User talk:Gregorik

Please take a quick look at the archived talk pages at Budapest, this may help to avoid unnecessary disputes, deletions etc. 'Little Paris' or 'Paris of the East' are common nicknames for Bucharest and if you look at the page history, you will realize others tend to confuse the two cities[1]. Nicknames are already mentioned in the infobox anyway.

Your contributions are welcome, the article really needs some attention and you cited sources. Lack of these is one of the main problems here. Squash Racket 09:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I hope a consensus will be reached on the intro at Budapest. Gregorik 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Budapest

Hi Gregorik! You've worked a lot, and the article starts to look good. I also think districts should have their own article, they are basically cities on their own right. Budapest will still be a very long article if you cover just the most important things. Squash Racket 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to work on part of the article calmly, you can create a subpage. For example User:Gregorik/Highlighted Districts. When you're ready, you just copypaste it into the article and delete the subpage. Squash Racket 11:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Budapest

Kedves Gregorik! A Budapestről szóló article-be beraktam egy képet a Duna Towersröl. Amit te rögtön átmozgattál egy másik helyre a lapon. Megtudnád mondani hogy miért nem volt jó helyen? Bocsi, ha letámadásnak tűnik a kérdésem egyébként nem az, csak érdekel mért tetted arrébb. katonams^{ide írj} 2007. november 18., 21:56 (CEST)

Message to User:Nareek

Write on the talk page, not on editor's user page, it may be considered vandalism. I copied your message on his talk page. Be careful with that next time. Squash Racket (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to my deletion of the section expansion tags? I took those out because each section already contained a link to another article where the history was described at much greater length; it seemed to me that the main article provided an appropriate summary. If that's not what you're referring to, perhaps you have me mixed up with another article. In any case, you should assume good faith--I am, in face, trying to improve Wikipedia, just as you are. Nareek (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dobostorta kép

Szia!

Visszavontad a képcserémet a Hungary szócikkben [2]. Miért? Ami most ott van az szerintem minden, de nem dobostorta (sápadt és bedöntött karamellborítás, alatta mogyorószemek(!), szintén mogyoró az oldalán stb.) Az én képemen sem egy tökéletes dobostorta van, de legalább hasonlít az igazira. Üdv, Hu:Totya (talk!) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary GA nomination

I guess there are too many red links in there. Some of the unimportant ones may be removed, but some backup articles should be written. Squash Racket (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

intro

come on, how can you say the intro is ok? the trird paragraph is nothing more than unrefferenced bragging. it has 10 examples of some -est that are completely irrelevant to the overall image of the country. it's like saying japan has the longest bridge in the world; while this is really impressive, and possible implies something about the technologic level of the country, there are other more 'addequate' isssues that could be put in the intro of the Japan article. I am trying to be helpful, but I do not have too much patience with such biased viewsNergaal (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page?

"This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

   1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary).
   2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate
   3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant)
   4. Neutral point of view?:
   5. Article stability?
   6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection.

Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)"

Read point 6 (the article almost abuses images) meaning it's flooded with non relevant useless images like a (not very good) drawing of the battle of muhi, or turkish soldiers in ottoman hungary that you lifted from the ottoman hungary page. Didn't you see how much better the article looked without those pictures? Hobartimus (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Passport list

Hey Gregorik thank you very much, youve done a GREAT work in every article relating to hungary, ive really noticed you are always looking how to improve the articles and how to make them look better. Youre doing an excelent work. Now id like to ask you something. Since you are so involved in the hungarian things, wouldnt you like to do the visa free lists on the hungarian passport page?? maybe you have some source of the visa free lists, it would be so great if you could, so please answer me if your interested or if you have some source where to get the visa free stuff. Thank you--Philip200291 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey i got the source to do it....but I dont know how to do it, so ill leave you the sourve here, and maybe you can do it:http://mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/consular_services/Entry_of_Foreiners_to_Hungary/visa_exemption/, thank you--Philip200291 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly unreliable sources for Budapest

You remove Business Week/Mercer's Quality of Life ref and replace it with prleap.com? For GA/FA status every single ref will be questioned and believe me most references for this article should be dropped. It is misleading to present any city of two million as the most livable, but Budapest reached an acceptable ranking. Squash Racket (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move it from the lead if you find it reflects negatively, but an encyclopedia is not for advertisement. This ranking is based on 39 quality-of-life criteria, it is posted every year, it is a reliable source often cited. If you read some FACs, you'll see reliable sources are a key factor. Squash Racket (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Articles of which you have contributed / Budapest

I noted that you had upgraded the rating on an article which you had edited. Not that I have never done it, but I think we can agree it does put you at a bit of a conflict of interest. I'm going to take a look at the Budapest article as it's a shame that a top priority article like this would not be at FA-status. You deserve recognition for the amount of work you have invested in the article. Thanks for your contribution! Alan.ca (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: I have responded to you on my talk page. Alan.ca (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

Please discuss the changens in the talk page first. --Olahus (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 Board who is noble (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fordítás

Szia!

