^talk 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad. I would like to express my apologies if I have seemed to you somewhat rigid or impolite. I assure you I gave and will give complete consideration to your edits and remarks. Simply, something was going on in parallel which annoyed and irritated me very much. I hope I did not show irritation in dialog with you, but if I did, I would like to apologize: believe me, I did not mean to be rigid or impolite. (I hope I wasn't, but I prefer to apologize one time too many than one time too few.) Best regards, Dc76\^talk 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourse for the Croatian population in Subotica in 1900

Well, I can not find one source for this claim. I read it somewhere and now just I checked it. According to Habsburg Empire census in 1900, the biggest population in Croatian Kingdom had Zagreb (60 000) but, at that time it was populated more with Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and other nations than with Croats. The second largest city according to the census was Rijeka (40 000), also big population of Italians, Slovens and Austrians. All other cities had less than 30 000. Nonconservative assumption that Zagreb (as city with biggest population of Croats in the Kingdom) had somewhat less than 30 000 Croats brings us to the conclusion that there were slightly more Croats in Subotica.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

György Szondy

I've wikified this and left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Hungary. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

White Carpathians

Hello Nmate. Which part of the guideline are you referring to exactly? Could you elaborate, please? I can't find any evidence confirming historical significance of Hungarian name Fehér-Kárpátok for this particular region. If you can provide reliable sources for it, please do so and I'll gladly change my opinion. Please, respond at Talk:White Carpathians, not at my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Emika22's talk page.

Iancu de Hunedoara.

Please read the explanation, don`t revert it blindly. There is no rule violation. iadrian (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets forget it

Link for future reference sake

Hem, for the record, i have no intention of ever becoming a mediator. The only reason i am involved in the John Hunyadi altogether is due to an escalated edit war and a subsequent help request. I think i have clearly stated that i was giving my opinion as a regular user, and i think i have also clearly pointed out that DR would be a better way to mediate this - instead of asking me.

As for the edit you quoted - you might have actually gone trough the process of checking User:Umumu edit history as well. You would have seen that this user asked the same question on at least four different talk pages, and that each of these editors had never even been involved with the article in question. Would you have preferred me stating that i am not involved such as Esowteric did? Of course that would be a valid and friendly response but i preferred attempting to help the user in question - unlike another editor you know very well who removed the question without so much as an edit summary. Im sorry, but i deem this the words Pot, Kettle and Black quite applicable to this situation. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologise, I haven't been assumed good faith towards you and I was under the impresson that you were trying to make yourself important, so I must apologize for it. But, just to let you know, my reason for removing a certain "friendly" inquiring from my talkpage without any explanation was quite obvious for Umumu, who was leaving the message on my talk page.[1] Since he is a sockpuppet of the banned user:Iaaasi. Just like Iadrian yu, Iaaasi is also eagerly interested in the article John Hunyadi. So then it could hardly be deemed coincidence when he was trying to interact with Esowteric and you, with whom Iadrian yu has also recently been encountered. And so was this case with administrator FisherQueen, too, who was rejecting to unblock his another sockpuppet account last time.[2]

Under the username Umumu, he was also trying to interact with FisherQueen. [3]The likehood of the coincident occurance of these cases is so little that it was not the question that this message has to be removed from my talk page. But as for Don't call the kettle black,unfortunately, I am not very familiar with English / American sayings as I am Central European and I have never been to any English speaking countries. However, in my opinion assuming good faith doesn't mean to be stupied and I would be stupied if I deemed Umumu a real account. So that I removed Iaaasi/Umumu's message from my talk page without any explanation because a banned user has no right to edit wikipedia any more.--Nmate (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No harm done, no apology needed. As for the Umumo matter: If you believe this is a sock puppet, i would advice starting a SSP case regarding the matter. As you put it, it is indeed quite coincidental that this editor registers an account and interacts as if he or she has been around here for ages. The broken english both users seem to talk only reinforces my suspicion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hungary–Slovakia relations

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hungary–Slovakia relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Slovakia relations. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

John Hynadi - neutrality disputed

Please do not remove this form until the dispute is solved. Especially not like that with no reason like you did. If you have some accusations, please make a socketpuppet investigation. iadrian (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please read 3RR. Thanks Knorrepoes (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kosice

How is it possible that the Slovak name of Kosice appeared first time in history in 1257, although the Slovak language did not even existed at the time and the Slovaks used the Czech variant of bibličtina?--B@xter⁹ 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nmate. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--B@xter⁹ 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Iaaasi/Bonaparte's mountebanking

Hi there,

Knowing that a checkuser process may take a longer while (+ 2 or 3 weeks) than creating a next one, Iaaasi returned under the username Conttest (talk · contribs).His latest blocked sockpuppet , Umumu (talk · contribs), was so insolent that commenced lingering disccussions on WP ANI [4] and Fringe_theories boards [5] in which he vigorously participated of course. Then he falsely denounced Rokarudi for vandalism [6] and eventually he tried to get Squash Racket blocked on Edit warring board [7] Also, it is important to note that the reason why Umumu was blocked was he was a sockpuppet of veteran sockmaster of Bonaparte (talk · contribs). And now this new user, Conttest, suspiciously emerged at the same article John Hunyadi[8][9], which was the main hunting field of Iaaasi/Ddaann2/Umumu.

It looks to me that if his recurring sock-accounts are not blocked with quicker velocity than the time a checkuser process usually takes he will stop at nothing. May I ask what do you think of it? Good luck and best wishes--Nmate (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Umumu contacted me on IRC in the past, and after this message Conttest contacted me there as well. A WHOIS on Conttest responded with this line: "Conttest <qeqqeeqqqe@(REDACTED)> “Umumu”", which confirmed that he is indeed Umumu (I redacted the IP address from the line). I didn't comment on it and instead just asked if the accusation was true which Conttest admitted: "<Conttest> the fact is that his accusation is true, I am iaaasi/umumu, but I made this account only to make constructive edits to show that I am not a disruptive user"

I am not sure if he is directly related to Bonaparte, or if this is a separate group. Regardless i blocked Conttest for sockpuppeting and advised him to take it to the mailing list if he wishes to have his block reviewed. I also advised him that a two month or so timeout without further sockpuppets may demonstrate that he intends to be a constructive editor. Also a note for future reference: The user indicated that he won't be editing the disputed topic anymore when unblocked. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Pressburg

What seems to be the problem with mentioning Brezalauspurc? It did not bother you before [10] Wladthemlat (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Romanian places

Re your message on my talk page, is there a particular editor who is going against established policy re place names in alternate languages and repeatedly editing against consensus? As I recall, there is general consensus re these cases that alternative language names are appropriate to appear in the lede of an article where these are different from the article title. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Hunyadi

Could we please have some discussion of the tags, rather than just reverting? Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

48

Üdv! Bocsi, hogy ismeretlenül írok, de a 48-as szabadságharc angol cikknél ki kéne szedni a szlovák, ruszin, német stb népet. Csak a zsidók álltak ki teljes mértékben a magyarok mellett.

Ne felejtsük el, Ludovit Stúr és a többi pánszlávista mozgalamat. A németek meg hűek maradtak az osztrákokhoz, lásd Erdélyben, de az már tény, hogy sok német is harcolt magyar oldalon.

Szóval magyar oldalon teljes mértékben csak zsidók és lengyel önkéntesek voltak.

A többi nép autonómia és az anyanyelvük tiltása miatt ELLENEZTÉK a magyarokat.

Üdv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.60.13 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Szia,.mivel hogy Ip- ről írsz, inkább a saját vitalapomon válaszolok neked; mert az Ip címek folyamatosan változnak. Igazad van abban amit Ludovit Stúrral, meg a szlovákokkal kapcsolatban mondasz, azonban azonban az ő pánszláv mozgalmának nem volt sok követője.A szepességi németek és a ruszinok döntő többsége szintén minket támogatott.

Szóval az infó kiszedése helyett inkább az átírása, illetve pontosítása lenne a jobb megoldás.--Nmate (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)