Főleg külföldi cégeknek dolgozom, itthon tényleg kevés a lehetőség. Vannak neten ezek a fordítói adatbázisok, azokba érdemes regisztrálni, és időnként van melólehetőség, többnyire ideiglenes, de begyűjtöttem már hosszabb távra szólókat is. Ha rákeresel, hogy translator database, találsz ilyet milliót. Sok sikert! :) – Alensha ^talk 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(huh, erre meg elfelejtettem válaszolni, bocsi :) Nem tudom megítélni, mennyire lehet megélni belőle, mert nem egyedül élek, de szerintem ha összeszedsz pár állandó megbízót, akkor igen. Csak ez ugye olyan, hogy még ha állandó megbízóid vannak is, akkor is néha egy hónapig nem küldenek semmit, néha meg elhalmoznak melóval és legyen kész azonnal :) engem erre a hétre most alaposan elláttak tennivalóval, de utána ki tudja, mi lesz. De ez már csak így van ebben a szakmában... – Alensha ^talk 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

nem forgatókönyveket, regényeket és DVD-re filmeket, meg majd fogok videójátékokat is, ha minden igaz. – Alensha ^talk 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted most of the stuff here. I am sorry, Alacoshos and others. Gregorik (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to American exceptionalism.

Hi - I recently noticed your edits to American exceptionalism -- and would like to discuss further:

• I'm not certain what was meant by "The term shifted in meaning to the (far) right during the 20th century, making it hard to reconcile with Tocqueville's original theory." You might want to define what American exceptionalism currently means if it has shifted in meaning from "qualitative differences" to something else entirely. I believe that there are three different uses of the term:
  • At least when I've encountered the term "American exceptionalism", I've seen it used in the "traditional" (de Tocqueville) sense - that the United States differs qualitatively from other nations - that the United States has played a unique role in world history - and that the United States has, at least on a historical level, diverged from the rest of the world in certain areas. This is what I have understood American exceptionalism to mean.
  • There is somewhat of an implicit undertone of nationalism within American exceptionalism - US citizens view the US with pride because they view its history as differing from the rest of the world - that they view the US as an exceptional nation. Is this what you're referring to?
  • Others refer to "American exceptionalism" when they state that certain Americans - specifically the George W. Bush Administration, certain elements of the US Republican Party, as well as various neoconservatives, such as John Yoo or John Bolton - view the United States as being an "exception" to international law, and, for example, incite torture of prisoners, or fail to sign treaties. This is how the term has been used as of late in popular media, especially following a conference at Stanford in 2003. For example, Roger Cohen, a columnist at the New York Times, as well as Nicholas Kristof, at the same paper, have used the term in such a manner.
    • If you're referring to this phenomenon - of neoconservatives believing the US to be an exception or somehow superior to international law - I would wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that this view of the US is properly described as a "reactionary myth". If this is the case - you might want to qualify your statement by clearly identifying which form of exceptionalism you're calling a reactionary myth - especially seeing as this is a new use of a very old term that goes against what some might view as the history of its use.
• I believe that perhaps it may be better to use a different tone in writing about this subject. Words like "Many identify it as a reactionary myth"...is perhaps a bit strong to be saying in an encyclopedia, except in quoting a critic. It might be better to say something like "So and So states that 'American exceptionalism is a reactionary myth'", or that "Critics, such as So and So, allege that American exceptionalism is a 'reactionary myth'" (with a reference to which critic called it a "reactionary myth").
• I'm also assuming good faith - that there were no implications in your comment that "Article needs huge revision by objective reviewers (that means non-conservatives w/o vested interest)" that somehow I'm a "conservative" or a "right winger". I consider myself to be a "left winger", and a subscriber to the political philosophy of modern American liberalism, which is left-of-center. I believe that my edits were objective, based on what I understand about American exceptionalism - at least the traditional use of the term.
  • I would also say that my tone in some of the comments that I made might seem inappropriate or offensive, when I stated that "This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board." I was just surprised at the number of edits that were made, and what I viewed as the tone of those edits - and shouldn't have taken it personally. I don't own the article, your view is as valid as mine. If you took offense, then I apologize.
• Thanks for listening.Katana0182 (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that I'm going to take a break from that article for a few months. Upon reflection, it's clear that I haven't been as objective as I should have been in some of my writing - there are other areas of the project that I'll work on for the time being. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Katana0182 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for editor assistance: American exceptionalism.

I'm notifying you as a courtesy that I have requested editor assistance to review the article American exceptionalism, the verifiability of the sources you have cited, and the following diff. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_exceptionalism&diff=267363076&oldid=267362550) 72.70.226.132 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)